Saturday, March 19, 2011
Letter to NZ Chief Justice New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
Sian Elias NZ Chief JusticeChristopher Mark WingateArklow Investments17 March 2011Chief Justice
Dame Sian Elias
Wellington Supreme Court
Subject: New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to Arklow vs Maclean, UKPC 51
Dear Ms Elias1. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) in Section 27 makes claim the Act offers certain fundamental protections. But I have found they don't and I would like your instructions to ensure the law is complied with.
2. NZBORA Section 27 states:
2.1 Sub-section (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
2.2 Sub-section (2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
3. The Court’s changed many key facts, one example.
4. In the High Court 1994 Justice Greig page 17 said,
“At no relevant time would Arklow-Wingate have been able to purchase and complete the transaction”
5. Then in the High Court 1997 Justice Temm page 5 said –
“By February Kanematsu were prepared to pay $15.75m”
6. But then Court of Appeal Justice Gault 1998 page 35 said–
“At no time was Kanematsu prepared to pay $15.75m for the 17-34 year forest”
7. Then in the Privy Council 1999, Justice Henry page 1 said –
“The relevant facts are fully set out in the majority judgment of Richardson P., Gault and Keith JJ. delivered by Gault J., and need not be repeated in detail “
8. The General Manager of Kanematsu Japan, Mr Steve Wilson gave supporting evidence in the High Court before Justice Paul Temm and produced onto the Court record the actual Kanematsu Japan board approved agreement to pay Arklow $15.75m for the 17-34 year forest.
9. The other evidence was from the CEO of Mr Peter Spencer’s investment group, which said they were ready to provide Arklow with whatever they needed to complete the deal.
10. It must be clear from the above information, which represents just one example of many, that the Judges got critical facts wrong. Therefore I would like your directions for obtaining a Judicial Review or directions for a new appeal.
11. For more details please see- http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/sir-peter-tapsell-asked-me-to-snapshot.html
SincerelyChristopher Mark Wingate
Arklow Investments
NZ Crimes Act 1961 No 43- Section 29
29 Irregular warrant or process
(1) Every one acting under a warrant or process that is bad in law on account of some defect in substance or in form, apparent on the face of it, shall be protected from criminal responsibility to the same extent and subject to the same provisions as if the warrant or process were good in law if in good faith and without culpable ignorance or negligence he believed that the warrant or process was good in law; and ignorance of the law shall in this case be an excuse.(2) It is a question of law whether the facts of which there is evidence do or do not constitute culpable ignorance or negligence in his so believing the warrant or process to be good in law.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 50
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328242.html
Friday, March 18, 2011
QUOTE OF THE WEEK: From Kiwis First
" If you got a New Zealand court judgment stating you were Chinese and owned a fish shop in Hong Kong, you would think it would be easy to just pop down to the court with your passport to show the judges they were wrong - but the fact is they would not have any interest in the facts because they decide what a fact is and if they say you are Chinese then you are stuck with their mistake and you can't do anything about it." - Christopher Wingate
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Sir Peter Tapsell asked me to snapshot my complaint & the NZ Bill of "No" Rights
Why is New Zealand failing, now the 3rd most indebted nation is the OECD.The New Zealand Prime Minister John Key wants the country developed into an international financial hub. But the Ministry of Economic Development first want Magna Carta type overhauls."There's been a whole series of advice coming from MED which basically says 'if you want to do this, you've got to deliver the Magna Carta of documents'," Key told the International Business Forum audience.Craig Stobo - who chairs the Government-appointed group which was tasked with working out how an international funds services industry could be created here has stressed important issues must first be faced. "The country must ensure investor protection standards are adequate and it must promote the quality of the NZ Government regime."Is New Zealand in need of a fiduciary overhaul at the highest levels?Have some of our leaders become a club that protect eachother and to heck with all else ?
Professor Peter Spiller
"Thanks for sending this to me: it makes disturbing reading."
Sir Peter Tapsell August 2009
“I have read your submission from cover to cover and I agree with you completely. You have formulated a cohesive and articulate argument and backed it up. I cannot believe the government has not done something about it, it’s appalling.”
