A mother of 5 in Northland who is the subject of having one of her children abducted through use of the court has written to Chester burrows in response to his letter.
It brings up an important issue .. privacy
16 May 2013
Minister for Courts
By Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am writing in relation to the letter you sent to Ms Haden dated 15 May 2013. I comment as
I agree there are a number of statutes which require personal service. Applications within the District Court are contained in this number. Applications in the District Court are legal documents and should be required to be served by someone with “standing”. These documents often contain very personal information. The fact that currently “anybody” can serve these often very important and personal documents, is appalling! Why should New Zealander’s be expected to trust ”just anybody”? We should not have to, we need protection from “untrustworthy people” who are allowed to serve legal documentation. Surely, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out!
In January, (as you are probably aware) an unsavoury document server (of no standing) swore an “affidavit of service”that he served me, when he did not. In fact, he swore two separate “affidavits of service” with different dates and times as to the service. The nature of the documents that he swore he served on me was very personal indeed. These documents were never served on me, therefore I am left wondering what he did do with those documents. He could have hung them up on a public notice board for all I know. Do you really consider the appropriate legislation in place to safeguard me, in this regard?
The fact that there is punishment of up to 7 years for committing perjury is beside the point. It is in fact, very difficult to uphold charges of perjury, aside from anything else, special permission is required because of the difficult nature of pressing charges.
This, is not in my opinion, acceptable. Accountability is almost zero. If you think the legislation
you have in place is adequate, I think you are sadly, living in a fantasy Aotearoa “land”.
Of the many members of the public I have spoken to, I have ascertained that it is assumed by them,that people of standing are required to serve legal documentation. I consider absolutely, that adequate protection of New Zealanders in this regard is not in place.
The fact that it would cost applicants significantly more money to apply for applications, may prove to be a deterrent to those applicants who use the Court to try and sort personal matters, which perhaps, could be resolved outside the Court. Currently, as is certainly the case in my case, the applicants could have resolved the issue by playing “nice”. They are in fact, unable to, hence the Court proceedings. Perhaps you could consider my letter as “one with experience”. I am telling you, I feel completely unprotected by the government and the laws which are not in place _ surrounding document service and I believe it is essential that people of “standing” should be required, with the very important/personal details of the public.
Would you trust Michael Downey with your personal information? If you would trust him, my hat goes off to you. I certainly do not, and I still do not know what he did with the documentation that he was supposed to have served on me, and didn’t.
This matter is very serious, are the government taking it seriously? I think not. Place yourself in my shoes. My life has been turned upside down because of the peijury of Michael Downey and the fact, that the likes of people, like me, are not protected. We the people, are very vulnerable to people of the likes of Downey. You may think it will not happen to you, but maybe one day it will because from what I can gather this happens all too often and this is not good enough! I beg you not to be ignorant, and to get with the play. It is insolent, to pretend it does not happen. Non service happens, all too often, because there are people out there who are not honest, and the government are giving them every reason not to be, given that enforcement of peijury is so extremely difficult.
I can honestly say, that two days ago I was pushed along the road by a logging truck, who failed to stop at an accident, and my treatment within the Court system because of the perjury, is worse than that! When I wake during the night- my thoughts are with the Court matter and my “unfair” treatment, not the logging truck that very nearly took my life (and the life of my five children’s mother). My Court ordeal (because of the false affidavits) could all have been prevented if the document server, had served the documents. He didn’t. How would you feel if you had, not one, but two, false affidavits served on you by lawyers who condoned them? The Judge ruled I had evaded service because those same lawyers convinced the Judge of it!
“Anybody who swears a false affidavit can be held accountable under the laws of peijury” I don’t think so, it took me three months for anybody even to listen to me. On the plus side, many people are now aware of the laws or lack of them and are shocked! What will it take for the government to listen to the people, who elected them into parliament, in the hope of betterment of our country?!
I am going to send a copy of this letter to Ms Haden to use on her website if she wishes, as we are two of those people who have been drastically effected as a result of non service. Countless
numbers, were unable to prove they were not served!
I refer to my earlier posts Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand and Translegal services NZ Limited another lesson in document service
The gentle man to the left is a document server.
He was employed By Translegal services NZ Limited
The documents which he was given to severe were to remove a child from his mothers custody so that the estranged grand parents could access the 5 year old without his ability to have the support or comfort of any of of siblings or mother.
I wrote to to the minister of courts and have received the response today see the letter here chester borrows document service
I have responded to the minister as follows
Reply to Chester Borrows
Thank you for your letter .
I wish to point out that the persons being used for the service of documents are hardly professional in any sense of the word they appear to be persons who could quite easily be classified as of no fixed abode.
Process servers are not registered in any manner or form and John Smith of Auckland can become a process server.
I have laid a complaint for perjury. The person who signed the affidavit is identifiable only by a partial name of Tony Parker and Of Auckland , he is not locatable or able to be charged in the criminal jurisdiction due to the fact that they cannot be identified or located.
Mr Downey on the other hand came from a small enough community to be identified , his picture on face book assisted , I note the page has since been removed
These fine pillars of society are taken on their word that they have served documents and the party who legitimately claims that they were not served is left to fight that point and is often determined by the court as a person who “ evades “ service , this tarnishes their copy book and the court looks at them unfavorably from then on.
It simply does not serve justice .
There perhaps needs to be a vicarious liability provision in this case to ensure that the party who serves is held accountable for perjury and non-service.
In the interest of transparency I will post this reply on my blog site www.anticorruption.co.nz
for the consequences of this lack of service see the blog here http://justnz.wordpress.com/
It appears to me that what happens overseas eventually comes here
I can certainly relate to much of what this lady has to say. I am fortunate that in reporting corruption that it has only cost me my marriage and family and an obscene sum of money .
I can relate to what has happened at her house to what happened to Kim dot com and you have to wonder why we are making fast changes to our spying legislation .. is this what we have ahead of us ?
already we cannot question corruption that part is already being covered up
do watch this it is certainly worth looking at.
