Saturday, 19 March 2011

Iran gets one-up on online dissdent? - UPI.com WARNING READ THIS

Iran gets one-up on online dissdent?

Published: March. 18, 2011 at 5:43 PM
Comments (0)
Print
Listen

LONDON, March 18 (UPI) -- Iran appears to have developed a system for identifying computer users on a network designed to block surveillance, a member of the Tor Project says.

Tor software, distributed free, hides computer IP addresses and encrypts e-mail and other communication on the Internet. The software was originally developed at a U.S. military lab and is now open source.

Andrew Lewman, Tor's executive director, said Iran apparently has obtained Deep Packet Inspection, equipment that allows the reading of Internet traffic as it is transmitted. He said Tor has known for years it was vulnerable but did not take steps to thwart that type of technology in advance.

"We're trying to have an arms race really slowly," he said.

Lewman said the number of Tor users in Iran more than doubled to 2,800 after the 2009 presidential election. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election to a second term was widely perceived as fraudulent and it set off a wave of protest in Tehran and some other cities.

Iran now appears to have advanced a step beyond China in its ability to track or block dissidents online, Lewman said.

The March Equinox Explained

The March Equinox Explained

The March equinox will occur on March 20 in 2011, marking the beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere and fall (autumn) in the southern hemisphere from an astronomical viewpoint. The March equinox will occur at 23:21 (or 11:21pm) at Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on this date.


This illustration, which shows an example only of the March equinox, is not to scale.

Twice a year, around March 20 or 21 and September 22 or 23, the sun shines directly on the equator and the length of day and night are nearly equal in all parts of the world. These two days are known as the March(vernal or spring in the northern hemisphere) equinox and the September equinox.

To find the March equinox date in other time zones or other years, please use the Seasons Calculator.

What does equinox mean?

The word “equinox” derives from the Latin words meaning “equal night” and refers to the time when the sun crosses the equator. At such times, day and night are everywhere of nearly equal length everywhere in the world.

It is important to note that while the March equinox marks the beginning of spring in the northern hemisphere, it is the start of autumn in many parts of the southern hemisphere.

March Equinox Explained

The March equinox is the movement when the sun crosses the true celestial equator – or the line in the sky above the earth’s equator – from south to north, around March 20 (or March 21) of each year. At that time, day and night are balanced to nearly 12 hours each all over the world and the earth’s axis of rotation is perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the earth and the sun.

In gyroscopic motion, the earth’s rotational axis migrates in a slow circle based as a consequence of the moon’s pull on a nonspherical earth. This nearly uniform motion causes the position of the equinoxes to move backwards along the ecliptic in a period of about 25,725 years.

Nearly Equal?

During the equinox, the length of night and day across the world is nearly, but not entirely, equal. This is because the day is slightly longer in places that are further away from the equator, and because the sun takes longer to rise and set in these locations. Furthermore, the sun takes longer to rise and set farther from the equator because it does not set straight down - it moves in a horizontal direction.

Moreover, there is an atmospheric refraction that causes the sun's disk to appear higher in the sky than it would if earth had no atmosphere. timeanddate.com has a more detailed explanation on this topic. timeanddate.com has more information on why day and night are not exactly of equal length during the equinoxes.

During the March equinox, the length of daylight is about 12 hours and eight to nine minutes in areas that are about 30 degrees north or south of the equator, while areas that are 60 degrees north or south of the equator observe daylight for about 12 hours and 16 minutes. Many regions around the equator have a daylight length about 12 hours and six-and-a-half minutes during the March equinox.

Moreover, one day does not last for the exact same 24 hours across the world and due to time zone differences, there could be a small difference in the daylight length between a far-eastern and far-western location on the same latitude, as the sun moves further north during 24 hours. For more information, find out the length of day in a particular city. Select a location in the drop-down menu below to find out the length of day around the time of the March equinox.

Vernal Equinox vs. Autumnal Equinox

The vernal equinox occurs in the spring while the autumnal equinox occurs during fall (autumn). These terms are derivatives of Latin. It is important to note that the northern hemisphere’s vernal equinox is in March while its autumnal equinox is in September. In contrast, the southern hemisphere’s vernal equinox is in September and its autumnal equinox is in March.

This distinction reflects the seasonal differences when comparing the two hemispheres. timeanddate.com refers to the two equinoxes simply as the March and September equinoxes to avoid false assumptions that spring is in March and fall (autumn) is in September worldwide. This is simply not the case.

Historical Fact

A Greek astronomer and mathematician named Hipparchus (ca. 190-ca.120 BCE) was attributed by various sources to have discovered the precession of the equinoxes, the slow movement among the stars of the two opposite places where the sun crosses the celestial equator. Hipparchus made observations of the equinox and solstice. However, the difference between the sidereal and tropical years (the precession equivalent) was known to Aristarchus of Samos (around 280 BCE) prior to this.