Retired Australian High Court Justice Michael Kirby
" I also enjoyed the dissenting opinions of Justice Ted Thomas. He is often ahead of the game."
Professor Paul Finn
“The most fundamental fiduciary relationship in our society is manifestly that which exists between the community (the people) and the state, its agencies and officials.”
Justice Paul Temm
“To put the matter is the vernacular, the defendants pinched the plaintiffs’ information and knowledge, used it for themselves and walked away with a pocketful of money leaving the plaintiffs lamenting”
Christopher Wingate
"I think it's a travesty of justice that in this particular case, the defendants have been able to fight me using teams of powerful lawyers paid for by stolen money."
Appealing Crown Failure and InjusticeSince the Privy Council decision by NZ judge John Henry in December 1999 every Attorney General and Minister of Justice have ignored my complaints that the judiciary at our highest levels woefully failed in the Matakana Island litigation.
Since then 232,000 New Zealanders have lost $8.5 billion they thought was safely on deposit. One of the defendants in this case played a part in those losses after being let off by certain judges.
The NZ Chief Justice also ignored my complaints that Justice Henry was a business partner of Alan Galbraith QC, legal counsel for the defendants.
So what is the link?
Alan Galbraith QC
Justice John Henry
Sir Peter Tapsell
Last week former Speaker Sir Peter Tapsell called me asking how things are going and for me to snapshot the complaint I will be taking to the Prime Minister and Cabinet in May 2011 regarding the Matakana Island litigation.I replied -
"People have an expectation and a right that judges would be accurate and unbiased. In my case they were not, they failed. Not only did they knowingly make judgment statements that were totally wrong, they ignored the law that provided me legal protection.They clearly had an agenda which has turned out to be a disaster.
The bottom line is they failed in every sense and although the Bill of Rights guarantees a fair trial the very judicial structure that failed me then decides if they are guilty of any failure so they ignore all complaints. Politicians are told by lawyers that 'Separation of Power' prevents them from dealing with complaints about judicial failure yet separation is not a rule and if it was it is already breached by the very fact that lawyers control the rules to all 3 hands on the power."
I also said to Peter-
"If you got a judgment that said you were Chinese and owned a fish shop in Hong Kong, you would think it would be easy to just pop down to the court with your passport to show the judges they were wrong- but the fact is they would not have any interest in the facts because they decide what a fact is and if they say you are Chinese then you are stuck with their mistake and you can't do anything about it."
Below is an extract from a Law Fuel interview - http://kiwiwingate.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-zealand-herald-article.html
“The Court’s changed many key facts- an example”
In the High Court 1994 Justice Greig page 17 said,
“At no relevant time would Arklow-Wingate have been able to purchase and complete the transaction”Then in the High Court 1997 Justice Temm page 5 said –
“By February Kanematsu were prepared to pay $15.75m”But then Court of Appeal Justice Gault 1998 page 35 said–
“At no time was Kanematsu prepared to pay $15.75m for the 17-34 year forest”Then in the Privy Council 1999, Justice Henry page 1 said –
“The relevant facts are fully set out in the majority judgment of Richardson P., Gault and Keith JJ. delivered by Gault J., and need not be repeated in detail “Mr Wingate said it’s a scandal what the judges said when we look at the evidence. For example the general manager of Kanematsu Steve Wilson in the High Court trial said and produced the actual board approved deal agreeing to pay $15.75m.
The other evidence was from the CEO of Peter Spencer’s investment group, which said they were ready to provide Arklow with whatever they needed to complete the deal.
So when asked why didn’t Arklow do the deal with Spencer? “Because FAR Financial beat us to the deal by using our stolen business plans”
The last statement- "Far Financial stole our deal", has had some lawyers state- "But the Appeal Court found they didn't." The judgments of Temm, Fisher and Thomas make the facts very very clear. The judgments finding for the defendants don't contain correct facts or law.The Court of Appeal judges simply chose to ignore them to ensure the merchant bank escaped guilt to ensure the Maori group of TeKotukutuku retained the land they had obtained from the bank. The Maori company got to this point through stealing (see Craig and Co link) my information, perjury, false sacred claims, extortion, blackmail and violence. The pretended to be gaining the land for the people of NgaiTeRangi for charitable purposes, that was false. They have since sold the land and the Maori leadership who were authors of the affidavits have pocketed millions.
