Judge Jock: Time to Pull Finger, Grave Charges Against Lawyer, Star Chamber Convened
Jock Anderson | WEEKEND REVIEW
Fancy being a Judge? Get Involved and Do Your Bit
Folk are wanted to serve on a host of New Zealand Law Society specialist committees – someone reckoned there’s about 154 of them at last count.
No experience required, all you need is to be passionate, enthusiastic, willing, keen and available – with an eye to a secure, privileged and well-pensioned future.
This way judicial openings are forged.
“Put me down for the Ladies & Escorts Lounge Alumni and Welfare Fund Committee,” said Our Man At The Bar, pondering the glass half full/half empty conundrum.
The curious conduct of Evgeny Orlov, Barrister
It’s not every day a lawyer accumulates a swag of complaints claiming he is not fit to do his job and should perhaps consider other work.
It is extremely rare for one of those complaints to come from the scathing pen of no less a concerned chap than the then Chief High Court judge, Justice Tony Randerson, now a member of the Court of Appeal.
Excellent article, well worth reading for the background.
Also, it gives photos of Orlov and Frank de Lieu, so will help you to appreciate the protagonists, if you attend the Star Hearing.
This is all about the rational avoidance of accountability, whilst maintaining the image that there is accountability taking place.
Remember – the caught$ only hurt people who take them seriously. Orlov certainly doesn’t make this mistake. Orlov has good mental health, unlike the deluded self-important people who are trying to publicly make mincemeat of him.
Judge for yourself whether the protection of the public is an issue, or whether protection of legal worker’s marketing delusions is what is actually happening.
Go along on Monday 2/9/2013 to Auckland District Caught, for some entertainment, at no admission cost. Of course the whole spectacle is a huge wasted cost on Government funds, but the legal beneficiaries have no conscience about wasting Government funds, when it fills their own pockets. They leave solo mothers for dead.
Warning, if you take drugs with you to enhance the experience, or to make sense of it, there are thieves at the door who may take them away from you. They need them more than you do, really they do. (Take them earlier.)
The book Toddler Taming points out that for discipline to be effective, it must be given shortly after the offence. These accusations against Orlov are quite historical. If public protection was ever an issue, then the present hearing is obviously years, many years too late. The issue is to have a public punishment, to protect the self importances of the legal workers. Just jaded self delusion.
Take your own rotten eggs and tomatoes, you don’t have to declare them at the door. They may even use x-rays to stop you taking them in to the hearing, or am I just being paranoid?. Otherwise, just buy them at the hearing, from the stalls manned by unemployed lawyers.
NZers must appreciate that Mr. Evgeny Orlov, even if he is a loose cannon, shows more independence and own judgement, than all of the rest of the lawyers in NZ put together. Citizens should show him a sensible level of support, or NZ could keep on sliding into the Nazi style caught system, as exemplified by Hon. Anne Tolley’s comments. I am not saying that she is consciously a Nazi, just that she doesn’t understand the realities of what her job is about. This is a good example of what can be achieved, through 50% women in positions of power.
Thu 18th March 2010 at 2:08 pm
The same goes for Evgany Orlov. This barister will take all he can and in return will give you nothing. Defend yourself!
Tue 10th April 2012 at 8:16 am
Dear Brian for GerryMen, thank you for your information and strategies. If men hope to improve outcomes in familycaught$, then they need to understand the issues that you have presented so well.
In the discussion above, there has been very little mention of legal-worker’s-aid and the effects it has in creating precedents favouring CustodialParent mothers. As legal-worker’s-aided litigants don’t face any significant risk of costs being awarded against them, (even when they have made counter-factual applications and/or given the facts already on file, legally baseless applications), then the LSAct has created a dangerously non-flat playing ground. One example of this – Evgeny Orlov in Albany familycaught$, before “judge” walker.
I would suggest that the dynamic of “judges” finding against the non-custodial-parent and also against the more income rich parent both create pressures which work against familycaught$ actually protecting the quality of children’s upbringing and protecting children from being damaged by a parent with psychiatric problems.
The only way that men could hope to get a fair hearing before familycaught$ is by pressing appeals successfully. This will only happen when the necessary strategies are well understood and are able to be applied in practice. This requires teamwork, sharing of case information and strategies and working together for positive results (not for building individual’s egos).
When looked at closely, many of the goings on in familycaught$ are not just dismally incompetent from a child protection perspective, but incompetent from the perspective of doing the job of a legal practitioner and criminal in terms of the charging for work not actually done (such as not bothering to read affidavits, not getting second opinions on experts dubious affidavits, especially where the expert is working outside of their training and experience). All of these issues are good weapons to use against these greedy, lazy practitioners in public.
