Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Secrecy at the New Zealand Supreme Court Challenged

  1. #1

    Secrecy at the New Zealand Supreme Court Challenged

    The New Zealand Supreme Court Registrar, by letter dated 30 October 2013, stated he is unable to allow access to public documents in the Supreme Court due to no regulations which specifically allow for it. I have filed a Judicial Review SOC SC Registrar 4750 4.11.13.pdf challenge in the High Court, accompanied by Affidavit support of judicial Review 4750 4.11.13.pdf.

    Interestingly, the Minister of Justice Judith Collins has said the proposed Courts Act before Parliament will place openness and transparency by those involved in the court processes a significant priority.

  2. #2
    They are not so keen on openness and transparency when the documentation would tend to incriminate them.
    I twice requested a transcript of a hearing in which a judge admitted to committing fraud, but the judge blocked my attempts.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Vince Siemer View Post
    Interestingly, the Minister of Justice Judith Collins has said the proposed Courts Act before Parliament will place openness and transparency by those involved in the court processes a significant priority.
    The Supreme Court, when it wants to, sees its role as the supreme authority blocking the public’s access to justice and rights under the NZ Bill of rights Act.

    So “openness and transparency by those involved in the court processes”, e.g. the Supreme Court, is irrelevant. The Supreme Court and its justices will continue their corrupt practices for their noble cause of covering-up the justice systems and its participant’s failures when they wants to.

    An example of that is the Supreme Court has before it two Applications for Leave to Appeal filed on 17 October 2012. After four Memorandums on urgency and requests for timetabling they continue to do nothing. [Applications for Leave for Appeal are usually processed within 1 or 2 months]. The Registrar excuse for nothing been done is "the matter is before the judges"

    The Supreme Courts self-appointed role, when it wants to, to protect exposure of failures in the justice system and its participants from the public is the reason for the delay. If dealt with the Applications would expose to the public Crown Executive corruption and judicial corruption. I'm not sure what the delay will achieve, there is no solution for them!

    The above conduct is no different to what is happening in Vince Siemer’s case, or and other case, that exposes error, incompetence or “bad faith” [corrupt] conduct by judges.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Obviously, protecting their own privileged positions is not a good reason for not granting a leave.
    No, that is not the issue: The Supreme Court, because of its "gatekeeper" position to block the public's access to justice when it wants to, has not responded at all. They have not refused leave. They must be waiting for a miracle of some sort.

    The problem the Supreme Court have is that the two Applications for Leave for Appeal have 'court transcripts' as the basis of the appeal that prove the corruption. The court transcripts were automatic as the case was a criminal case. If the case was a civil case, as with Vince and others, the request for the transcript that proves corruption or something else would have been denied [standard practice].
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 10-11-2013 at 10:54 AM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I suppose, there must be some standards as to granting a leave...Obviously, protecting their own privileged positions is not a good reason for not granting a leave.
    NO: Protecting themselves and others privileged within the justice system is, when the Supreme Court consider it appropriate, a good reason for not granting leave to the Supreme Court.

    The judges of the Supreme Court consider section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 of:

    "Criteria for leave to appeal

    (1) The Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal to it unless it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.

    (2) It is necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine a proposed appeal if—

    (a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or

    (b) a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard; or ..."


    to mean it is not in the interest of justice for the public to officially know, by their Supreme Court decisions, that they or their fellow lower court justices, Crown Counsels, Crown Prosecutors or the Police are often corrupt.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is dreaming. Are there any dreamers out there?
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 17-11-2013 at 09:21 AM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    What should be done?
    What a 89 year old WW2 returned service man, who knows of the corruption, says should be done would result in a long jail sentence and that is all; the Judges know that and that in our society the public rely on the 'rule of law' and that's why the feel confident to carry on breaching the 'rule of law' that they are supposed to uphold.

    What can be done, is to continue the exposure of their corruption in the public arena so that eventually a group of honest politicians, who have some "guts", can fix the problem through Parliament. Contrary to what the Supreme Court Justices claim, by their decisions and conduct, Parliament makes the laws and is above the Supreme Court.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ugly Truth View Post
    They are not so keen on openness and transparency when the documentation would tend to incriminate them.
    Sick joke of our time: "The courtroom has been designed with a window which is visible from Lambton Quay, this is to symbolise the transparency of the court." That is the official description on the Supreme Court of NZ building and what it symbolises.

    No one told Parliament, who approved the $80M Supreme Court Building and who ditched the Privy Council, that the Judges of the Supreme Court treat this window as a 'one way' window looking out, thinking it conceals their belief in, and insistence on, lack of transparency (when they what to hide something from the mere public). It has worked for them to date, only they and their truly informed victims know otherwise. Such as victims resulting out of Attorney-General v Chapman SC 120/2009 [2011] NZSC 110.

    If anyone has time, read that decision to see what 'our' NZ Bill of Rights Act means to the majority of Supreme Court Judges [for those who do not have access to Court decisions - google NZLII, go to "databases", Supreme Court 2011, September 2011]. Please comment after you have read the decision [paragraph [193] of the decision means Supreme Court judges can ignore your rights under 'our' NZ Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court Judges have effectively ruled at [193] that they have total immunity if they breach your rights under the Act].
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 23-11-2013 at 12:30 PM.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Are judges in New Zealand sufficiently independent from the executive branch?
    As many NZ Judges are only honest 95% of the time, whether they are independent of the executive is irrelevant. As suggested above, spend the time and read Attorney-General v Chapman SC 120/2009 [2011] NZSC 110, then comment.

    The 'legal' executive has, of course, written the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Act (which Parliament passes in it's blissful ignorance) to ensure that Judges who are lacking in integrity in their decisions are not accountable to the Commissioner or anyone else [Appeal Courts will not as a unwritten rule deal with lack of integrity, no matter what substantial miscarriage of justice results from that lack of integrity]. So Judges of all courts are independent to do as they please, when they want to, to breach your rights to fair process and fair decisions [and many do to varying extents, as there are no official consequences]. That is why we have the "least corrupt justice system in the world" according to Judith Collins (Minister of Justice), as no one officially holds, or can hold, these Judges unacceptable conduct to account.

    That is why we, the mere public, are left to express our concerns and expose Judicial corruption on the unofficial system. There is no other solution.

    Does anyone have a better explanation as to why our judicial system can be so corrupt when it wants to be, yet claimed by the Minister and others in officialdom to be clear of corruption!!!!!!!!! Or am I and the mere informed public wrong and the Minister right?????
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 24-11-2013 at 09:28 AM.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    I read the decision. Are NZ judges sufficiently independent from the executive branch of the Crown?
    Officially yes, Judges are independent of the Crown. But in reality, as seen in the Supreme Court majority decision in Chapman, the Judges support the Crown to support themselves. As, if the Crown was always faced with civil action for financial compensation for Judges who continually breached our rights under the NZ Bill of Rights the Crown would have those Judges removed via the Commissioner process. Chapman blocks the Crown from facing civil action for those breaches of rights and in doing so protects the Judges from the Crown's backlash.

    The executive branch relating to the justice system controls the Crown in that area, so is in reality the Crown.

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
  •