Page 1 of 37 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 369

Thread: Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  1. #1
    Administrator admin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Blog Entries

    Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  2. #2
    I think many will look back in hindsight and view Vince as somewhat of a hero for making a significant personal sacrifice (jail) to fight for the preservation of law in New Zealand. Too many NZ'ers suffer from apathy and ignorance of the poor performers and corruption within our judiciary, and its not until they are on the sharp end of the stick they realise open their eyes to the problems; but thats too late.

    If you think I am overstating the case, then I draw your attention to the recent removal of Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson, as one very good example. The Chief Justice saying Siemer should not have been jailed but he was is another example.

  3. #3
    In many respects apathy is the problem here but beaten, bludgeoned are words which reflect the kiwi attitude. I read recently that there will be Family Court Reforms, yippie more reforms to make it better. A public refferandum, a public enquirery, Family Court Reforms, the Law Society Compaints Committie is gone and a new Standards Comittie is the way to go - to restore confidence in the legal profession etc. Yippie again or is it just a yawn. We simply don't believe anymore in New Zealand - more Family Court reforms I remember judge Boisher announcing two such reforms in the last seven years. Actions speak louder than words. Let us see the obvious results of reforms perhaps we might have some belief after that. We have heard it all before and peoples apathy is manifested in airline tickets - mostly one way. You would think that the clever pricks would soon realise that thinking capable folks are voting with their feet. So well done Winkleman you have no doubt contributed to the exodus rather than the influx. This is how the kiwi apathy is now measured - in one way airline tickets.

  4. #4
    What are the problems?
    Ignorance & apathy. Ignorance of the law and apathy in the face of the problem of incremental socialism.
    Who are causing them?
    Those who believe that the state should protect the rights of the people.
    Who are in charge of fixing them?
    Anyone with sufficient knowledge and ability.

    The law always provides a remedy. The remedy involves understanding the difference between human/civil law and the law of nature.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Once the problems have been identified, it is easy to find solutions.
    I agree. But identifying them involves knowledge of how the system works, and in general people only apply a human perspective and so they miss the essential element of origin of law.

    The human tendency is to look to official figures like judges for a trusted opinion. When this isn't a reasonable option what remains is to look beyond the civil system. This is why is say that it comes back to a problem of ignorance, since human understanding is typically limited to the civil paradigm.

    By origin of law, I'm referring to the fundamental forces and values which shape society, protection and trust being the values most germane to this problem. The most relevant argument I know of for finding the remedy is the one that considers that when two systems are in conflict and there is no reasonable way to identify the preferred system, then the remedy is to revert to the state which existed before the conflict arose.

    What this implies is the abandonment of centralized bureaucracy in favour of local administration, something like the principles of the common law hundred.

  6. #6
    Election time is a good time to ask questions.
    OK, Here's a question: Lying to people in order to deprive them of their rights is fraudulent, and the system does this when it lies about the basic nature of common law due to the argument that in general, statute law trumps common law. By voting, are you not implicitly endorsing this fraud?

  7. #7
    The common law is made by judges who unashamedly put FALSE information and ARTIFICIAL argument in their decisions in New Zealand.
    The state misrepresents common law as being nothing more than case law. This misrepresentation hides the theistic basis of English common law, which originated with the legal code of King Alfred the Great, which in turn began with the ten commandments.

    I prefer MPs. At least, they are accountable to the public.
    Parliament represents itself as being sovereign. One of the characteristic of sovereignty is being accountable to no-one.

    By asserting that it is sovereign and concealing the role of deity in law the NZ parliament is effectively assuming the role of deity.

  8. #8
    Back to the start of the problem:
    Like my namesake I have uncovered and reported corruption. In sequence reporting it via proceedings to the Judges of the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and High court. Then in sequence to the Law Society, Legal Complaints Review Officer, Judicial Conduct Commissioner and back to the Judges of the Courts. Finally, after all those judicial and statutory authorities covered-up that corruption (which was by Crown Law Counsel and Deputy Solicitor-Generals), and after the Attorney-General participated in that cover-up, I filed a complaint to the Serious Fraud Office.

    The complaint to the SFO was of systemic corruption in covering-up corruption within our Justice System - real and persuasive evidence of the systemic corruption being provided to the SFO on the Attorney-General, Judges, LCRO and JCC direct participation and complicity in that alleged criminal conduct of cover-up. The Director of SFO refused to open an investigation.

    All 28 individuals involved in allegedly covering-up the alleged criminal acts of corruption, by Crown Law Counsels and Deputy Solicitor-Generals, are LAWYERS or former LAWYERS. Not surprisingly a LAWYER, the Director of the SFO, did not want to investigate the matter.

    To block the Judicial Review of the LAWYER Director's decision on LAWYERS and former LAWYERS, Justice Venning (former LAWYER) issued a Minute on 10 July 2013, stopping the Judicial Review. Justice Venning was a named Judge in the complaint to the SFO, as one of the alleged complicit Judges. On appeal to the Court of Appeal of Justice Venning alleged illegal conduct in issuing the Minute, Justice O'Regan (former LAWYER) issued a Minute dated 16 July 2013 rejecting the filing of the appeal to the Court of Appeal as being outside of the Courts jurisdiction. Justice O'Regan was also a named Judge in the complaint to the SFO, as one of the alleged complicit Judges.

    Fixing systemic corruption within our Judiciary (and by the LAWYER Attorney-General who protects Judges), who protect the "system" and LAWYERS and JUDGES who are found out, needs an alternative to the Judges of NZ Courts and their corrupted application of the rule of law or refusal to abide by their Judicial Oath.

    Good on Vince, he will be pleased to know Justice Winkelmann is one of those alleged complicit Judges before the SFO, and Chief Justice Elias is not.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 27-07-2013 at 01:34 PM.

  9. #9
    I have not involved the media, as yet. As I am waiting, since October last year, for a decision by Justices Elias, McGrath, Arnold, Glasebrook and Young of the Supreme Court on whether they will allow two leaves to appeal relating to the matter to be heard.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 27-07-2013 at 01:26 PM.

  10. #10
    No. Editors are simply too terrified of the financial consequences of exposing corruption by our judicial officers and crown executives. The Solicitor-General would take immediate court action against them if they printed anything remotely associated with corruption by those individuals. That legal action of course would be supported by the Judge hearing the case. And politicians in the know (the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General) would ensure the author of the article would be excluded from media access to important politicians.

    All media people are aware of the risks and will not cross that line, yet. The Judges have to get more arrogant and reach a higher level of contempt for the New Zealand public and parliament first.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 27-07-2013 at 04:17 PM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts