Page 31 of 37 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 369

Thread: Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Up-date on inaction by Supreme Court Justices: "Filed" 2 years 5 months ago now. Thank God 'we' got rid of the Privy Council. Yeah Right.
    Supreme Court in utter turmoil:

    What happened to my Recall Application, filed in April 2013 (two years 9 months ago), is now confirmed by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner's letter of today. He stated:

    "I have had further inquires made about this. The position is, apparently, that you did lodge that application with the Supreme Court Registry on 8 April 2013, but it had not, at least until last week, been referred to a Judge. It follows that the delay in dealing with the application cannot properly be attributed to a Judge..."

    What the f@#k!!!!
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 27-12-2015 at 09:21 AM.

  2. #302
    To see systemic corruption at work in a justice system go to Netflix's "Making a Murderer". If you do not have Netflix see Google.

    So similar to NZ's problem in our justice system ['Our' system will not correct its own errors if it will cause embarrassment to the system or allow corruption, when it is found, to be exposed to the public (It must be judicially and executively hidden, no matter what the cost is to anyone)].

    Vince Siemer was one of those subject to "no matter what the cost" - the victim of our corrupt justice system.

    Would like to see others comments on "Making a Murderer" and its parallel to out justice system .
    Last edited by Q. C.; 04-02-2016 at 04:03 PM.

  3. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    The Chief Ombudsman by letter of 29 October 2015 advised:

    "I have decided to investigate this complaint... I have written to the Minister [of Justice] ...I have asked to see the relevant information at issue"

    What is being investigated, by the Chief Ombudsman, is the Minister's refusal to provide under the Official Information Act:

    "a copy of the advice you [the Minister] received to enable you to determine that you are not an idiot for signing a letter that was absolutely incorrect or advice to you that it was unnecessary to respond to my letter of 13 December 2014 which asked you:

    "As Minister please advise whether you stand by your letter [of 26 November 2014], which includes those incorrect statements, and whether you intend to answer the question asked of former Minister, Ms. Collins..."

    The Chief Ombudsman report will confirm whether or not the Minister is an idiot for stating what she stated in her letter of 26 November 2014, and for not correcting her letter and not answering the questions.

    It will be nice to know that the Minister is actually an idiot, so she can be replaced.
    The Chief Ombudsman refuses to decide whether the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, to be "an idiot" or not. The Ombudsman response to the complaint was:

    "I consider that the way in which you have framed your request [to the Minister] is essentially frivolous and is entitled to be treated as such....I have decided to discontinue my investigation."

    Thus leaving Minister Amy Adams a complete idiot in the Public's eyes on this matter.

  4. #304
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    The Chief Ombudsman refuses to decide whether the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, to be "an idiot" or not. The Ombudsman response to the complaint was:

    "I consider that the way in which you have framed your request [to the Minister] is essentially frivolous and is entitled to be treated as such....I have decided to discontinue my investigation."

    Thus leaving Minister Amy Adams a complete idiot in the Public's eyes on this matter.
    "Brockovich": That's OK. Apparently the 'Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet' is now looking into whether the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, is an idiot or not (on this issue).

  5. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    "Brockovich": That's OK. Apparently the 'Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet' is now looking into whether the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, is an idiot or not (on this issue).
    Q. C.: While the DPMC is checking to see if the Justice Minister, Amy Adams, is an idiot or not - how about doing the same to her staff. Check this out

    Email Received today:

    Mr. AKA "Brockovich"

    We have forwarded your correspondence on to the Hamilton High Court for their information.

    Kind regards,
    NZ District Court Correspondence | Operations Support [Wellington]
    Ministry of Justice


    Reply sent:
    Sir or Madam

    What!

    The 'Service Delivery Manager Waikato', in combination with the Registrar of the Hamilton High Court, advised me to send the issue on the first two Memorandums
    [alleging criminal contempt by the Hamilton Crown Prosecutor] to Ms. Baggott ('General Manager | NZ District Courts | Operations and Service Delivery') to deal with [which my email of 8 August 2016 did]...

    From what you appear to say, in your above email, is that you have sent everything back to Hamilton (the same Hamilton Court Officials who sent it to you) for their "information".

    Please urgently explain or clarify what is happening to my Memorandums
    [for the Courts consideration on the alleged Criminal Contempt by the Hamilton Crown Prosecutor]...

    Regards
    Mr. AKA "Brockovich"
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 18-10-2016 at 10:49 PM.

  6. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    To see systemic corruption at work in a justice system go to Netflix's "Making a Murderer". If you do not have Netflix see Google.

    So similar to NZ's problem in our justice system ...
    Judicial Conduct Commissioner refuses to clarify his decision: The Commissioner was asked yesterday:

    "I seek clarity in regards to the contents of you letter of 3 November 2016 about the misconduct of the Supreme Court Justices.

    You stated my "amended complaint that the Judges acted with "conscious and deliberate dishonesty" fails to raise any issue of significance not previously considered by me."

    Please clarify whether you mean:
    1.That you had already concluded the Judges acted with conscious and deliberate dishonesty, and still decided to dismiss the complaint that lead to that conclusion; or

    2.That the judges did not act with conscious and deliberate dishonesty.

    I look forward to your clarification"



    The response from the Commissioner's Office was:

    "The Commissioner will not be responding."