The Maori company got the land from Far Financial who has stolen the deal from my company Arklow.
The details of those Maori actions can be read in detail in my 1994 High Court affidavit which contained comprehensive evidence in support of my allegations.
Some of the damage so far*The death of Sonny Tawhiao- http://matakanamurder.blogspot.com/
*$75m from the NgaiTeRangi community stolen by their leadership
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/05/tekotukutuku-shareholders-note.html*The escape from prosecution of a crooked merchant bank Far Financial who then set up Lombard
*The loss to Lombard investors of $130m -
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/04/nz-securities-commission-has-laid.html*The end of a $17b development -
http://matakanadevelopment.blogspot.com/*The loss to family of our home, business and more than $5m in litigation
Is New Zealand Corrupt or Negligent?
Yesterday in the Law Management blog, I wrote two articles on the problem that highlight the problem and suggest the removal of crown and judicial immunity to force the Attorney General to act ethically as a fiduciary. But NZ is full of comflicts of interest. In this case compounding the problem is the fact the current Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson has a conflcit of interest.
Apart from personal friendships he was a former partner at law firm Bell Gully who were and are lawyers for Matakana Island defendants USA mega giant ITT Rayonier who made nearly $20m from this transaction. Finlayson was Partner at Bell Gully 1991-2003- the Matakana litigation was 1993-2000
NZ Attorney General Christopher FinlaysonThe PM has been warned by the Ministry of Economic Development -
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/nz-prime-minister-advised-government.html
Lord Styne who chaired the Privy Council in Arklow vs Maclean, said in a speech to the Attlee Foundation that people who manage our country’s are subject to making mistakes. He said, “It is contrary to the constitutional principle on which our nation is founded that Her Majesty’s courts must always be open to all, citizens and foreigners alike, who seek just redress of perceived wrongs.”But yet again, like the Bill of Rights, the words simply don't generate a reaction from the people who are in charge of the Government's power. Quite simply they will ignore their mistakes and there are no rights of appeal.
The problem's facing NZ- networks
The defendants, Far Financial and Te Kotukutuku's legal team. From the left David Abbott (now judge), John Moody, John Eichelbaum ( son of Chief Justice Sir Thomas) and Alan Galbraith QC.Hidden from view is Former Dean of Auckland law school Professor Julie Maxton.All being paid for by stolen money.See the Judicial connections- http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/matakana-nz-supreme-justice-club-top-qc.html
See the story with links- http://worldeconomy-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/billionaires-millionaires-why-invest-in.html
Ian Smith Far Financial CEO
In 2003 the Attorney General’s office stated High Court proceedings were underway and could not to talk with me about the Matakana issues. I assumed they were listening to my complaints. In 2004 I received photographs of Attorney-General Margaret Wilson and PM Helen Clark attending a wedding of the very people I was asking them to investigate. The High Court then informed me no such proceedings were underway since Arklow vs Maclean.
Matakana Island
Defendant Far Financial's Mr Smith's former business partner is barrister John Eichelbaum, son of Sir Thomas the former New Zealand Chief Justice. John Eichelbaum's partner; Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and current head of the Law Commission. Mr Palmer was professor of law at Victoria University with Sir Kenneth Keith and Sir Ivor Richardson president of the Court of Appeal who allowed correct High Court findings to be changed allowing Far Financial to win.Patricia Fordyce a lawyer working for ITT Rayonier told Sir Peter Tapsell and myself that her manager of ITT Rayonier Charles Margiotta, had given the High Court false evidence; and that he had perjured himself in order to protect ITT's $20m profit.
After the July 1999 Sonny Tawhiao was killed and after the December 1999 Privy Council decision win, the Maori leadership and its accountant Graham Ingham transferred most of the shares into their own personal names and then in 2007 sold out for $75m despite endless claims the Matakana land was sacred and covered in burial sites which they falsely used to gain sympathy from the Courts and various Government Ministers who supported them in Court with their applications to defeat me. The Ngai TeRangi tribe got nothing and the Waitangi claims of Sonny Tawhiao have continued despite assurances by senior Maori that if the Crown helped them obtain Matakana the claims would cease.
