Page 37 of 37 FirstFirst ... 27353637
Results 361 to 369 of 369

Thread: Article: Chief Justice against sending activist to jail

  1. #361
    I wouldn't refer to Alan Ritchie as an honest man, even sarcastically. I agree with Q.C. that the current JCC is a corrupt incompetent idiot who revels in his impunity.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 28-02-2017 at 11:59 AM.

  2. #362
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    I wouldn't refer to Alan Ritchie as an honest man, even sarcastically. I agree with Q.C. that the current JCC is a corrupt incompetent idiot who revels in his impunity.
    FairHearing: Just so I can file complaint no. 39 to the Commissioner, Alan Ritchie, I filed a criminal Charging Document against retired Judge Harvey, who is accused of perverting justice by ruling there was no evidence in support of the criminal charges against Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison (who were accused of conspiring to defeat the course of justice). That 'no evidence' ruling by Judge Harvey being made when Judge Harvey refused to direct that evidence be filed for his judicial consideration of the charges.

    It's a bit like a jury being asked to give a verdict on these Judges alleged criminal acts of conspiring, but the hearing Judge (Judge Harvey) will not allow the jury to see or hear the evidence in support of the charges - (it is after all a unique 'justice system' designed to protect judges from being found guilty).

    The honest jury would always find the judges 'not guilty', but only because of the dishonest hearing Judge's corruption in withholding the evidence.

    Remember in complaint no. 38 Alan Ritchie ruled he had no jurisdiction to deal with the criminal activity of Judge Harvey, because Judge Harvey had retired.

    On the basis that another District Court Judge will be found who is also willing to act criminally and rules the Judge Harvey Charging Documents are not supported by evidence, and that Judge doesn't retire after making that criminal decision, Alan Ritchie will receive complaint no. 39 which he will have to deal with in a different corrupt way.

    What fun. What fun we have in New Zealand - the 'perceived' least corrupt country in the world.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 28-02-2017 at 04:17 PM.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    FairHearing: Just so I can file complaint no. 39 to the Commissioner, Alan Ritchie, I filed a criminal Charging Document against retired Judge Harvey, who is accused of perverting justice by ruling there was no evidence in support of the criminal charges against Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison (who were accused of conspiring to defeat the course of justice). That 'no evidence' ruling by Judge Harvey being made when Judge Harvey refused to direct that evidence be filed for his judicial consideration of the charges.

    ...On the basis that another District Court Judge will be found who is also willing to act criminally and rules the Judge Harvey Charging Documents are not supported by evidence....
    "Brockovich" - The District Court just 'leaked' a direction from an honest Judge, which is to be sent to you. You are ordered by the Judge under the direction to file supporting evidence that the jury is to consider on the alleged criminal actively of Judge Harvey in blocking the trial of Justices Toogood, Cooper and Harrison on their alleged criminal activity.

    Maybe we are making some progress.

  4. #364
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    ....What fun. What fun we have in New Zealand - the 'perceived' least corrupt country in the world.
    "Brockovich": Systemic corruption conduct in NZ is best described as: "not a special category of corrupt practice, but rather a situation in which the major institutions and processes of the state are routinely dominated and used by corrupt individuals, judges and groups, and in which most people have no alternatives to dealing with these corrupt officials"

    That definition in relation to NZ's situation is about to be tested, as the new Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, is investigating an allegation of Crown Prosecutor corruption that the Courts refused to deal with, NZ Judges have covered up and the Law Society refused to investigate.

    The test is; will Una Jagose, as the new Solicitor-General, join that despicable group and thus prove systemic judicial and Crown Executive corruption on the issue is alive and well in NZ.

  5. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    "Brockovich": Systemic corruption conduct in NZ is best described as: "not a special category of corrupt practice, but rather a situation in which the major institutions and processes of the state are routinely dominated and used by corrupt individuals, judges and groups, and in which most people have no alternatives to dealing with these corrupt officials"

    That definition in relation to NZ's situation is about to be tested, as the new Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, is investigating an allegation of Crown Prosecutor corruption that the Courts refused to deal with, NZ Judges have covered up and the Law Society refused to investigate.

    The test is; will Una Jagose, as the new Solicitor-General, join that despicable group and thus prove systemic judicial and Crown Executive corruption on the issue is alive and well in NZ.

    She is a part of that group. She wouldn't be NZ S-G otherwise.

  6. #366
    I've just come across this brilliant quote from an interview with Solicitor-General Una Jagose

    “I think a good lawyer is someone who is able to think about the questions they are being asked in a way that of course takes account of precedent and the law, but also asks themselves those broader questions about how does this look or fit with wider principles - maybe its natural justice, maybe it’s the rule of law.