Astronomers use the spring equinoctial point to define their frame of reference, and the movement of this point implies that the measured position of a star varies with the date of measurement. Hipparchus also compiled a star catalogue, but this has been lost.

March Equinox across Cultures

In the northern hemisphere the March equinox marks the start of spring and has long been celebrated as a time of rebirth. Many cultures and religions celebrate or observe holidays and festivals around the time of the March equinox, such as the Easter holiday period.

The astronomical Persian calendar begins its New Year on the day when the March equinox occurs before apparent noon (the midpoint of the day, sundial time, not clock time) in Tehran. The start of the New Year is postponed to the next day if the equinox is after noon.

Advertising

Astronomy calculators

More information

Calendar tools

Related time zone tools

Matakana Murder Coverup - New Zealand

The official police report suggests- Sonny took a can of petrol from his boot of his car, removed his green knitted top and both gumboots and set fire to them at the rear right wheel. Police suggest he lit the petrol first then threw the top and boots into those flames. He then poured petrol throughout the interior of the car and then poured petrol under the boot leading up to the left front door which was left slightly ajar. He then put the petrol can into his boot. Police say he then got into the car and lit the car on fire.

New Study Shows Most Americans Are Unhappy… | Bit Rebels

New Study Shows Most Americans Are Unhappy [Infographic]

03/19/2011 - 10:00 am By Diana Adams

United States of Unhappy People

This is sad to me. Actually, I think it’s the definition of sad. I live in America, and I’m happy. Do you live here? Are you happy? I guess when I ponder this question more, I realize that most people I know dislike their job, they have an unbalanced life, some of their relationships are in disarray, and they need a vacation. So, perhaps that contributes to the unhappiness found in this recent study.

The last time Gallup did a satisfaction survey in the States, it was 2008. Back then, people were unhappy. However, when they did the same survey in 2011, they found that the unhappiness reached an all time low.

Only 77% of people are satisfied with their overall quality of life. Of course, we have to consider the parameters of the study. Only 1,018 people were questioned for this survey, and it was a telephone survey. If you are like me, you are annoyed when someone calls to survey you on the phone, which in my opinion, could have skewed the answers. How can 1,018 people possibly be a representation of the whole country? According to Gallup, it is with only a +/- 4% error. Since they are experts in their field, I suppose we’ll just have to take their word for it.

This infographic below created by GOOD and Column Five Media details the information in an easy to read format. If you are an unhappy person, here are a few articles which might cheer you up: 10 Reasons to Smile, Happiness is a Choice, The 5 Characteristics of a Happy Person, Add Some Sunshine to Your Life Today!

Click Here For The Enlarged Image

Americans Are Unhappy and Dissatisfied

More Articles By Diana Adams | Articles: 1225

Author Avatar Image Representation

Author: Diana Adams

By day, Diana is a mac geek and the CEO/owner of Adams Consulting Group, Inc. in Atlanta, Georgia (part of the Apple certified consultants network). By night, she lives and breathes by writing. “I could write all night every night and not get tired of it. I think that is when you know you’ve tapped into a true passion." Diana also spends time assisting homeless men and women. She loves extra hot chicken wings, coffee, Star Wars and anything made out of Lego. You can find her on Twitter at @adamsconsulting or on email at diana@bitrebels.com.

Law Management New Zealand - http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com/

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Letter to NZ Chief Justice New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

Sian Elias NZ Chief Justice

Christopher Mark Wingate

Arklow Investments

17 March 2011

Chief 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 Elias

1. 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


Sincerely

Christopher 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

Our Currency Under Question- Words vs Text

Click to enlarge

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 Injustice

Since 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 Finlayson

The 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 Rights

The 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.html

Colin 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.html

Craig and Company steal our information and share it with the Maori group
http://matakanaleadership.blogspot.com/2007/11/craig-and-company-steal-arklow.html

The 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.

http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/home/for_the_public/for_the_media/latest_news/news/march/debate_needed_on_criminal_justice_system_goals

Unsung Hero Vince Siemer & Why investment will not return to bankrupt New Zealand - "Corruption"

Family man Vince Siemer

Not 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.html

Why 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.html

  Maori 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.html

http://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.html

http://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.html

http://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

Michael Gough - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For other people named Michael Gough, see Michael Gough (disambiguation).
For the American voice actor, see Michael Gough (voice actor).
Michael Gough


Gough as Alfred Pennyworth in Batman

Born Michael Roland Gough
23 November 1916(1916-11-23)
Kuala Lumpur, British Malaya
Died 17 March 2011(2011-03-17) (aged 94)
London, England
Cause of death Short-illness
Nationality British
Occupation Actor
Years active 1946–2010
Spouse Diana Graves (divorced)
Anne Leon (divorced)
Anneke Wills (1962-1979, divorced)
Henrietta Lawrence

Michael Roland Gough (23 November 1916 – 17 March 2011)[1][2] was an English character actor who appeared in over 150 films. He is perhaps best known for international audiences for his roles in the Hammer Horror films from 1958, and for his recurring role as Alfred Pennyworth in all four movies of the Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise, beginning with Batman (1989).