After the Privy Council one of my lawyers Brian Foote found a criminal conviction registered in my name on the police and courts national data base. I don't have any criminal convictions. It was placed there before the Court of Appeal and there during the Privy Council hearing stating I had given false information to police and that I had been convicted of it. When raised with the courts, it was immediately removed.
Democracy or what?
Government is a trust structure owned by the people for the supply of certain services. Like any trust structure, those who accept jobs become a fiduciary, and owe a duty of care to the people who have trusted them with their care.
Politicians, judges and managers of government are saying to the people “trust us with our decisions and expertise”. Although they work for the people, they have taken it upon themselves to be the only fiduciaries with immunity. They are saying they are allowed to fail their duty of care.
The judicial oath is a fiduciary undertaking. Yet judicial immunity laws will stop any claim they failed. No right to appeal. Handed down from the days where the king claimed he could do no wrong in the service of the people, the law of crown and judicial immunity give special protection to the people who ask us to trust them to manage our country.
Is that democracy, could this be the cause of our problems?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NZ Bill of RightsThe words outline a citizen has the right to a fair trial. Yet the words don't have any teeth and this is what is scaring investment away from NZ. And it raises very serious questions about the democratic political and legal processes operating in New Zealand.
Attorney-General to report to Parliament where Bill appears to be inconsistent with Bill of Rights
· Where any Bill is introduced into the House of Representatives, the Attorney-General shall,—
(a) In the case of a Government Bill, on the introduction of that Bill; or
(b) In any other case, as soon as practicable after the introduction of the Bill,—
bring to the attention of the House of Representatives any provision in the Bill that appears to be inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights.
Application to legal persons
· Except where the provisions of this Bill of Rights otherwise provide, the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, so far as practicable, for the benefit of all legal persons as well as for the benefit of all natural persons.
Right to justice
· (1) Every person has the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority which has the power to make a determination in respect of that person's rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law.
(2) Every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.
(3) Every person has the right to bring civil proceedings against, and to defend civil proceedings brought by, the Crown, and to have those proceedings heard, according to law, in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals.Further reading and background facts see-
http://courtsofappeal.blogspot.com/2007/11/paper-trail.html
http://courtsofappeal.blogspot.com/2007/11/judicial-negligence.htmlColin James hit only one nail- Fiduciary legislation needs to be applied to them all- Politicians and Judges
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/colin-james-hit-only-one-nail-fiduciary.htmlCraig and Company steal our information and share it with the Maori group
http://matakanaleadership.blogspot.com/2007/11/craig-and-company-steal-arklow.htmlThe Vince Siemer case- the judiciary jailing and shutting down those who challenge them
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/vince-siemer-and-why-investment-will.html
NZ Chief Justice criticism of Government's reforms of the criminal justice system
The Chief Justice has made a stinging criticism of the Government's sweeping reforms of the criminal justice system.
Dame Sian Elias' objections - revealed in a submission to Parliament's justice and electoral committee - place the Government and the judiciary firmly at loggerheads.Dame Sian said the proposed changes were being made too quickly and threatened a defendant's long-standing right not to help the prosecution.
The reforms are in the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill, which is before the committee.
The bill would, among other things, require lawyers of the accused to disclose their defences - including any issues in dispute - to the prosecution in advance of a trial.
Failure to do so would mean the judge or jury could take an adverse view of the defendant, and it could also lead to sanctions against the accused and their lawyers.
Dame Sian said she had "grave concerns" the provisions were "contrary to longstanding principle, being inconsistent with a defendant's right" not to volunteer information that might help the prosecution.
"I appreciate that some defendants and counsel are guilty of abusing the system but, on balance, the judiciary is not persuaded that this provides good reason for the departure from basic principle, which is involved in any requirement for advance disclosure of an intended defence," she said in her submission.
Sanctions would also be ineffective and impractical because of "uncertainty about whether the abuse of the system is the fault of the defendant or of counsel", she said.
