Page 32 of 37 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 369

Thread: Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  1. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Does anyone else know of that happening in any other criminal prosecution?
    I'd prosecute a number of judicial and para-judicial lowlifes, beginning with the entire Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and working steady towards the other end of the shithole, but your sad example and my extensive experience tell me it isn't the right time. If there was a single chance of a legal proceeding in NZ to be more or less fair (and thus a prosecution to succeed), there would be no systemic corruption.

    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    And our Politicians and Media have no interest in those facts proving her corrupt conduct?
    From our corrupt politicians' and corrupt mainstream media's standpoint, it's business as usual. Why would they be interested?
    Last edited by FairHearing; 14-12-2016 at 07:07 PM.

  2. #312
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I'd prosecute a number of judicial and para-judicial lowlifes, beginning with the entire Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal and working steady towards the other end of the shithole, but your sad example and my extensive experience tell me it isn't the right time. If there was a single chance of a legal proceeding in NZ to be more or less fair (and thus a prosecution to succeed), there would be no systemic corruption....
    FairHearing: Judges were prosecuted criminally and this is what happened [see post about Judge Harvey]:

    "It is my understanding that Judge Harvey deliberately broke the law in his judgment of 20 March 2016 to block criminal charges against his fellow Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison.

    The charges alleged those three Justices were involved in criminal acts in 2013; the charges attract a prison sentence of up to7 year’s jail.

    The judgment of Judge Harvey only describes the charges as “conspiring to defeat the course of justice”. So the reader of his decision is unable to tell whether the Justices conspired to protect themselves, or someone else, from justice.

    Nor does the decision detail the charges, so the reader is left to ponder whether the Justices were conspiring to cover-up their conduct as paedophiles or some other heinous crime, or similar crimes of others.

    What is known is that Judge Harvey made his decision to block the criminal charges (for whatever criminal acts) without seeing [or wanting to see] or considering any of the evidence in support of the charges.

    What is also known is that the allegations are so serious, and involve the so called elite of our society, so the NZ Herald and The Dominion are terrified to run the story on the misconduct of Judge Harvey in breaking the law to protect his fellow judges. Judges who should be facing a jury on whatever the serious charges are about: including just who were the three Justices conspiring to protect.

    My understanding is that the misconduct of Judge Harvey is before the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and the Head of Bench, Judge Jan Doogue.

    Looks like it will probably be left to social media, or overseas Media, to expose this corruption.

    Anyone else had a bad experience with this Judge?"

    So you are 100% correct.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 14-12-2016 at 08:02 PM.

  3. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    FairHearing: Judges were prosecuted criminally and this is what happened [see post about Judge Harvey]
    Yeah, I'm familiar with what Harvey did. I've met him once - he produced an impression of an honest judge, but it was a first appearance in a case, and the matter didn't concern judicial misconduct (yet). I however have no doubt Harvey knew he was breaking the law in the prosecution case. On the other hand, what he did hasn't made any difference - S-G would've stayed the prosecution even if Harvey had allowed charging documents.

  4. #314
    Take, for example, Una Jagose - the current lesbian Solicitor General (appointed to complement gay Attorney General Chris Finlayson). She is a known corrupt cunt. She is aware of improper assignments and fabricated fictitious appeals in the Court of Appeal, and of judgments falsified by the Supreme Court - and does nothing to uphold the rule of law. On the other hand, her role is "the government's chief legal adviser and advocate in the courts". Given that grand corruption is the New Zealand State's modus operandi, Una clearly advises the government of the best ways to cover-up such corruption, and acts as an advocate for the corrupt officials by staying private prosecutions.

    BTW, here's an interesting article on Cheryl Gwyn here https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../gwyn-a15.html. "...brief biography of Gwyn fails to explain, however, how someone who was involved in an organisation claiming to support socialist revolution now occupies one of the most sensitive positions in the spy apparatus of the capitalist state." I'd correct this - the CORRUPT state, as opposed to a socialist or capitalist one. In the corrupt state, political beliefs don't play any significant role.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 14-12-2016 at 09:13 PM.

  5. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    "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?
    Q. C. - that is exactly what I am saying.

