Page 36 of 37 FirstFirst ... 2634353637 LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 369

Thread: Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  1. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by golfa View Post
    This is what happens if you accuse a Judge .... http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11789909
    IMA GOLFA: But Frank Deliu (a Lawyer) is not a 'nutter' and was entitled, and ethically obliged, as a Lawyer to expose Justice Harrison's corrupt judicial conduct Those same type of corrupt judicial conduct which Justice Harrison continues to be involved in, as like the Disciplinary Tribunal, a District Court Judge refused to consider evidence in support of criminal charges against Justice Harrison for perverting the course of justice (thereby blocking Harrison's 2016 criminal prosecution).

    Justice Harrison will simply continue in his corrupt ways knowing he has immunity (protection).

    What is telling is that the A-G, Finlayson, did not publicly defend Judge Harrison (which is his job) from Frank Deliu's allegation. The A-G knowing that 'publicity' will result in someone independent investigating the allegations against Justice Harrison, and finding he actually is corrupt.

    The A-G knowing if that corruption of Harrison is exposed publicly, other judges who are equally as corrupt will also be publicly exposed. And we cannot have that, so the A-G remains silent.

  2. #352
    http://www.kiwisfirst.com/judicial-e...on-beg-reform/

    An interesting article posted on KiwiFirst

    The letters sent by Deliu's client are colourful

  3. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    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 (3 November 2016) response from the Commissioner's Office was:

    "The Commissioner will not be responding."...
    On 4 November 2016 the Commissioner was emailed, he was asked"

    Commissioner

    For the public record; the Public and Parliament requires your answer to the question, not your Office's answer.

    Otherwise the Public and Parliament conclusion must be, based on the evidence before you, that option 1 is what you meant - that is, the Supreme Court Justices acted with "conscious and deliberate dishonesty", but you the Commissioner will do nothing about it.

    Naturally the Commissioner did not respond, as that would mean he would have to expose judicial misconduct by the Supreme Court justices [which unofficially, to him, is not his role].

    A follow-up email of today asked:

    Please have the professional, and common, courtesy of responding to my [above] email.

    Will the Commissioner dare to respond!
    Last edited by Q. C.; 16-02-2017 at 11:39 AM.

  4. #354
    Q.C.:

    Why can't JCC lie in your case by responding that "the judges did not act with conscious and deliberate dishonesty"? Is it because he doesn't repeat his lies twice?

    Can you publish your complaint and JCC's findings?
    Last edited by FairHearing; 16-02-2017 at 10:46 PM.

  5. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Q. C. Why can't JCC lie in your case by responding that "the judges did not act with conscious and deliberate dishonesty"? Is it because he doesn't repeat his lies twice?...
    Maybe the Commissioner is just sick of the NZ Supreme Court Justices continually acting with "conscious and deliberate dishonesty" and will not respond, hoping Q. C. will go away.

    After all, the Commissioners have always lied about the evidence in support of Judges misconduct: So what did this Commissioner expect the Supreme Court Judges to continue to do?

    Not continue their blatant (to the Commissioner and the complainant) "conscious and deliberate dishonesty"!

  6. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    Maybe the Commissioner is just sick of the NZ Supreme Court Justices continually acting with "conscious and deliberate dishonesty" and will not respond, hoping Q. C. will go away.

    After all, the Commissioners have always lied about the evidence in support of Judges misconduct: So what did this Commissioner expect the Supreme Court Judges to continue to do?

    Not continue their blatant (to the Commissioner and the complainant) "conscious and deliberate dishonesty"!
    The Commissioner?? With the capital "C"?? Why not calling a spade a spade, namely, Alan Ritchie a scumbag honest people shouldn't deal with? I see no point in asking for clarifications from Ritchie, given his patently fraudulent nature*. Besides, given that the sworn judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of NZ are criminals, one can hardly expect honorable conduct from non-sworn Ritchie - Chief Executive Office and then Executive Director of the New Zealand Law Society for 23 years (he was there long before, during, and after Taito - without saying a word against indisputably** "fundamentally flawed and unlawful [New Zealand justice] system"). The very fact that Ritchie was appointed by Finlayson - the same guy who appointed the judges in question - speaks for itself.