The only way that familycaught$ could be turned into a working institution, successfully delivering value for money service, would be to go through its phases of action and remove all of the conflicts of interest, that presently bedevil it. Also to give tasks to workers who are actually relevantly trained to do them. It is only by open competition that successful practitioners can be identified by the public and incompetent practitioners avoided by the public as consumers.
This user pays type reorganisation would save the taxpayer well over $100 million per year in caught costs and by improving child protection the downstream savings through MSD CYFs would be much greater still. This might annoy lots of women who lost easy meal tickets and hugely pissoff many men, who were forced to care much more for their children and lose quite a bit of income. The moaning might go on for years….
All of our caughts have a low rate of “getting it right” first time, because they presently can make much more money by deliberately getting it wrong. Only morons would employ people on these terms of trade! It is not just a financial cost to run prisons, but we do a lot of social damage in imprisoning the wrong person…..
So, lets get a working strategy working! MurrayBacon ceaseless axe-murderer.
Tue 7th February 2012 at 7:10 am
Dear mits, its not just “not my problem”, it is a good opportunity to make more and more MONEY! Low quality judgements and low quality legislation feed low quality legal-workers.
JS, the kiwisfirst article is appalling, in what it says about the independence of the nz “judges”.
I greatly admire Evgeny Orlov for his fearless approach to advocacy, from what I have heard others say about him. He is a good example, to the rest of the weak-kneed NZ legal workers, who all just aspire to climb one soulless greasy pole.
I have only seen him in action once. He was pressing a completely baseless application to remove a father as guardian. It should have been thrown out, before getting into the caughtroom. It appeared to me to be classic legal-worker’s-aid fraud. The “judge” turned down the application, but only after wasting stupidly too much time on it. This was time that the “judge” should have been using to address the father’s application for access to his child!
When she gave both parties 15 minutes, fiend Evgeny Orloff went on for 25 minutes and the “judge” said nothing. The father spoke for about 7 minutes and covered everything that needed to be covered. Then “judge” jan walker didn’t follow through with the proper procedure under LSA Act for handling merit-less applications. Thus she turned a blind eye, to fraud of the mother’s legal-worker’s-aid account, fraud of Government caught costs ie her salary and waste of father’s resources too. To call it featherbedding would be too polite.
So, in the end, I came to the conclusion that the “judge” was more of a crook, than the legal-workers supposedly doing the fraud. Of course the “judge” personally takes much more, as their hourly rate is higher. Imagine how many “judges” could be looking for work, if the featherbedding was reduced or eliminated.
But all fraud aside, the greatest fraud is in the attitude of the legal-workers, “judges” in particular.
Mon 10th August 2009 at 1:26 pm
Benjamin Easton representing people in caught.
I was sitting at the back of a caughtroom a few days back and was presently surprised, astonished in fact, by the judge taking a case quite noticeably forwards, after serious illegal delays by the legal workers.
In the large gaps of time between Evgeny Orloff making points, my mind drifted through the views out the caughtroom window, birds flying past and recent sunsets and sunrises. Then it drifted to recent criticism of Benjamin Easton. I realised that although some people had criticised Benjamin, his language was of a similar or better quality of construction and linking of concepts to drivel, to most of what the legal-workers were saying. No work was happening while Orloff spoke.
The judge commented critically on the linking of concepts to reality of Evgeny Orloff. Even so, Orloff repeated himself, repetitively.
The judge also commented critically on failures to make declarations required by the Legal Services Act and explained the sections to Evgeny Orloff. He gave his staff�s apology for their poor performance. He employs them for this.
In terms of legal strategy, Benjamin�s achievements appear to my very limited caught experience, to be of a similar order to most of the legal-workers. Some can perform competently, in a legal technical sense, if not in the sense of protecting children or family�s lives. Even so, their ability shines only sometimes. On the remaining occasions, they do major family damage. Financial damage, relationship vandalism and damage to the parent�s parenting skills.
So if others have warned about Benjamin�s legal ability, I can only qualify it by saying before using Benjamin�s services, check his record in the same way that you would check a legal worker, before exposing yourself to the risks of employing them.
For family issues, your representative should have a good understanding of people and families. Thus, a representative should be able to link family facts, to the concepts of child development and family dynamics. Most legal-workers are quite disadvantaged by their lack of family development knowledge, so maybe Benjamin has an advantage here?
Cheers, Murray zzz-zzzz-zzzz Bacon.