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Early life and career

Gough was born in Kuala Lumpur, Malaya (now Malaysia), the son of British parents Frances Atkins (née Bailie) and Francis Berkeley Gough.[3][4][5] During World War II, Gough was a conscientious objector like his friend Frith Banbury, although he was obliged to serve in the Non-Combatant Corps[6] and was a member of the No. 6 NCC in Liverpool.[7] Gough made his film debut in 1948 in Blanche Fury, and since appeared extensively on British television. In 1955, he portrayed one of the two murderers who kill the Duke of Clarence (John Gielgud) as well as the two little princes in Laurence Olivier's Richard III.

Gough became known for appearances in horror films including Dracula (1958), Horrors of the Black Museum (1959), The Phantom of the Opera (1962), The Corpse (Velvet House, 1970) and Norman J. Warren's stockbroker-satanism debut Satan's Slave (1976).

Gough guest-starred on the long-running British science fiction television series Doctor Who, as the villain in the serial The Celestial Toymaker (1966) and also as Councillor Hedin in Arc of Infinity (1983). He also played the automation-obsessed, wheelchair-using Dr. Armstrong in "The Cybernauts", one of the best remembered episodes of The Avengers (1965). In the Ian Curteis television play Suez 1956 (1979) he played Prime Minister Anthony Eden. He also appeared in The Citadel (1983) as Sir Jenner Halliday, and in 1985's Out of Africa as Lord Delamere.

[edit] Later roles

His later roles included Alfred Pennyworth for director Tim Burton, including Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1992). He also reprised his role as Alfred in the 1994 BBC radio adaptation of Batman: Knightfall and in Joel Schumacher Batman films, Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997). Gough was one of two actors to have appeared in the four Batman films; the other actor was Pat Hingle (as Commissioner Gordon). Gough worked for Burton again in 1999's Sleepy Hollow and 2005's Corpse Bride. He also briefly reprised his Alfred role in six 2001 television commercials for the OnStar automobile tracking system, informing Batman of the system's installation in the Batmobile. As a favor to Burton, Gough came out of retirement once more to appear in Burton's Alice in Wonderland.[8]

[edit] Awards and nominations

He won Broadway's 1979 Tony Award as Best Actor (Featured Role – Play) for Bedroom Farce. He was also nominated in the same category in 1988 for Breaking the Code.

He won a BAFTA TV Award in 1957 and was nominated for a BAFTA Film Award in 1972 for his work in The Go-Between.

He was nominated for a Drama Desk Award Outstanding Featured Actor in a Play in 1979 for Bedroom Farce and again in 1988 for Breaking the Code.

[edit] Personal life

Wiki letter w cropped.svg

This section requires expansion.

Gough was married four times—one of his wives being Doctor Who actor Anneke Wills, who played the Doctor's companion Polly. Wills had encountered him at various times during her life—firstly during a theatre trip with her mother in 1952—but they first met formally, on the set of Candidate for Murder and the attraction was instant. Gough adopted Anneke’s daughter Polly, and in 1965, their son Jasper was born.

[edit] Death

Michael Gough died on 17 March 2011 in London at the age of 94 after a short illness. He is survived by his fourth wife, Henrietta, daughter Emma and sons Simon and Jasper.[9] Michael Keaton, his co-star in the first two Batman films, said that Gough was sweet and charming and wrote, "To Mick - my butler, my confidant, my friend, my Alfred. I love you. God bless. Michael (Mr Wayne) Keaton."[10]