    “Some of those broader concepts that aren’t necessarily on the statute page will deliver the right answer to an issue because of the need to consider all the relevant context in which legal issues arise.

    “You can be brilliant and smart, and not be a very good lawyer. Because lawyering is not only about what the law is, or the most beautiful analysis of the law.

    “If you don’t get your client’s context and their consequence right, if you deliver your beautifully rendered advice too late or communicated in a way that does not fit into that clients’ frame, if you do not give them options to achieve their outcomes, you might as well not bother.”

    Legal skills are essential, she says, but are only “a baseline”.
    Did you get it? What was she talking about, anyone?

    To me, the bitch effectively said that the law (even "the most beautiful analysis of the law") doesn't matter.

    "maybe its natural justice, maybe it’s the rule of law" - she clearly has no clue as to what these concepts are, as she sees them principally different.

    Q.C. wrote: "the new Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, is investigating an allegation of Crown Prosecutor corruption..."

    I can imagine how she sits in her office and thinks: "How do these corruption allegations look or fit with wider principles which aren't on the statute page? Is it natural justice? Is it the rule of law? Do these fit into my government clients’ frame? How do give I my clients options to achieve their outcome? Hmm.. Should I deliver a beautifully rendered advice? Naah... I'd rather not bother."
    Last edited by FairHearing; 30-03-2017 at 11:20 PM.

  7. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...Q.C. wrote: "the new Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, is investigating an allegation of Crown Prosecutor corruption..."

    I can imagine how she sits in her office and thinks: "How do these corruption allegations look or fit with wider principles which aren't on the statute page? Is it natural justice? Is it the rule of law? Do these fit into my government clients’ frame? How do give I my clients options to achieve their outcome? Hmm.. Should I deliver a beautifully rendered advice? Naah... I'd rather not bother."
    Una Jagose, the new Solicitor-General, will most likely follow her predecessors (Heron and Collins) and make a 'Policy' decision. That is, a 'Policy' decision that as a Crown Executive one must always cover-up corruption within the justice system.

    This is, of course, a reasonable approach for a Solicitor-General, as the Attorney-General (Finlayson), Minister of Justice (Adams), JCC (Gascoigne and Ritchie) and many NZ Judges make such "Policy' decisions on a regular basis. In fact, the Attorney-General expects it of his judges.

    As you say, such conduct has nothing to do with adhering to statutes or natural justice or the rule of law.

    That is why the international community and Public, if they were aware of how the NZ's justice system works, would simply consider it systemic judicial/Crown Executive/Political corruption.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 01-04-2017 at 04:22 PM.

  8. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by FairHearing View Post
    ...Q.C. wrote: "the new Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, is investigating an allegation of Crown Prosecutor corruption..."

    I can imagine how she sits in her office and thinks: "How do these corruption allegations look or fit with wider principles which aren't on the statute page? Is it natural justice? Is it the rule of law? Do these fit into my government clients’ frame? How do give I my clients options to achieve their outcome? Hmm.. Should I deliver a beautifully rendered advice? Naah... I'd rather not bother."
    FairHearing: Una Jagose, the Solicitor-General, seems reluctant to do what you suggest, that is to act corruptly on the matter of the Crown Prosecutor's criminal acts. As:

    1. Una Jagose received the full complaint details of the alleged corrupt acts of the Crown Prosecutor on 23 March 2016.

    2. By email of 29 March 2016 she confirmed that, in relation to the complaint, we are "viewing your questions and you will receive a letter addressing your concerns within 20 days of your first contact"

    3. By email of 6 April 2016, to clarify her response deadline, "This means within 20 days of your first contact... In this instance it is the date your hard copy material arrived – 23rd March"


    By email of 13 April 2016, after the 20 day self imposed deadline had expired, she advised "You will receive a formal response in due course as previously advised".

    Clearly the new Solicitor-General, Una Jagose, is under so much pressure to act criminally that she cannot even count up to 20, let alone within 20 days recommend to the Minister of Justice that the Crown Prosecutor involved have his warrant suspended pending the process of filing criminal charges against him and the subsequent criminal court processes.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 14-04-2017 at 12:15 PM.

  9. #369
    I don't think she has any trouble playing her corrupt role. Being incompetent on top of her other dubious qualities - which I pointed out earlier - she is obviously incapable of expressing herself with sufficient clarity. In this case, she couldn't make a distinction between working and calendar days. I'm sure she meant 20 working days - that is, four weeks. If my calculations are correct, the deadline is April 24th - including Easter.
    Last edited by FairHearing; 15-04-2017 at 08:52 PM.

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
  •