    The only possible answer from the Commissioner, from the evidence before him, was the first option - the Supreme Court Justices acted with "conscious and deliberate dishonesty", but he the Commissioner will do nothing about it.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 04-11-2016 at 10:49 AM.

  7. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    Judicial Conduct Commissioner refuses to clarify his decision:...

    The only possible answer from the Commissioner, from the evidence before him, was the first option - the Supreme Court Justices acted with "conscious and deliberate dishonesty", but he the Commissioner will do nothing about it.
    The Commissioner knows (as do many complaints) that "conscious and deliberate dishonesty" misconduct is not restricted to NZ Supreme Court Judges.

    It is misconduct spawned in the lower Courts - the NZ Court of Appeal and High Court.

    Supreme Court Judges getting away with such misconduct is only the natural outcome of the Commissioner's role (as he sees it) to ignore and thereby conceal from Parliament such despicable misconduct.

    That is why - NZ is "perceived" by many to be the 'least corrupt country in the world'.

    That is why - politicians will not question the Commissioner's integrity.

    That is why - the uninformed, and those who have not experienced this "conscious and deliberate dishonesty" by NZ judges, believe out judges are always honest in their decisions and only make errors in their judgments occasionally, which are corrected on appeal.

  8. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    The Commissioner knows (as do many complaints) that "conscious and deliberate dishonesty" misconduct is not restricted to NZ Supreme Court Judges.

    ...Supreme Court Judges getting away with such misconduct is only the natural outcome of the Commissioner's role (as he sees it) to ignore and thereby conceal from Parliament such despicable misconduct...
    The Judicial Conduct Commissioner's corrupt practices continue: The following letter identifies that corruption for everyone:

    "Commissioner

    Your letter of 8 November 2016 regarding my complaint about Venning J's alleged gross incompetence states:

    "To uphold such a complaint would require me to decide the Judge was wrong in his interpretation of section 56C of the Judicature Act. As you know [under the JCC Act]...I am not able to challenge or call into question the legality or correctness of any judicial decisions."

    My understanding of your role is that in certain circumstances you must do exactly that to comply with the JCC Act. I refer you to your predecessors letter of 11 June 2013 to me, which at paragraph 21 stated:

    "If it became apparent to me that a Judge's approach to and conclusions upon the issues was wholly divorced from sense and logic, then that could conceivably give rise to a claim of incompetence, amounting to incapacity. And that may be seen as an issue of conduct."

    Under the JCC Act you are obliged to make that determination, based on the complaint, as to whether Venning J's conclusion upon the issue was wholly divorced from sense and logic. You have not undertaken that fundamental exercise.

    Please withdraw your letter and do so.

    Without applying that logical process that the JCC Act requires you to do, and which your predecessor has summarised, a Judge would be immune from punishment for any hideous conduct as long as he covered such misconduct my ensuring it was within his judicial decision.

    Please advise."


    What an absolutely systemically corrupt judicial, and judicial gatekeeper, system we have.

  9. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Gang Prosecution: How corrupt is the Law Society and all associated with it? Let’s see how they respond to this:...
    As the Law Society is actually corrupt and because our Politicians and Media will not ask the question - I asked it yesterday:

    "Dear Minister of Justice

    I make the following Official Information Requests about the former Deputy Solicitor-Generals actions:

    On how many other occasions in 2011 did:

    1. Cheryl Gwyn order a Stay of a criminal prosecution when she, Gwyn, was a named co-defendant under the prosecution she ordered stayed?

    2. Cameron Mander order a Stay of a criminal prosecution when he, Mander, was a named co-defendant under the prosecution he ordered stayed?

    For reference I attach the Stay direction made by Cheryl Gwyn in April of that year in which she was a named co-defendant. Cameron Mander ordered a Stay in the same manner of Cheryl Gwyn's prosecution (it is available if needed).

    I also attach the Charging Document under s. 98A, which the Judge authorised a summons on
    [for these alleged criminals to appear in Court to face the charges], which Cheryl Gwyn's Stay Order refers to. For clarity, I quote the charges wording:

    In that you [Cameron Mander] together with Ross Gregory Douch, Cheryl Gwyn and others participated in an organised criminal group. Knowing they shared their particular objective of obtaining material benefits for Ross Gregory Douch, Cheryl Gwyn and others by staying their criminal prosecutions.

    Knowing that those prosecutions should not be stayed and knowing their objective was achieved from the commission of the offence of conspiring to pervert the course of justice by staying of proceedings.

    Knowing his conduct contributed to the occurrence of criminal activity. Knowing the criminal activity contributed to achieving that objective of the organised criminal group"
    .


    Does anyone else know of that happening in any other criminal prosecution?

  10. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    As the Law Society is actually corrupt and because our Politicians and Media will not ask the question - I asked it yesterday:

    [I]"Dear Minister of Justice

    I make the following Official Information Requests about the former Deputy Solicitor-Generals actions:

    On how many other occasions in 2011 did:

    1. Cheryl Gwyn order a Stay of a criminal prosecution when she, Gwyn, was a named co-defendant under the prosecution she ordered stayed?....
    "Brockovich": So what you are saying is that there is irrefutable 'real' evidence, produced by the Courts and Cheryl Gwyn herself, which prove our current Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (Cheryl Gwyn) acted corruptly when she was a Deputy Solicitor-General.

    And our Politicians and Media have no interest in those facts proving her corrupt conduct?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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