When the government acts beyond the law, like in the recent Fast and Furious scandal, don’t “we the people” have a right to ask questions of our government? Is asking questions of your government a crime?
Why is the government now labeling people anti-government just because they ask legitimate questions, on specific issues to hold the government responsible?
Now in Florida they are asking citizens to turn people into Law Enforcement if a person appears to be anti-government, why? What is the definition anti-government?
To answer some of those questions, you will want to watch this.
The movie trailer is viewable at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1852949/
Open letter to the Solicitor General
I remember doing criminology in my younger days and the age old question was what makes a person become a criminal.
Well I have finally worked it out.. you become a criminal because of your status in society, who you know and what strings you can pull can make the difference to being charged or not. If you are not charged then you wont become a criminal . If you destroy evidence then you will also get away with your crimes as will the simple trick of getting in first and taking the whistle blower to court on fake claims.
There are many would be criminals out there who are fortunate enough to have the right connections or know the right methodology to keep themselves out of the spot light, they live on to rip others off while the unsuspecting appease the statistics to show that they system is working.
She obviously does not know people in influence as she has ended up in jail for having been placed in possession of a forged document which is not even a degree.
YET there are two far worse cases running free they are as follows.
Neil Wells the former head of the RNZSPCA is not even in the firing line for having written legislation for his own business plan then advising on this very legislation as independent adviser to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest and then making an application under the legislation which he had written for approved status using a pseudonym and making false claims to MAF and the minister that and organisation existed when in reality it was just himself.
HE OBTAINED LAW COERCIVE ENFORCEMENT POWERS FOR A FICTIONAL ORGANISATION WHICH WAS NOTHING MORE THAN HIMSELF
Wells ran this law enforcement authority which lacked any formal structure and was just a pseudonym for himself , from Waitakere city council premises ,where he was dog control manager had had set the staff up to volunteer their time to himself and they were required to prioritize their council paid time to his fictitious organization while using the councils resources and infrastructure . Wells personally ran a bank account in the name of the fictitious organization AWINZ ( animal welfare institute of new Zealand) so when a doc control officer found an animal suffering they would report it to their boss Neil wells , He would hand the complaint on to the head of the fictional AWINZ.. Neil wells .. He would pass it on the the Barrister..Neil wells and by virtue of the legislation which Neil Wells had heavily contributed to , the proceeds of prosecution would be returned to the fictional AWINZ by virtue of section 171 for which Neil Wells was the only account signatory . – effectively he single handedly ran a private RNZSPCA which was all income and no outgoings.
HE USED PUBLIC ASSETS FOR PRIVATE PECUNIARY GAIN
HE MISLED MAF AS TO THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF AWINZ
The united nations convention agaisnt corruption calls this action public office for private pecuniary gain. It is frowned upon and is even illegal in 99% of the world but in Good old corruption free NZ it is condoned. I know it is condoned because I have spent 7 years banging my head agaisnt every government department, there is not a Councillor , a minister or head of department who has not hears about this from me. not one has acted proactively
Another person who is not a criminal is Terry Hay, BECAUSE I BELIEVE ON WHAT I HAVE HEARD THAT HE MANAGED TO BUY HIS WAY OUT OF THE CHARGES WHICH WERE BEFORE THE COURT.
Terry Hay is a partner of David Nathan of Auckland chamber of commerce fame.
Terry Hay was charged with a number of charges of fraud by the ministry of economic developments national enforcement unit the charges are here
He had created a fictional liquidator and director to avoid paying lawyers bill . His associate Lyn Pryor was convicted and received a slap across the and with a wet dish rag the news items are Charges over alleged fake liquidator and Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt
Hay absconded and lived in Honolulu he then attempted to bribe his way back in to the country the NEU refused and told him to front the judge , the NEU was wound up the charges were dropped and Hay is back in the country .
so in summary
It is not a criminal act to make an application for law enforcement powers using a non existent organization . therefore telling lies to the minister and to MAF is OK and to tell lies to the court to cover this up is OK ( I have prepared a perjury file but no one is willing to prosecute .. I am a former police prosecutor I know that the claims were supported )
It is apparently not a criminal act to create a fictional liquidator or director or to use a false address for a shareholder , therefore telling lies to the ministry of economic developments is OK .. having plenty of money and good connections allows you to get away with the crime without having to face court.
BUT it is apparently a crime for an early child hood teacher to have a false degree which was issued from a private teaching establishment.
Why is there such disparity in prosecutions isn’t a crime a crime.. shouldn’t all three be free or all three be in jail ?
And if any one is concerned about a a Kindy teacher not having a qualification perhaps some one should ask Judge Wade to show his law degree. ( I have it on good authority that he has not sat one.)
Twice in the past week I have seen references to suicide in the news the first on the 7th April in this headline Deadly toll claimed in Kaipara rates war and again on the 9th in the Call for rural suicide awareness at quad bike inquest.
Co incidentally I had made submissions at the select committee on the Judith Collins amendment to the family court bill on this exact subject.
We are diligent about keeping statistics as to when and where vehicle fatalities occur and drownings occur. we go all out to make any one with anything bigger than a puddle fence it but what do we do about suicide? Nothing – in fact if we were concerned about human deaths we would be doing a whole lot more than we are.
Currently the sum of the road toll and the drownings are still significantly less than than the suicides. You also have to consider that some of the drownings and road deaths are also suicides .
Many year ago the editor of the herald picked up a letter I had written and expanded on it Editorial: Get humbug out of pool fencing rules While I support safety and common sense around pool areas I also support supervision of children. I raised three children on a yacht with sides which were only a few inches high.
The extremes that I have to go to for some one else child wandering into my house unsupervised and without my knowledge then jumping out of bedroom window to drown in the pool are over the top but we have lots of measures in place probably because the very persons who manufacture window and doer locks sit on these pool committees. No one has ever thought about the fact that bodies are found by these very doors and windows in the case of fire, the escape roots having been successful locked.