Dame Sian also objected to the speed with which the bill, which signals significant changes, was being progressed.
"It has been a matter of concern that the reform has been developed under such tight time constraints."
The bill's provisions about pre-trial procedures still had many gaps, and "in the present state of the bill, it is impossible adequately to address the many issues arising".
The bill would also change the threshold for electing a jury trial - from offences carrying a maximum sentence of three months to three years - and change the rules for name suppression.
Dame Sian's submission was made in consultation with the president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Mark O'Regan, and Chief High Court Judge Helen Winkelmann, representing the "view of the judiciary".
The New Zealand Law Society and criminal lawyers have also strongly criticised the bill, though many also believe some reform is necessary.
District Court judges have also made a joint submission to the committee, saying the pre-trial requirements empower the prosecution with "an unprecedented opportunity to refine its case in the light of issues it may not have considered".
The submission does not take a stance on whether this would be a good or a bad thing.
The committee is due to report back by the end of May.
It is not the first time Dame Sian has taken aim at the Government. In a 2009 speech she criticised the punitive approach to the criminal justice system and suggested granting amnesty to some prisoners to relieve New Zealand's bulging prisons.
See Chief Justice submission- http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/3B5775F7-696A-4009-9155-5A95BA81EBF4/187527/49SCJE_EVI_00DBHOH_BILL10451_1_A174996_ChiefJustic.pdf
See the Bill- http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Legislation/Bills/b/0/d/00DBHOH_BILL10451_1-Criminal-Procedure-Reform-and-Modernisation-Bill.htm
----------------------------------NZ Law Society Article
Debate needed on criminal justice system goals
A Bill which will make significant changes to criminal procedure in New Zealand is premature and there should first be a serious debate about what our criminal justice system can deliver, New Zealand Law Society President Jonathan Temm says.Presenting the Law Society’s submission on the Criminal Procedure (Reform and Modernisation) Bill to Parliament’s Justice and Electoral select committee, Mr Temm said until there was agreement on the principles underpinning the criminal justice system, the present piecemeal approach would continue.
http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/35146/criminal-procedure_-reform-modernisation.pdf“Reforms to the criminal justice system don’t seem to have any coherent or unifying philosophy. Take the Sentencing Act 2002, for example. This was amended in 2003, 2004, twice in 2006, twice in 2007, again in 2008, five times in 2009, and twice in 2010. Every piece of our criminal justice legislation like the Bail Act and Parole Act has a similar history,” Mr Temm said.
“The criminal justice system is being treated a bit like a bone which legislators are gnawing on. The underlying principles are not clear and we need a mature discussion which brings together all points of view on where we should be going. If we go ahead and make the changes in the present Bill, we will be cast in cement boots for the next 20 years and inevitably continue with piecemeal amendments to it every year.”
The Law Society’s written submission to the committee also highlighted its concern that measures in the Bill may threaten some of the long-established rights at the heart of this country’s justice system.
Mr Temm said the select committee should consider whether changes proposed by the Bill were a proportionate response to the drive for greater efficiencies in the criminal trial process.
“Efficiency gains should not be at the expense of rights such as the right to a fair trial,” Mr Temm said. “The Bill is proposing to amend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to restrict the right to trial by jury contained in clause 24(e). This is the first time ever that there has been an amendment to such a right as contained in that Act.”
The Law Society’s submission stated that there was no clear evidence of significant cost savings from raising the threshold for the right to trial by jury from offences carrying a maximum penalty of more than three months’ imprisonment, to more than three years. Such a fundamental change to a well-entrenched right for an undefined and unknown minor efficiency benefit was worrying.
Looking at other matters in the Bill where the New Zealand Law Society saw problems, Mr Temm said the introduction of a regime requiring the defence to identify disputed issues (“DIDI”) was a “fundamental change” in New Zealand criminal law. It reversed the traditional rule that the prosecution had to prove every matter relating to an offence.
“Like the efficiency argument made to raise the jury trial threshold, this proposal places the efficient management of criminal trials ahead of the concepts of participation and due process,” he said.