    However, it is even worse than that, as the mirror image of Cheryl Gwyn's criminal conduct is that there is also irrefutable 'real' evidence, produced by the Courts and Cameron Mander herself, which prove our current Judge (Cameron Mander) acted corruptly when he was a Deputy Solicitor-General, in that he also Stayed a criminal prosecution in which he was a named co-defendant.

    With those two using their statutory powers to Stay criminal prosecutions in which they were named co-defendants, when they are experienced Lawyers and Deputy Solicitor-Generals, must show intent to perform that criminal act (no honest person would do such a thing).


    If any Investigative Reporter reads this forum's posts, they obviously are just as terrified as our Politicians and mainstream media, as they have made no attempt to contact me to review that claimed "irrefutable 'real' evidence".

    An 'unspeakable outrage' by those Deputy Solicitor-Generals, and obviously too 'unspeakable' to publish for the Public's information.

  6. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Q. C. - that is exactly what I am saying.

    ...If any Investigative Reporter reads this forum's posts, they obviously are just as terrified as our Politicians and mainstream media, as they have made no attempt to contact me to review that claimed "irrefutable 'real' evidence".

    An 'unspeakable outrage' by those [former] Deputy Solicitor-Generals, and obviously too 'unspeakable' to publish for the Public's information.
    "Brockovich": Has any 'Investigative Reporter' contacted you as yet?

    That is, about the irrefutable 'real' evidence, produced by the Courts and Cameron Mander and Cheryl Gwyn themselves, which prove our current Judge (Cameron Mander) and current Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (Cheryl Gwyn) acted corruptly when they were Deputy Solicitor-General's, in that they criminally used their statutory powers as then Solicitor-Generals to Stay criminal prosecutions in which they were named co-defendants.

    Or does that simple fact remain an unreported, and thus unexposed to the Public and Parliament, "unspeakable outrage"?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 08-01-2017 at 08:00 AM.

  7. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    "Brockovich": Has any 'Investigative Reporter' contacted you as yet?

    That is, about the irrefutable 'real' evidence, produced by the Courts and Cameron Mander and Cheryl Gwyn themselves, which prove our current Judge (Cameron Mander) and current Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (Cheryl Gwyn) acted corruptly when they were Deputy Solicitor-General's, in that they criminally used their statutory powers as then Solicitor-Generals to Stay criminal prosecutions in which they were named co-defendants.

    Or does that simple fact remain an unreported, and thus unexposed to the Public and Parliament, "unspeakable outrage"?
    No. So systemic Judicial and Crown Executive corruption in New Zealand remains unreported, and continues without fear of Public or Parliamentary detection.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 14-01-2017 at 09:27 PM.

  8. #318
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    No. So systemic Judicial and Crown Executive corruption in New Zealand remains unreported, and continues without fear of Public or Parliamentary detection.
    "Brockovich": In other words - what you can prove is that NZ's judiciary and Crown Executive are corrupt (when they want to be), so we are no better than a "banana republic".

    And we will remain so until the main stream Media and MP's investigate and expose that corruption, which they do not want to do.

    And that is why no one (from the mainstream Media or an MP) has contacted you to ask to see the irrefutable evidence of that corruption.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 21-01-2017 at 08:15 PM.

  9. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    NZ's judiciary and Crown Executive are corrupt (when they want to be)
    According to COMMENTARY ON THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, "There are no degrees of integrity as so defined. Integrity is absolute".

    So NZ judiciary and Crown Executive cannot be corrupt one day and not corrupt another. They are simply corrupt, without qualifiers. They've made their choice long time ago.

  10. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ... Integrity is absolute[/I]".

    So NZ judiciary and Crown Executive cannot be corrupt one day and not corrupt another. They are simply corrupt, without qualifiers.
    I agree, however what I am saying is that they can act corruptly one day and not act corruptly other days, it all depends on the whether they wish to protect someone or something on a particular day.

    That does not change the fact that they are "corrupt", it simply means that on many matters they are honest and apply the law and are not "corrupt" in the finincial sense of accepting bribes.

    They only act corruptly on occasions, and that is the problem. As that corruption only affects a few people.

    If they acted corruptly all the time we would not have a problem, as the mainstream Media and MP's would notice that and become involved to expose that corruption.

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
  •