But if we implement the same concern and care with every potential death and did as much to prevent the suicide rate what would New Zealand look like.. well lets dream.
Local councils would be responsible to the rate payers and residents. they would operate to the retirement of transparency and provide information as requested.
even more radical they would correct anything which was non compliant and council employees would be as accountable to the law as we are to the parking restrictions and the consequences for them would be as severe as it is for us to find that your car has a ticket or been towed because you are a few minutes late.
You would be able to question corruption without fear of losing your family and your home councils and government departments alike would ensure that the same laws applicable to you and me apply to them.
Truth would be a required standard in our courts and perjury has real and serious consequences.
The society we would have wold be the one which we now pretend to have . Those who are desperate for help would not have to go on banging their heads agaisnt the political walls.
New Zealand has been abducted by a few , it is driven by greed . until many of us decide that we stand together and that we want our country to be about us and not about the financial benefit to unseen persons, nothing is going to change.
Each and every one of us has to wake up and stop being complacent not one of us can do this on our own , lets reduce suicide through seeking accountability of public servants .
Fairness and Justice is what it is all about .. lets hope we get it
An early childhood teacher who forged her qualifications is in prison awaiting sentence and has had her name removed from the New Zealand Teachers Council Register. More
Why is it that one person is sent to jail for an offence ,when another, who in my honest opinion, has committed exactly the same offence but in a more serious manner, can’t even be reported or investigated?
Is it because one is teacher and the other a lawyer?
Or is it that the lawyer used a tactic which would also have worked for the teacher if she had thought of it.
In the end both should be accountable to the law in exactly the same manner!
- never passed the final paper of her diploma,
- got provisional registration as a teacher and a job( basically the teachers registration did not check )
- provided forged documents but later said in her defence a Clevedon Kidz manager had forged the documents
- Had not set up a trust
- made an application in the name of the alleged trust for law enforcement authority and was granted it ( basically the minister did not check )
- provided forged documents to the law society to cover up the lack of existence of a trust.
I could not even get the matter with regards the lawyer investigated. Ye the school teacher was charged and was found guilty by a Jury .
The law society and the LCRO have both condoned the action of the lawyer , police, SFO have refused to act on the matter of the lawyer and MAF and the council involved have spent their time covering the matter up.
Quite frankly I think that if the teacher is in jail the lawyer should be too.
What the lawyer did that the teacher did not.
There is a secret to how you can conceal crime in New Zealand .. Attack is the best form of defence here is what Tracy Hibberd should have done she could have saved herself her career and a stint in jail.
Her first and major mistake was that she does not have friends in High places. It is far more important to have good connections than anything else.
Once she had roped in a few “ well respected “ persons her outer shield of protection would have been in place.
Secondly along with this respected person she should have taken defamation legal action against whoever alleged that her teachers qualifications were dubious.
The right Lawyer would have commenced proceedings without any evidence at all see How Brookfields secures victory
For good measure the documents could be served on the other party by Brookfields using the Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand a service provided by Translegal services NZ ltd.
Once the other party is before the court no one will dare investigate or fear of undermining the court.
It is a lot easier to secure a win in the civil court , ther is a low threshold of proof .. in my case no proof at all was needed just the uncorroborated evidence of the person who would otherwise have found himself in Tracy Hibberds position.
As my case has proved you don’t need to produce one single document which alleges the defamation if you use the following formula .
1. Make up claims using the well-known and well respected persons you have brought into the mess.
2. Use interlocutory applications on these false claims to push up costs against the party who was alleging that you were dishonest.
3. Insist that the costs are paid or their defence struck out, in my case I had to find somewhere about $20,000 in a week.
4. Ignore the courts directions to file new claims but enforce the striking out of the defence against the other party.
5. Proceed with the other party not knowing that it has proceeded, just tell the court that the other party won’t show and then don’t serve them.
6. Inform the court that there is no requirement for a formal proof hearing and go straight to a Quantum hearing akin to sentencing.
7. Ensure that you bad mouth the alleging party so that the sentencing report is highly critical of the person who made factual allegations against you . As a result of this they will be discredited and while this judgement stands so will the notion that your credentials are valid.
8. Don’t worry about perjury the police wont prosecute for this.
9. No one will dare to investigate you again because to do so would undermine the court.
By Following the above recipe you can use the court to pervert the course of justice. You wont go to jail and the other party gets to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars some of which end up back in your pocket.
It is such a great system it is such a win win for criminals that I can’t understand why every criminal doesn’t use it.
What is crucial is that you get the right lawyer whatever you do don’t go to an honest lawyer it won’t work.
So there you have it that is why teachers go to jail and lawyers don’t
On 8 March Judith Collins addressed the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.
This organisation claims “The principal objectives of the Institute include research into judicial administration and the development and conduct of educational programmes for judicial officers, court administrators and members of the legal profession in relation to court administration and judicial systems.”
While I agree with the later part of Ms Collins speech about the need for change to our antiquated legal system there is much at the start of her speech which in my experience is spin .
It may be clever to use spin doctors to give a Positive angle to everything but it belies reality and paints a totally false picture of what real people experience in our courts.
For this reason I am de spinning the earlier part of Ms Collins presentation and will be forwarding this to the institute so that they can have a truer perspective of reality.
Firstly it must be noted that not only is Judith Collins a minister of the crown , she is the Minister of Justice and one of only four practicing lawyers in our parliament the ministers who hold current practicing certificates are Judith Collins, Chris Finlayson, Murray McCully and Charles Chauvel . (There are 19 current politicians who hold law degrees of which many been practicing lawyers in the past.)
The fact that our justice minister and our solicitor general are members of the law society is an interesting concept as they are as ministers effectively responsible to the organisation which supposedly sits independently from our parliament, it therefore follows that the Law society in effect sits higher than our key judicial ministers.