[edit] Filmography

Year Title Role Notes
1948 Anna Karenina Nicholai
Blanche Fury Laurence Fury
Saraband for Dead Lovers Prince Charles
1949 The Small Back Room Capt. Dick Stuart
1951 Blackmailed Maurice Edwards
The Man in the White Suit Michael Corland
1953 Twice Upon a Time Mr. Lloyd
The Sword and the Rose Duke of Buckingham
Rob Roy, the Highland Rogue Duke of Montrose
1955 Richard III Dighton, the first murderer
1956 Reach for the Sky Flying Instructor Pearson
1957 Ill Met by Moonlight Andoni Zoidakis
1958 Dracula Arthur Holmwood
The Horse's Mouth Abel
1959 Model for Murder Kingsley Beauchamp
Horrors of the Black Museum Edmond Bancroft
1961 What a Carve Up! Fisk, the butler
Konga Dr. Charles Decker
1962 The Phantom of the Opera Ambrose D'Arcy
1963 Black Zoo Michael Conrad
1965 Dr. Terror's House of Horrors Eric Landor Segment four: "Disembodied Hand"
The Skull Auctioneer
1966 Alice in Wonderland March Hare
1967 Berserk! Albert Dorando
1968 Curse of the Crimson Altar Elder
1969 Women in Love Tom Brangwen
A Walk with Love and Death Mad Monk
1970 Julius Caesar Metellus Cimber
Trog Sam Murdock
The Go-Between Mr. Maudsley
The Corpse Walter Eastwood Also known as Velvet House and Crucible of Horror
1972 Henry VIII and His Six Wives Norfolk
Savage Messiah M. Gaudier
1973 Horror Hospital Dr. Christian Storm
The Legend of Hell House Emeric Belasco Uncredited
1976 Satan's Slave Uncle Alexander Yorke
1978 The Boys From Brazil Mr. Harrington
1981 Venom David Ball
1983 The Dresser Frank Carrington
1984 Oxford Blues Doctor Ambrose
Top Secret! Dr. Paul Flammond
A Christmas Carol Mr. Poole
1985 Out of Africa Baron Delamere
1986 Caravaggio Cardinal Del Monte
1987 Inspector Morse: The Silent World of Nicholas Quinn Philip Ogleby
The Fourth Protocol Sir Bernard Hemmings
1988 The Serpent and the Rainbow Schoonbacher
1989 Strapless Douglas Brodie
Batman Alfred Pennyworth
Batman: The Lazarus Syndrome Alfred Pennyworth
1991 Let Him Have It Lord Goddard
1992 The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles: Russia 1910 Leo Tolstoy
Batman Returns Alfred Pennyworth
1993 The Age of Innocence Henry van der Luyden
The Hour of the Pig Magistrate Boniface
Wittgenstein Bertrand Russell
1995 Batman Forever Alfred Pennyworth
1997 Batman & Robin Alfred Pennyworth
1998 St. Ives Comte de Saint-Yves
1999 The Cherry Orchard Feers
Sleepy Hollow Notary Hardenbrook
2005 Corpse Bride Elder Gutknech Voice
2010 Alice in Wonderland Uilleam Voice; Final role

[edit] References

  1. ^ Gough in the London Times, 23 June 1997: "There was some indecision as to when I was born. My sister said it was 1916. I'd lost my birth certificate." Gough's wife Henrietta confirmed 1916 (and not 1915) as her husband's birth year in 2010 (see Christian Heger: Mondbeglänzte Zaubernächte. Das Kino von Tim Burton. Marburg 2010).
  2. ^ Eric Shorter Obituary: Michael Gough, The Guardian, 17 March 2011
  3. ^ Michael Gough Biography
  4. ^ Michael Gough Biography – Yahoo! Movies
  5. ^ thePeerage.com – Person Page 18350
  6. ^ Read, Piers Paul (2005). Alec Guinness: the authorized biography. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0743244982. 
  7. ^ Starkey, Pat (1992). I will not fight: conscientious objectors and pacifists in the North West during the Second World War. Liverpool Historical Studies. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0853234671. 
  8. ^ "Michael Gough, 94, was butler Alfred in “Batman”". bcdb.com, March 17, 2011
  9. ^ "Michael Gough, Batman's Alfred, dies aged 94". BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12772355. 
  10. ^ Mike Moody. "Michael Keaton praises Michael Gough". Digital Spy. http://www.digitalspy.com/celebrity/news/a309844/michael-keaton-praises-michael-gough.html. 

[edit] External links

[show]v · d · eTony Award for Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Play

Edward Herrmann (1976) · Jonathan Pryce (1977) · Lester Rawlins (1978) · Michael Gough (1979) · David Rounds (1980) · Brian Backer (1981) · Zakes Mokae (1982) · Matthew Broderick (1983) · Joe Mantegna (1984) · Barry Miller (1985) · John Mahoney (1986) · John Randolph (1987) · B. D. Wong (1988) · Boyd Gaines (1989) · Charles Durning (1990) · Kevin Spacey (1991) · Laurence Fishburne (1992) · Stephen Spinella (1993) · Jeffrey Wright (1994) · John Glover (1995) · Ruben Santiago-Hudson (1996) · Owen Teale (1997) · Tom Murphy (1998) · Frank Wood (1999) · Roy Dotrice (2000)

[show]v · d · eNotable actors and actresses appearing in Hammer films
Persondata
Name Gough, Michael
Alternative names
Short description
Date of birth 1916-11-23
Place of birth Kuala Lumpur, Malaya
Date of death 2011-03-17
Place of death London, England, UK

Flickr - projectbrainsaver

www.flickr.com
projectbrainsaver's A Point of View photoset projectbrainsaver's A Point of View photoset