“The Law Society believes that most criminal lawyers do not support the DIDI regime, although some lawyers are in support. We believe that there needs to be a much more detailed examination of the arguments for and against before a DIDI regime is introduced.”
Other areas where the Bill challenged or impinged on rights enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act included the defendant’s right to be present at hearings and the introduction of two exceptions to the double jeopardy rule.
“Again, the New Zealand Law Society urges Parliament to carefully consider whether the impact of the Bill on centuries-old rights is really justified and whether there is hard evidence that suggested efficiencies will really eventuate.”
The Law Society’s 45-page submission on the Bill also provided specific comments on each of 112 clauses. As well as noting ways in which the clauses could be drafted to better achieve their purpose, the comments point out inconsistencies and potential problems with interpretation.
Unsung Hero Vince Siemer & Why investment will not return to bankrupt New Zealand - "Corruption"
Family man Vince SiemerNot many New Zealanders know American born businessman, Vince Siemer, but they should.If you own a business, are worried about unemployment, inflation, mounting debt or simply can't pay your weekly bills, you need to understand that Vince Siemer is taking live bullets from a corrupt system while fighting for a fair deal for all New Zealanders. The man is a national unsung hero.
The well connected corruption machine of NZ has shut down as much media as they can on his fight and the issues detailing the events to date. But those of us outside that controlled circle are facinated by the level of corruption and abuse of power being hurled in Mr Siemer's direction by an entrenched well networked legal establishment.Working against Vince are the powerful judges, lawyers and lazy or corrupt politicians who are working to protect their own. The story is incredible and seriously underlines why New Zealand is bankrupt - corruption.
While the rich are getting richer, families all over NZ are suffering.
I attach various quotes from Vince Siemer
I personally have been imprisoned 3 times in a maximum security prison as a result of what I publish on my website. Only the first time did the court tell me what passages they did not like. That 'trial' was set on three weeks notice after I told the Court I would be out of the country for the month of July 2007. It was held ex-parte and I was arrested and sent to prison upon my return from the U.S. The last time (SC48/2009 [2010] NZSC 54) the Supreme Court sent me to prison based solely upon the unsworn submissions of Crown counsel after I appealed a High Court order that I "unconditionally shut down" my website when I formally requested to know what passages I was being sent to prison for publishing. This is currently the subject of a UNHRC complaint. The Solicitor General threatened my webhost with prosecution and my site is now hosted out of the U.K.
The Solicitor General is now seeking my fourth imprisonment because I breached a suppression order in the 'terrorist' prosecution of the Urerewa 14 (large public protests eventually reduced the charges from terrorism to various gang and weapons charges). The Crown judge ruled not to allow trial by jury on the basis the trial is likely to be long and a jury would "likely use improper reasoning processes" when making its decision. As is becoming increasingly common, Her Honour did not actually order suppression in her decision. A "rubber stamp" suppression wording was superimposed on the intituling page. It should be noted that the defendants are largely indigenous Maori and the United Nations Human Rights Committee has an open file on the alleged rights abuses engaged in by the State in the arrests.
One of the biggest problems we have in New Zealand is the absence of an independent Bar. The New Zealand Law Society refuses to take a stand for statute when judicial discretion in the higher courts contravenes it. In recent years the Judges have routinely directed the Law Society prosecute lawyers simply because they raise the alarm of what is occuring. They are charged with conduct unbefitting a lawyer. The charges are often eventually dropped but only after the lawyer spends considerable time and money defending the action. The message gets through to other lawyers.
The Courts here have always been more parochial than law respecting. However, since the loss of the Privy Council in 2004 - which was the only real check on judicial fiat NZ had -the downward spiral is tightening. We now have a situation where there are "rumours of laws" rather than actual laws.
I will be filing a writ of Habeas Corpus, as well as a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. My affidavit and evidence in support of this Habeas Corpus application show how dangerous challenges to the rule of law in New Zealand are actually coming from judges whose rulings are largely issued in a vacuum and who are never held accountable for contravening fundamental laws which protect us all.