The following are Quotes from Judith Collins speech and the reality addressed for each quote
“This morning I will talk briefly about what we’re doing in New Zealand to drive excellence and innovation in the courts.”
At this time the New Zealand courts run on an antiquated system based on medieval law, there is no accountability to the truth.
Our justice and courts system is one of our greatest assets.
We do not have a justice system; it is called a Legal system which does not necessarily supply justice. In my own case I am a whistle blower I asked of MAF why there was a law enforcement authority which did not exist and of a council why their manager was contracting to himself. I was sued for defamation by the manager for pointing out that the trust he purportedly ran did not exist. I was denied a defence, no evidence was ever produced other than the uncorroborated oral evidence of the manager which has since been proved to be false and has so far been condoned by the courts.
I was not ever found guilty of defamation we simply went straight to sentencing $57,000 plus $41,000 court costs, the judge even went online to look for evidence, I still don’t know what he saw and what influenced him all I know is that I should have been a criminal; I would have had my rights protected, I didn’t even have the right to a fair trial.
“By international accounts, we have one of the best performing justice systems in the world – we have a strong judiciary, high public confidence in our justice sector institutions, and consistently rank as one of the most transparent governments in the world.”
I think this has to be her biased and unsupported opinion and again she refers to the Justice system which according to Google is represented in New Zealand only by the Justice system publications the remainder according to our own ministry of justice is the legal system.
We may have a strong Judiciary but there is no enforceable code of conduct and a complaint to the judicial review officer will ensure that justice will never be within your grasp, the strong judiciary ensures that no one criticises the court.
“For the seventh year in a row, New Zealand was placed first by Transparency International as the least corrupt country.”
First of all the statistics were for the least perceived corruption, there is a vast difference , I know from experience that New Zealand goes to great lengths to deny that there is corruption and prevents any one from speaking out about it .
Secondly Transparency International NZ who send the statistics in have only 70 members , they do not want to hear from anyone who has had first-hand experience with corruption .
Perhaps more reliable is a survey conducted recently and published in many of our major newspapers , New Zealand a nation of cheats and thieves – survey 81% of adult respondents admitted to cheating of some kind, including 36% cheating in a relationship and 22% at work. 92% of young people are self-confessed cheats. 40 Canterbury students caught cheating
New Zealand is extremely corrupt but we keep quite about it as it suits those at the top end of the food chain and encourages business growth. Our life style of back handers , jobs for the boys and friendly favours makes actions which are considered corrupt internationally OK here.
“This reflects the integrity of our system and the people who work in it.”
There is little or no accountability for the people who work in the legal system, Law societies, of which Ms Collins is a member, have oversight over their own members.
Our country is run by Lawyers, they write the Bills, advise the select committees on the legislation , in some cases on the bill which they wrote . I have documentary evidence that is actually possible for a Lawyer to write legislation for their own business and to be involved in every step of the process. This type of corruption Known as state capture is unheard of in New Zealand and therefore it is condoned. See How to write legislation for your own business plan.
The law society, ministers and the courts have condoned this behaviour which makes me believe that there is a great deal more of this going on.
It appears that the law society only holds Members accountable if they want to get rid of them. The old boys are safe no matter what they do even if they are blatantly in breach of the rules of conduct.
There is no enforceable code of conduct for Judges, while some are excellent others miss the mark by long shot and although it’s not PC to say so, I have my suspicion that some are politically influenced.
I use the equation Corruption = Monopoly + discretion – accountability. Where ever this equation exists there is scope for corruption, by simply introducing accountability into the equation corruption can be avoided or minimised.
New Zealand appears to lack accountability in just about every sector and there is virtually no ethics training that could be because the protection new Zealand relies on is emblazoned in their national anthem “From dissension, envy, hate, And corruption guard our State. Make our country good and great, God defend New Zealand.” Sorry to tell you this but God needs help on the corruption front.
“It also means the people who live, do business and invest in New Zealand know that they can trust our laws to protect their rights and freedoms.”
I have proved that lawyers can just make it up , the proceedings against me were commenced with meritless claims for which the lawyer had no evidence and the plaintiffs had no standing. Lawyers regularly make claims which result in people having to choose the “ economic path “ and hand over assets in circumstances which if the weapon used was anything other than a lawyer would be extortion or theft.
I refer to an article I published last year where my company was liquidated when I was not served documents at the commencement of proceedings, see Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand and Translegal services NZ Limited another lesson in document service
Company structure in New Zealand is more than dodgy to say the least and for this I refer to an incident I was involved in where a fake liquidator and director ran a company, the court did not even twig when the liquidator who moved to Mumbai had his affidavits sworn by a solicitor in Shanghai .( guess they sound the same but they are not exactly next door to each other
The man who was charged with creating these fictional characters , Terry William Hay , Skipped the country , he has now returned after doing a deal with Government to have the charges dropped. It’s what friends in high places in New Zealand can do – no such luck for the guy on the street.
“Overall the crime rate is down and the number of people in our courts is falling.”
I was a police officer for 15 years, during that I time I was also a police prosecutor; I have seen the change in policing. In those years the police went to people’s homes to take complaints, police stations were open 24/7. To make a complaint now days you have to go into police stations many are open only between 8 and 4.30. For a large section of the population this poses an issue and stop reporting crime after having been through the process and having to take time off from work for a matter which takes 40 minutes to report only to be told the matter is Civil or to see it filed .
We increase clearances by giving diversion. Pay up and no one gets to know about it or face years of court and lawyers bills to match. On pure economic terms even if you are not guilty this is the most affordable way out. Even serious matters are dealt with in this way, as in this example , no such luxury for New Zealand tourists overseas.
Lawyers’ fees are so outrageous that it is cheaper to give and extortionist $15,000 than it is to go to court to fight for your rights. The average person does not have $350 per week to spare yet lawyers’ fees start at that as an hourly rate. Justice is not affordable and in my experience it is not attainable. Money buys your win in this adversarial system.
