Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New Zealand Law Society Power

  1. #1

    New Zealand Law Society Power

    Observers of the New Zealand Law Society show trial of Auckland Barrister Evgeny Orlov last week saw a notable contrast in legal perspectives in the closings. Law Society prosecutor Warren Pyke emphasised the evidence the Law Society relied upon to seek Orlov struck off as a lawyer was contained in Judge Rhys Harrison's complaint to the Law Society of Orlov's fitness and a confidential complaint Orlov made to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner alleging Harrison was a bigot and had knowingly turned a child over to a paedophile (this latter allegation was confirmed). Mr Pyke read from an affidavit filed the day before the trial, from a lawyer who claimed limited memory of her witnessing an exchange between Orlov and Harrison 8 years ago, but still swore the Judge must have been right and Orlov wrong because she would remember if it was the other way around!

    Mr Orlov stood up to close, after refusing to put up a defence on the ground there was no case to answer. He was accused of scandalising Harrison - and hence the Court. Hanging offences in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, modern day Iran - but only banishment offences in New Zealand. Not one witness was produced to claim what Orlov said about Harrison was untrue. In contrast, Orlov had 5 witnesses who swore evidence and were prepared to take the witness box to state their own experiences Harrison was, to put it kindly, "innovative" when it came to facts and law. Orlov told the tribunal he was prepared for them to take his practicing certificate away. He agreed Harrison needed their protection from criticism, and to send a message that even errant judges could squash those who complain about their conduct through approved mechanisms.

    The Tribunal will take time to issue its decision. The only thing certain about the proceedings expected to take off his legal head is it surprisingly never intended to prove Orlov's criticism was unjust. Mr Orlov may be right about Harrison, or he may be wrong. Like every totalitarian regime, it is more the truth of one's State criticisms than the falsity which seals the peasants' fate.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by innocence project View Post
    ..."He agreed Harrison needed their [the Law Society] protection from criticism, and to send a message that even errant judges could squash those who complain about their conduct through approved mechanisms".
    The approved mechanisms for removing corrupt Judges, such as Harrison, is through the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. Judges like Harrison do not need the direct protection of the Law Society, they already have it through one of the Law Society's senior Members, Sir David Gascoigne, Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

    No matter how dishonest, corrupt or how a Judge breached his Judicial Oath, and regardless of the real and persuasive evidence, the Commissioner will always insidiously find no fault. To believe otherwise is na´ve. That is our problem, the public believe.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 11-09-2013 at 10:16 AM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    My observation verifies what John wrote.
    So, there are some fundamental problems in the New Zealand Judiciary.
    Correction: Reference to what the "public" believe, should have been "uninformed public". We the informed do not believe, we know what is going on - systemic corruption in our justice system and by its participants (including Judges).
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 11-09-2013 at 12:10 PM.

  4. #4
    I spent all 5 days at the lynching, sorry, hearing ! I missed one morning session as I had to work. From the very outset, I figured Orlov was on a hiding to nothing. The Law Society Prosecutor Pyke called his first (and only) witness ( the Law Society Standards Officer, I think) and after she was sworn in, he said he had no questions for her and sat down. Pardon ?

    Orlov questioned her and she revealed that he wasn't being prosecuted for making a complaint about Judge Harrison, it was WHAT he wrote in the complaint. From memory, she said the language he used was "intemperate". However, when pressed, she had no idea what words he could have written to have made it less "intemperate". It also transpired that she did no investigation into what Orlov said about the Judge despite it being in her job description. her job description says that she is responsible for investigating and then reporting to the "Committee". Seems she does it the other way round ... she reports to the "Committee" and they "direct" her to undertake an investigation or not, as in this case. So rather than do her job, she deflected blame for no investigation onto the Committee.

    The Law Society asked for a copy of the JCC's Decision about Orlov's complaint about Judge Harrison. It was refused as it was confidential and I think, supressed. Never mind, there are ways around that ..... Chief High Court Judge Randerson gave the Law Society a copy to help out his friend Judge Harrison. Hmmmm .....

    A few other things bugged me. Orlov had applied to get a transcript of the case that led to his complaint about Judge Harrison. He was stonewalled at every turn and was never given a copy. Judge Clarkson (Chief Lyncher) asked him whether he had sought the "assistance" of Prosecutor Pyke and made a "joint application" to get the transcript. Now just think about that for a minute ....... Why would a Lawyer need a "joint application" with another Lawyer to get the Family Court to release a transcript ? 2 Lawyers are better and one ? Pyke already admitted that he and the Law Society didn't need the transcript. I'm guessing they didn't WANT it either. It would have exposed Judge Harrison.

    Gotta love New Zealand "Justice".

  5. #5
    With only one "witness" and virtually no relevant evidence due to suppression, one can only assume this fiasco ran for five days in order for the "old boys club" to hit Mr Orlov with maximum costs for daring to question them ?

    As it is a forgone conclusion that he will lose his practicing certificate, perhaps Mr Orlov will now focus his attention on helping all of us who have suffered the same fate as him at the hands of judicial corruption. What better than to have an "insider" to grass on them !!

    1victim

  6. #6
    More of the same old, same old. Our Justice system is shot to hell, too many dodgy lawyers and just as many dodgy judges. The sooner we have the US system of electing our judges the better, because until then, these criminals will rule our judicial benches.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Corrigenda View Post
    too many dodgy lawyers and just as many dodgy judges. The sooner we have the US system of electing our judges the better, because until then, these criminals will rule our judicial benches.
    No need to go to the US system. All we need is a Judicial Conduct Commissioner who is not a LAWYER. Judge Harrison would be the first to get removed without a Lawyer protecting him, more would follow.

    As a suitably qualified person I've volunteered to be the next Commissioner. Anyone else think they are qualified for the job?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Corrigenda View Post
    The sooner we have the US system of electing our judges the better, because until then, these criminals will rule our judicial benches.
    You've been voting for a corrupt parliament, why should that change for judges?
    The corruption of parliament results in the injury of the natural rights of the people, as brought about by the perverted law that they use.

    http://www.actsinjunction.info/nwo.html

Tags for this Thread

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
  •