Not one judge has identified any content since 2007 which breaches the injunction. But because Solicitor General David Collins misled the Court in bringing the contempt charge against me in 2008, and I was actually sent to prison as a result, the Judges have perverted the law and ignored this evidence in order to protect David Collins from criminally misleading the Court, while giving the false impression that I am not credible, as well as a lawbreaker. The judges' aim is a political one: to shut down this legal news website because it provides valuable information to the New Zealand public on the often furtive and overtly prejudicial operations of the judiciary.
My appeal to the Supreme Court was not for a reduction of sentence. My appeal was for acquittal on the grounds nothing on this website breaches any injunction or, alternatively, for a new trial based upon the Court unlawfully denying me a trial by jury. Rejigging the penalty to three months was a cunning contravention by the Supreme Court of s24(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which guarantees citizens facing more than 3 months prison the right to trial by jury. This move by the Country's highest judges to morph a Court of Appeal ruling simply to evade statutory law - a change neither party asked for - is an alarming affront to the rule of law. The message is that judicial whim is the true law in New Zealand.
"New Zealand judges are collectively manipulating facts, distributing propaganda, concealing the truth, ignoring the law and helping each other to cover-up widespread abuses of power". Mr Siemer's memorandum concludes;
"Irrespective of the Court’s intervention to conceal what is occurring, David Collins submissions in this persecution (dated 21 October but filed on 6 November 2009), and his previous persecution of the respondent in June 2008, establish an indelible record of the travesty which is common in the New Zealand Courts but not being reported by New Zealand media because they are either unaware due to the secretive nature of the NZ Court or fear the same fate".
Over the last month, many have asked what they can do about either my maltreatment by certain judges or the general failures of our Courts to follow established law or allow accurate reporting of evidence. Until we find ourselves one day in the NZ Courts it is impossible to imagine this could be the problem it is. As the Berryman case proves, a 14 year tenacious effort is often required merely to get the right to present accurate evidence. The reasons we do not hear of more cases like the Berrymans is simple; it is rare for anyone to stand up 14 years for justice.
Articles on Vince
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/07/judicial-corruption-leads-to-hunger.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2009/11/vince-siemer-jailed-father-fighting-for.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2008/08/letter-from-vince-siemer.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2008/08/siemer-saga.html
Christopher Wingate
Today I sent this message to a well known international Professor of Law and Vince Siemer.Sir Peter Tapsell called me last week asking how things are going and asked me to snapshot my complaint I will be taking to the Prime Minister and Cabinet in May. This is what I said -
"People have an expectation and a right that judges would be accurate and unbiased. In my case they were not, they failed. Not only did they knowingly make judgment statements that were totally wrong, they ignored the law that provided me legal protection.They clearly had an agenda which has turned out to be a disaster. The bottom line is they failed in every sense and although the Bill of Rights guarantees a fair trial the very judicial structure that failed me then decides if they are guilty of any failure so they ignore all complaints. Politicians are told by lawyers that Separation of Power stops them from dealing with complaints about judicial failure yet separation is already breached by the very fact that lawyers control the rules to all 3 hands on the power."
I further said to Peter- "If you got a judgment that said you were Chinese and owned a fish shop in Hong Kong, you would think it would be easy to just pop down to the court with your passport to show the judges they were wrong- but the fact is they would not have any interest in the facts because they decide what a fact is and if they say you are Chinese then you are stuck with their mistake and you can't do anything about it."
From Law Fuel interview -
http://kiwiwingate.blogspot.com/2008/09/new-zealand-herald-article.html“The Court’s changed many key facts, an example”
In the High Court 1994 Justice Greig page 17 said,
“At no relevant time would Arklow-Wingate have been able to purchase and complete the transaction”
Then in the High Court 1997 Justice Temm page 5 said –
“By February Kanematsu were prepared to pay $15.75m”
But then Court of Appeal Justice Gault 1998 page 35 said–
“At no time was Kanematsu prepared to pay $15.75m for the 17-34 year forest”
Then in the Privy Council 1999, Justice Henry page 1 said –
“The relevant facts are fully set out in the majority judgment of Richardson P., Gault and Keith JJ. delivered by Gault J., and need not be repeated in detail “
Mr Wingate said it’s a scandal what the judges said when we look at the evidence. For example the general manager of Kanematsu Steve Wilson in the High Court trial said and produced the actual board approved deal agreeing to pay $15.75m. The other evidence was from the CEO of Peter Spencer’s investment group, which said they were ready to provide Arklow with whatever they needed to complete the deal.