“This means we have an unique opportunity to rethink our justice and court system to ensure it’s accessible, modern and sustainable and works better for those people who use it.”
There is nothing “modern” about our legal system it is based on the adversarial system and the religious principles of the 12th century. Evidence not reputation and money should be the basis of court decision and until we introduce the inquisitorial system and acknowledge that science has made progress and can support decision making, nothing is going to change.
I believe that our court is persuaded by spin, it should be persuade by provable factual evidence and have this occur in an environment where those who seek to deceive the court will be held accountable to perjury charges, thereby providing the accountability which fives a real incentive to promote truth. Without truth there is no justice.
Currently perjury is not enforced no matter how much evidence is produced, the police wont deal I have heard that this is because taking perjury action undermines the court decision.
“We have an opportunity to work differently – to focus more on the underlying causes of crime and crime prevention, to modernise and improve our operating model, and to build a more customer focussed lower cost and more accessible justice system.”
When a disaster occurs , we do a post mortem and analyse the events so as to put processes in place to minimise the fallout from similar future events. But we do not wish to look at matters which have been before the court and gone drastically off the rails to see why it happened and how we can prevent this from happening again.
I have been through 7 years of the most unbelievable court action, where the plaintiffs had no standing, meritless claims were used to manipulate the court the court to strike out my defence of truth and honest opinion on defamation claims. Not one statement which was alleged to have been made by me was produced to court in our out of contexts. There was no formal proof hearing and we went straight to sentencing. I have experience in the court as a former police prosecutor and know that no criminal could ever have been subjected to what I have had to endure.
It is such that an astute criminal will use the civil jurisdiction to get in first by commencing proceedings against the complainant or party seeking to expose them. Once it is before the court the police will not act and neither will any other government department.
From my experience I would like to see the following changes
1. Do away with the legal system and introduce a justice system based on the inquisitorial system
2. One law for all make every one equally accountable to the rule of law including lawyers and judges. (Accountability)
3. Enforce perjury though court appointed investigators who armed with a warrant can seek out the truth.
4. Penalties, for those who file meritless claims or use the court in an attempt to defeat justice.
5. Court needs to be affordable for all parties and no one should not have to sell their home because a large corporate can throw millions in tax deductible funds at lawyers. Middle income New Zealanders are most at risk
6. Document service the first and most fundamental step in the proceedings needs to be done in a regulated and verifiable manner.
7. Embrace technology, do more on line filing for paperless courts (except original exhibits)
8. Prompt decisions where the quality of a decision is when the judge has to decide 11 months after the court appearance, can he really remember what was said in court?
“The best starting point is the rule of law – everyone is subject to the law, and the law must serve everyone.”
I cannot agree more but currently lawyers and Judge are not being held accountable to the rule of law. A lawyer in my matter has continued to take liquidation and bankruptcy action against me and my company despite action being before the court and being reviewed by a judge to set aside the original proceeding based on the fact that the judgment was obtained by fraud. The lawyer has continued to act despite section 13.5.3 of the rules which says he should stand down.
The Law society has confirmed that they are not doing anything about this as they believe it is up to the judge. In other words the rules are not enforced against lawyers.
“I know you will wholeheartedly agree that everyone should be bound by the same publicly made laws, properly administered by our courts. This is what protects our freedom and underpins a productive and efficient economy.”
We are made to believe that this is so but this statement could not be further from the truth and I cannot see anything being done which will bring our current system in line with this statement. The law society and LCRO are not doing their work. I as a private investigator ended up before the tribunal last year because I told a lawyer that he was committing a crime. I was exonerated but such is the level of accountability for a PI without any statutory duty while lawyers who have vast powers and influence on the court and public records are not controlled by these same strict levels of accountability.
“It’s also critical, I believe, that the law must be accessible, intelligible, clear and transparent.”
Again how can I dispute this statement but when a person can go through the court on a defamation claim without the evidence being heard and a single statement being produced I have to wonder what degree of transparency we are looking at as 1% transparency is equivalent to the transparency of the oil in my cars sump.
As the saying goes – ‘Justice must be seen to be done’. We – government, Parliament and the courts – must have the confidence of the general population if society is to function well.
As a former police prosecutor I believed in the “ justice system” I now realised I should have backed away from it when I had a chance it has cost me over $300,000 in actual funds, my marriage my family and untold lost working hours. Our system is unsafe, very unsafe and unaffordable.
The people who can give you a real insight to how the system is failing are those who are subjected to it but no one wants to know our point of view, we seem to prefer the view point of lawyers whose next holiday depends on the system remaining the gravy train which it is.
“We must ensure the justice system responds and adapts to the demands and expectations of those it serves – and nowadays public demands are many, and expectations are high.”
Again it is not a Justice system it is a “Legal system “, this is well acknowledged by many even the department of justice and reinforced by a Google search .
Having the right to a fair trial and having rights in the civil jurisdiction which equate to the criminal jurisdiction would be a reasonable expectation; the current disparity is grossly disproportionate and does not give a civil defendant any legal rights.
Injustice drives many to suicide and so do the financial pressures which re associated with it. Every dirty trick in the book is used to win in civil litigation and I wonder just how many opt out permanently.
We totally ignore the suicide rates which are higher than the road toll and drowning combined. How many of these deaths are “Justice” related?
“It’s critical that the law and the courts are accessible, easy to understand and transparent. And New Zealanders want government services – including justice – to be as user-friendly as any other service they use.”
There is nothing easy about our courts, winning depends on strategy – playing and bending the rules, those who are honest and stick to the rules don’t stand a chance. Those who win think that they are clever. We would not be as proud of our wins in our national sport if victory was secured by the same tactics.
“That’s why this Government is focused and committed to ensuring we have modern, accessible justice services.”
Minister if you have that commitment I would love to help just ask for my input.