    I think that every future complainant should ask Ritchie to recuse, on the grounds that he lacks integrity.

    * My honest opinion is based (without limitation) on the facts outlined in this document on this page (and also the facts mentioned in various posts on this forum), though I'm sure 99.9% of previous complainants can provide their own evidence of the lack of integrity on Ritchie's part.

    ** As nailed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 21-02-2017 at 09:41 AM.

  7. #357
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    The Commissioner?? ..., namely, Alan Ritchie a scumbag honest people shouldn't deal with? ... one can hardly expect honorable conduct from non-sworn Ritchie - Chief Executive Office and then Executive Director of the New Zealand Law Society for 23 years...

    I think that every future complainant should ask Ritchie to recuse, on the grounds that he lacks integrity....
    Alan Ritchie, The Commissioner, was never appointed by A-G Finlayson because he had integrity. He, like the previous Commissioner, was appointed to protect the Judges from being removed from the bench because of their gross incompetence or their judicial dishonesty - that A-G undeclared purpose of the Commissioner requires all Commissioners to lack integrity - Alan Ritchie accepted the Commissioner appointment on that fundamental basis.

    So you can ask Alan Ritchie to recuse himself because of his lack of integrity - but he will always refuse, as he has the delegated authority from the A-G Finlayson, by virtue of his terms of appointment, to act in any dishonest way that he deems necessary to dismiss a complaint against any New Zealand Judge.

    Judicial Review will never correct his dishonesty - as the NZ Judges rely on Alan Ritchie's dishonest - all you will get from a Judicial Review is a 'strike out' and costs awarded against you.


    FairHearing - I will publish my Complaint and the JCC decision on this Forum as soon as I find out how to do so.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 21-02-2017 at 11:10 AM.

  8. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    So you can ask Alan Ritchie to recuse himself because of his lack of integrity - but he will always refuse
    What I meant to say, fraudsters - especially those in [para-]judicial offices - shouldn't be reverenced. Instead, they should be told on every occasion they are fraudsters.

    Ritchie won't recuse, of course, but repeated reminders that he's a fraudster would serve him well.

  9. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    .... Instead, they should be told on every occasion they are fraudsters.

    Ritchie won't recuse, of course, but repeated reminders that he's a fraudster would serve him well.
    I usually remind Alan Ritchie (the Commissioner) every time I file a complaint against a Judge that he, as Commissioner, is corrupt or dishonest or both, asking him to resign because of that and because he is despicable.

    Sometimes I offer that good summary of his character via the Commissioner's Office; such as:

    "Thank you for forwarding the Commissioner's decision.

    Please convey to the Commissioner that I believe his dishonesty is only exceeded by his nave stupidity (in his Commissioner role) that his dishonest has no adverse consequences to him."


    I never get a thank you for pointing out the obvious to Alan Ritchie.

  10. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    Ritchie won't recuse, of course, but repeated reminders that he's a fraudster would serve him well.
    FairHearing and QC: Complaint No. 38 by me to the Commissioner Alan Ritchie (yes No. 38, a consequence of systemic Judicial corruption on a single issue) was answered by the Commissioner in September 2016 with:

    "The complaint is patently beyond my jurisdiction...It is possibly worth observing, however, that the Judge gave a robust reason for her decision. She does not have to give reasons for reasons".


    What Alan Ritchie is saying is that a NZ Judge does not have to record the facts and issue involved in a case and rule on that which is before their Court; they merely have to record their robust reason for their decision, such as 'you are a horrible person for filing such a proceeding, I don't like you'.

    Alan Ritchie followed his dishonest, but normal, assessment of the complaint with:

    "....I feel you need to understand that I have no fear whatsoever of any security, whether it be initiated by people like you or otherwise. Threats of this nature will never influence the outcome of any examination I make under the Act. I am surprised that had not already dawned on you."

    What Alan Ritchie is saying is the Judges on NZ 'have by back', so don't both with a Judicial Review. You already know we are as corrupt as each other, so that position should have "already dawned on you".

    Such an honest man.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 22-02-2017 at 11:06 AM.

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
  •