So when asked why didn’t Arklow do the deal with Spencer? “Because FAR beat us to it the deal”
$17 billion deal stolenhttp://matakanadevelopment.blogspot.com/
NZ Law = Cashflow monopoly zero justice- "A rigged system"http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/legal-profession-works-as-business-not.html
The defendants contacts
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/matakana-nz-supreme-justice-club-top-qc.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/12/letter-to-michael-kirby-ac-cmg-on-human.htmlWhy investment will not come to New Zealand and why NZ is bankrupt- corruption
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/nz-prime-minister-advised-government.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/colin-james-hit-only-one-nail-fiduciary.html
http://worldeconomy-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/billionaires-millionaires-why-invest-in.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/08/article-feedback-billionaires.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/10/nz-attorney-general-democracy-means.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/10/judicial-complaints-any-factual-wrongs.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/11/paul-holmes-nz-judges-none-too-mighty.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/few-years-ago-close-and-very-friends.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/04/sir-ted-thomas-attacks-judicial.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2009/11/tip-of-ice-berg-nz-report-on-corruption.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/04/nz-more-corruption-cover-up-top-lawyers.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/02/nz-corruption-cover-up-why-nz-citizens.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/02/justice-henry-and-david-baragwanath.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/02/proposed-bill-eliminates-sovereign.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-on-judicial-immunity.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/02/suing-judges-study-of-judicial-immunity.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/02/removing-immunity.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2009/12/nz-judges-in-conflict-tip-of-ice-berg.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2009/09/legal-aid-in-nz.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2008/07/complaints-about-judges-in-australia.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2009/02/separation-of-power-blocks-justice.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2008/07/judges-making-law.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-watches-watchman.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2009/01/appealing-to-parliament-in-arklow-vs.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/05/nz-herald-editorial-judges-should-make.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/05/that-attorney-general-geoffrey-palmer.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/05/nz-government-system-of-democracy-this.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/05/martin-armstrong-on-judicial-immunity.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/06/lawyer-protection-rackets.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/06/are-lawyers-battlers-for-justice-or.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/06/dangerous-judiciary-law-needs-to-be.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/03/political-gifts-bribes-being-offered-in.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/02/financial-catastrophe-may-be-looming.htmlMaori claims destroy investment
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/05/tekotukutuku-shareholders-note.html
Maori murder and cover-up
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/04/part-of-my-report-to-police-re-sonny.html
http://matakanamurder.blogspot.com/NZ's most powerful stockbroker Neil Craig caught stealing a clients deal
http://matakanaleadership.blogspot.com/2007/11/craig-and-company-steal-arklow.htmlhttp://idiotsinpower.blogspot.com/2010/08/john-key-so-my-mates-and-i-want-your.html
How the crown staff will destroy your investment
http://idiotsinpower.blogspot.com/2010/02/brendan-mulholland-kiwi-village-idiot.html
*The ABC Interview - the film
*The NZ Government submission Fiduciary Protection Law www.med.govt.nz/upload/70165/37.PDF
The political machine is part of the cover-up system
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/09/gabrielle-obrien-regional-deputy-chair.htmlhttp://www.kiwisfirst.com/news.asp?pageID=2145848073&RefID=2141732554
http://idiotsinpower.blogspot.com/2010/08/dear-gerry-nz-minister-for-economic.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0805/S00032.htm
http://www.blogger.com/profile/16358512562693562856
http://idiotsinpower.blogspot.com/2010/09/regulatory-failure-costs-kiwi-investors.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2011/02/saving-new-zealand-objective-here-is.htmlhttp://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/06/australialaw-bill-to-stop-leeching.html
http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/2010/09/disbarred-75-year-old-lawyer-barbara.html
Saturday, 19 March 2011
Law Management New Zealand - http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/
Flickr - projectbrainsaver
www.flickr.com
|