“We’re creating a system that is easier for the public to use and understand; works faster; and allows the judiciary, lawyers, court staff, and other justice-sector staff to do their jobs more effectively and efficiently.”
If the standard of proof in the courts was a great as it is at the registrars counter then we could well be on the way to an improved system. Currently some deputy registrars require more evidence for a fee waiver than the court requires to substantiate the allegations in the claim.
Lawyers who file claims which are not supported by evidence should be held accountable, if there are no grounds for a claim it should not be filed. If you were to use a baseball bat to obtain something which is not yours then you are arrested and charged. if you use a lawyer and inflict injury by way of stress and financial hardship to obtain something to which in reality you have no legal right then it is considered legal.
You should not have to give up assets because you can’t afford to defend your rights to them.
“A key part of this involves bringing court processes, services and ways of working into the 21st century.”
“We shouldn’t make people come to courthouses to access services unless it’s really necessary.”
Much more can be done “on the papers”.
“Courthouses should be used for hearings and people should be able to do far more online and in more convenient ways. At the same time, court processes should be clear, consistent and geared towards supporting justice and delivering outcomes.”
Accountability to truth is a key factor which should not be overlooked, consequences should be real, as real as the consequences staying in your car park outside the court for 5 minutes over time, you know you will be fined.
“This transformation is already underway. We’ve put significant legislation in place, and the Ministry of Justice is looking to improve the way courts are administered. You’ll hear from its Chief Executive later.”
The new civil court filing system is an improvement, but there are still holes in it which need to be addressed. E.g. The manner in which documents are served by being “left “at the address this is open to interpretation and also to the possibility of papers being lest so that the served party will not notice them.
If our laws operated as written and the assurances in case law were applied there would be no issue, the real issue is that there is no accountability to the truth.
“Our court system is one of the last areas of our public sector that still operates with a paper-based model. We now have opportunity to use technology to substantially improve the way courts are administered, support the judiciary and serve the public.”
The unfortunate part is that many of the much older lawyers are not IT literate , I have seen 2 finger “typists” charging out at $450 per hour.
They cannot research on line, they are good at speaking to the court but new technology leaves them out of the loop. This would also apply to some judges.
“And I’m pleased to say the Government has already started laying the foundations for an impressive array of initiatives to modernise and improve the justice system.”
We’re amending criminal procedure to bring it up to date with 21st century and to speed up proceedings.
Please also deal with the CIVIL jurisdiction .
“Within the District Courts, around 60 per cent of criminal procedures will be new or changed. Where old law required paper records, the Act allows use of technology to exchange information and communicate.
As a result, an Electronic Operating Model will be introduced into criminal summary courts later this year, replacing the current paper-based court record.
Judicial Officers will be able to view and manage cases on screen, digitally sign their decisions and electronically record related decisions. Proposed bail and pre-sentencing conditions will be provided electronically to Judges so they can review these before court hearings.
It’s estimated charges will be processed up to 70 per cent faster and save the Ministry of Justice and Police around 93,000 hours a year.”
“The Government is also laying the foundations for major change of the Family Court.”
I made submission on this a few weeks ago I suggested
1. Relationship property.. The marriage act is a 1955 act much has changed, marriage ( and de facto relationships ) need to be like forming a company . Only the assets accumulated during the course of the relationship, which has to have a start date and will have an end date, are joint property. This will free up the court from claims for relationship property and false claims by casual relationships seeking to extort assets.
2. Protection orders should be granted to all parties in the family court automatically on filing an application by either party.
3. Every participant is accountable to the truth and perjury enforced
4. Lawyers held accountable to the code of conduct with consequences being real and significant so as to be a deterrent.
5. Judges held accountable to an enforceable code of conduct
6. Court appointed investigators backed by a warrant issued from the bench to , ensure that evidence is brought before the court when withheld by a party
7. The judge should have an inquisitorial role. The adversarial stage finishes with mediation which is a pre requisite before going to court.
8. The court is funded by taking a percentage of the settlement sum on settlement. The court can stipulate the sum payable by each party to the process. – Currently bank accounts are frozen and the party disadvantaged financially loses their rights early on.
“The cost to the taxpayer of running the Family Court grew 70 per cent in the past six years, from $84 million to $142 million per year, despite the overall number of applications to the Court remaining steady.”
Adopting the above measures will go a long way to reducing this cost.
“The Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill, currently before Parliament, aims to reform the family justice system by putting the needs of children and vulnerable people first.
The Bill aims to help parents resolve their simple parenting and relationship issues outside court through a new Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) service.
We’re empowering people to take responsibility for their own disputes by offering them the information, service and support they need to resolve their issues independently of the courts.”
There will still need to be a requirement for truth, accountability and protection.
“The Bill also streamlines court processes, for example, Care of Children applications will follow one of three new court ‘tracks,’ depending on the complexity and urgency of the case.
Although these reforms mark the most significant changes to our family justice system since the Court was established in 1981, the core features of the current system will not change – people still have entitlement to legal aid, and immediate access to the Court in emergency situations.
The Government is also looking at new types of court. At the end of last year I opened New Zealand’s first Adult Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court in Auckland. This five-year pilot Court will sit for one day a week in both the Auckland and Waitakere District Courts.
The Court aims to prevent future crime by treating the underlying addiction issues contributing to offending. It was the set up thanks to the hard work and dedication of the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice, as well as other government agencies such as the Ministry of Health. The Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court is a perfect example the different parts of the justice system are working together in innovative, new ways to deliver justice.
And then of course the judiciary and the legal profession have a role to play. Bringing our justice system into the 21st century requires cooperation and discussion across all parties– the executive government, Parliament, the judiciary and individual players – to both design change and make it work.”
“While the Government’s focus is very much on improving the delivery of justice, our founding courts legislation also requires a little ‘innovation’.”
There is no Justice in the civil jurisdiction; crime is being committed through the civil courts undermining the entire system.
“The Judicature Act, along with the District Courts Act 1947; and the Supreme Court Act 2003 provides much of the legislative framework for our Courts system.
But the Judicature Act was put in place in 1908 and in the last 100 years it has been amended often and other Acts addressing the Courts have been enacted alongside it.
As a result, the overall picture of our courts system is unnecessarily complex and difficult to understand.
In November last year I tabled in Parliament the Law Commission’s Review of the Judicature Act.
The final report made 89 recommendations for reform including combining relevant legislation into a single courts Act; unifying the District Courts as a single national entity (sitting in the same regions); and providing clearer lines of judicial leadership and accountability.
Modernising our courts legislation is a priority and I expect that a comprehensive Bill will be developed for Parliament’s consideration this year.
As well as modernising the court system, this Bill will have the potential to provide clearer lines of judicial leadership and accountability, and greater transparency and effectiveness to court and judicial processes and enhance public trust and confidence.
This is an exciting time leading the justice sector.
As I’ve outlined this morning, there’s a lot of positive work taking place to ensure our world-class justice system is even more accessible, modern and sustainable for those who use it.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you this morning.
I wish you all the best for a successful conference”
Having a blog is great because people see that they are not the only one to have to deal with issues such as non service. So today I have the pleasure in providing part two of document service How Translegal do their affidavits.
The licenced Private Investigator sticks to the script as reported in the Approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand and employs a document server who is of little or no fixed abode and with a generic name so that they can fade into the sun set.
In this case it is a Mike Downey . Mike was required to serve a set of documents on a lady to make one of her children a ward of the state so that the grand ma and grand dad could stick needles in him to make certain that he was their grand son .. no minor matter and assault in my mind and breach of privacy to boot but that is beside the point right now.
The affidavit of Mike Downey …its a shocker .
- The affidavit is sworn on 31 of 2013 , fortunately we worked out that it was January because February was the only other month so far in 2013 and it only had 28 days .
- The affidavit of….. does not say whose affidavit it is on the cover we have to make that out from the scribble inside.
- Michael whose last name is not clear shows that he lives in Dargaville he claims he is a legal document server , but so is any one else ,apparently, if they hand over a legal document, no skill or registration required. You serve so you are.
- Fortunately we can identify him , he left his card with the registrar so we now have his Po Box number and probably the number of a pre paid Sim card. wow set up for a quick get away … hope you are taking notes
- At least we also know now that the squiggle that was supposed to be a name stands for Downey
- On Monday 4 January he claims to have served the respondent with the papers just a few issues here first she never got them , she was away for the holidays
- and according to the majority of calenders int eh country the 4th was a Friday
But who cares about details when you are committing perjury in for a penny in for a pound.
Legitimate Document servers in the far north have been wondering why this part of their work has all but dried up
We know why.. Translegal can afford to under cut them. and there is no risk to their licence because its all condoned.
Ethical document serves would not even think of using such practices but what chance do they have , you don’t even have to do one visit all you do is swear an affidavit and keep your fingers crossed.
Lets hope that the police will move to prosecuting perjury with as much vigour as the speed limit is enforce.
We believe this is the fine upstanding citizen who undertakes the document service .If you can give us more details we would love to hear from you
just make a comment at the bottom of the blog and I will get the message, your details will not be released.
For more on this see http://justnz.wordpress.com/
Open letter to minister of internal affairs , minister of local Government for the information of John banks my local MP And minister of justice ( PS the little lines are hyperlinks they open up to evidence click on them and all will be revealed )
This is being copied to Private investigators and persons who are involved in document service and to selected news media
I realize that writing to you is a waste of time because none of you ever do anything about it so I am taking the approach of distributing the methods which are condoned to the people who would be interested in adapting them, many of those will be also be somewhat surprised others will be relieved that they now have a precedent to support their dirty tactics. . I will also be sending this to the law society and publishing this on www. Anticorruption.co.nz
I won’t bother asking the MPS to do anything because they never act , if you are appalled by what I am putting forward and see, like you should do, that what is being condoned undermines justice ,then I hope you will have initiative to act. I have tried to raise it with the DIA but as usual I was ignored.
Seven years ago I questioned Corruption in New Zealand, I was of the mistaken belief that writing legislation for your own business plan and then advising on it at select committee level was corrupt .This is apparently condoned by every government department and by ministers.
I also thought that running a private enterprise off council infrastructure for private pecuniary gain was corrupt but again I was wrong it is condoned by Waitakere council and now Auckland council and the various ministers for local Government it was The perfect fraud – Public money for private gain
And as it transpires we make a big thing of individuals having false CV’s but apparently it is quite OK to apply for and get law enforcement powers under a fictitious name.. I guess it is too embarrassing for MAF to admit that they didn’t know how to check that an organisation existed or not so its best just to ignore it and hope that it will go away.
Then I found that it is OK to use Charitable funds to conceal corruption and use these proceedings and Brookfields lawyers to put my company into liquidation on a false affidavit signed by an un locatable person employed by a Private investigator company Translegal ( Gary SWAN ) I again thought this was corrupt and made a complaint. Again I was wrong.
I must add that all this happened at a time when I had filed evidence in the court to show that the judgement which they had obtained against me was obtained by fraud and deceit.. But no one cares I am a whistle-blower and we don’t support whistle-blowers in NZ we simply grind them into the dirt. (It encourages the next person to keep their mouths shut about corruption)
On one of the many appearances in court to prevent bankruptcy and liquidation for questioning what I believed to be corruption, I said to the court “I promise never to question corruption again”. I am going to keep to my word. I have learnt my lesson it simply isn’t worth it.
It would appear that what I call corruption is totally acceptable in New Zealand and it would appear that I have some warped sense of ethics, for which I have been severely punished and therefore it is time that I accept that I have got the whole definition of corruption wrong.
Transparency International cleverly measure only the perception index of corruption not the reality and the perception is important because it drives business confidence and allows us to rip off the unwary. I must learn that I must not rock the boat.
I have often said that I would rather know that I am dealing with corruption and be wary of it then to be told that something is not corrupt and feel deceived. It is therefore fair to inform the public of the acceptable standards.
For this reason I am including all Licenced private investigators in this email/Post and advising them of the approved and acceptable standards for document service in New Zealand .
Many like myself who serve documents ethically and honestly are risking complaints against their licence by persons who take umbrage at being served , ( some of them are quite nasty pieces of work others are very nice people )
I have served many documents and was of the mistaken belief that my licence and my accountability to the PSPLA gave the citizens who were being served some level of protection. I also knew that affidavits of service have to be accurate and that the content reflects the events surrounding the first and foremost step in any legal proceeding, the service of documents on the other party .
For some lawyers this step is a thorn in the side as matters are so much easier to win if the party is not served and left out of the loop, it cuts to the chase and prevents all those nasty defendant hearings.
That is why the liquidation of my company, was so smooth, I didn’t know a thing until I received a call from the official assignee. Gary Swan said to me that Tony was not particularly bright , guess what he meant was that Tony should have said to me “ Grace you senile old bag of course I served you why are you trying to deny it ? Instead he came to my home and gave me the papers while being recorded and in the presence of a witness, four days after the court had made a decision on these very papers. It was every lawyer’s nightmare and they could not wiggle out of this one.
Fortunately the court resurrected my company , it now has a permanent blot against the name on the companies register …. But there were no repercussions for Gary Swan or Translegal services NZ Limited on the complaint I lodged with the Pspla
But I can take it to district court. for appeal but I am not going to, I am sick of hitting my head against a brick wall, I am instead going to circulate the blue print condoned by the PSPLA and the DIA.
So folks if you want to know how you can bend the rules here is the formula which has been approved by the PSPLA.
- Never ever serve a document if you are the licensee, take a leaf out of Gary Swans book and hire an unlicensed person with a non-descript name such as Tony Parker and do not have an address for this person… total anonymity is the key to success.
- Do not get involved in the activities and even though your company which is licenced under the PSPL Act, contracts direct to the lawyers, stay out of the arrangement and let your contractor deal directly with the clients ( ref statement of Tony Parker )Except for invoicing of course .
- The document server swears an affidavit You collect your fees from the lawyers ( could charge extra or get a bonus for this ) the other party gets a surprise when the court action is brought to their attention when the decision has been made against them.
- Don’t go back to the person and serve the papers afterwards, not a good look just make them out to be a liar after all every one knows that defendants tell lies about being served affidavits trump all and the police never take action for perjury.
- 4. If the affidavit is proved false it has nothing to do with you, you simply dismiss the document server and it looks as if you have done the right thing.
- As point of interest on Translegal web site it says “Translegal Services NZ Limited is a licensed and registered private investigation and security company operating in Auckland, New Zealand “-(I would have thought that this would have brought my complaint in under section 5 (3) Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 “For the purposes of this section but without limiting the meaning of the term carries on any business, a person is carrying on a business if he or she holds himself or herself out to the public as being ready to carry on that business” But it was far to convenient for the DIA gambling man to ignore that part of the act.
- I wonder what qualifications Geoff Lawry has he has been with Gaming for a long time. What does he know about other laws?
- When someone complains about not being served by your document server, be sympathetic, spin them BS but distance yourself from it and point out that document service in New Zealand is not regulated and that they can make a complaint to the police.
- When the police come calling you won’t have an up to date address for the person who uses a name which is so non-descript that he cannot be found.
- For those who wish to make heaps of money and have no moral values you can use this template as a business model it is tried and successful and now thanks to the PSPLA and the DIA condoned. BY the way the NZIPI has done nothing at all it appears this also fits their ethical values as gary swan is still a member.
For the unscrupulous this business model should reap $$$$$$$ , sorry it is not a service I offer but I am certain that there are many out there who already do offer this service.
If you sign up to my newsletter I will also show you how you do other things which would be corrupt anywhere else in the world but condoned in New Zealand by our government departments and ministers. I can provide an entire How to commit crime legally.
Anonymity and denial are the key to success.. And a few friends in high places are a bonus.
No guarantees are offered all I can say is all information I have offer is based on events which have occurred and have been tried and tested and if it is condoned it must be legal.
Questioning corruption has cost me dearly I hope that this my new business venture will help me recover the money I have lost .. won’t hold my breath but it’s worth a try.
The manner in which Lawyers conduct themselves is set down in law.
Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:
(a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
(c) the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
- (d) the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.
To me at least this spell it out that a lawyer cannot use the law to defeat the law. A complaint is currently being considered by the court which sets out that the judgement which was obtained agaisnt me was obtained by fraud .
The Fraud was perpetrated in circumstances where the lawyers involved did not conduct themselves to the rules and a complaint has been made with regards to their action and this is still being considered by the LCRO .
Despite this Brookfields have continued to try to liquidate my company and put me out of business. Last year they very nearly succeeded when David Neutze and Ben Atkins relied on a false affidavit and went ahead with the liquidation even though they knew that I was totally unaware of having been allegedly served court papers. see Does Brookfields condone false affidavits?
If Brookfields was a credible law firm they would have withdrawn from the proceedings long ago as they would have taken note of the requirement of the rules to do so
13.5.3 A lawyer must not act in a proceeding if the conduct or advice of the lawyer or of another member of the lawyer’s practice is in issue in the matter before the court. This rule does not apply where the lawyer is acting for himself or herself, or for the member of the practice whose actions are in issue
There can be no doubt that the actions of David Neutze are in issue see
Open letter to David Neutze of Brookfields
Until Lawyers start complying with e the law and until the law society takes their role seriously there will be no justice .Lawyers who are not held accountable to the law do not do so voluntarily Brookfields have proved that .I will once again forward this to them and they will once again ignore it. Ignoring the law appears to be the way that they push on doing what they want and when in doubt they make it up - they may as well no one holds them accountable.