Error of Judgement.
I know little of the Vince Siemer case, but went to the High Court out of curiosity and the possibility that something was not right. If this case is indicative of the operation of our High Court we have a serious problem. The deliberate obstruction of self representation is an oppression of our freedom. In the same manner the refusal of legal agents to represent a position or defend a client allows prejudicial determinations that defeat the very essence of a justice system.
There were many disturbing features in what I saw, but one aspect that took my interest. It was a reference in Justice Potters Judgement to Eichelbaum’s precedent:
“It is justice itself that is flouted by contempt of court”
His precedent is an error, perhaps that of an honest man, to assume that any other Judge would be of equal integrity. He might have concluded that the administration of justice is flouted by contempt of court.
Justice is a virtue but it does not stand alone. The more isolated it becomes from surrounding virtue the greater it distances itself from what is right. Justice defeats itself when it stands alone. It is wrong to suggest that justice is flouted by contempt of court when that jurisdiction exists in the public interest to ensure court orders are obeyed. That is the administration of justice.
When Mr Siemer received what I understand is the harshest sentence yet given in New Zealand for contempt of court, I was left asking myself was justice alone in New Zealand on Friday the 13th July 2007.
Yes and absolutely.
There is not a lawyer alive or now dead who could disagree with what you said.
Yet – if you think that these rules had been transcended there would be cause and that cause would be the protection of and against an injustice. Justice Potter was bound as is or like the Crown.
So who puts a stop to this poor behaviour on Friday 13th 2007? Like who will stand straight and effectively to honour our war dead where the Court of Appeal Justices colluded with the executive to demand I was a fool in their jurisdiction?
Who and how?
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
If justice is lost then temperance and prudence with the help of fortitude may need to send out a search party.
Justice walks heavy in this land she bears a rope and shroud,
We cannot change our policy says Harry Fat the proud.
Of all that was done in the past, you eat the fruit, either rotten or ripe.
Temperence, prudence and fortitude, for their very nature, are likely to get lost without the light to justify their existance.
What about the no pies in schools then?
Tastes pretty foul don’t you think. These vegetables seem tainted in a phosphoros fume.
Bevan, are you going to Julie’s seminar with Judy Turner up with our own?
I cannot imagine Bevan not being there.
I wasn’t sure where to write this, so chose law and courts. I wrote a comment on ON about interference in my writing but cannot seem to find it and when I search back using Google still cannot locate the page. Did you remove that item? I allege that there have been at least two direct interventions in what I write. These are 1…
The G=Families Commission just this last week proved that they…
I didn’t put in G= even if it could be taken as profound. Additionally (2) in the first submission on the ON topic I claim I did not write… we she … This example as well changed what I was saying and inferred that Julie’s views are one and the same with any and all. I am not making any comment on Julie’s view in consistency with anyone elses but wish to draw to your attention that these are unlikely mistakes on my behalf.
I concede that I make mistakes and plenty of them as well but the G= is very difficult to manipulate into any kind of logical error without being directly applied.
I am very aware that my activity is observed by others where I directly challenge on teh authority of sovereignty and its affect on the public interest. I have extreme examples of intervention which have occured and some of them are extraordinary so I am not suprised that such intervention of this kind could occur. This means that I beleive the intervention was not at your hands. It also means that I am used to interventions. I do not ask you to do anything more than be aware that I allege that this activity is possibly occurring and that you should be aware of teh evidence I supply of that allegation.
Bevan, I cannot find the post by Gary Brown, and this restriction to writing on the site is really very tiresome. I’m suprised that you have it to, althoughh I doubt your limit stops the whole page from loading? There is a viral infection here somewhere – unless John Potter has put some kind of limiting software into the site?
Thanks for telling me about Vince. I didn’t realise that he was inprison, that his fine was for $210,000 and that he is on the 16th day of his food strike. I am on a food strike from now. Can you or someone else get a message to him and ask him what he wants from those outside who will support his stand. I will be writing to publish in contempt or in sedition during the week. That Sian Elias is married to Hugh Fletcher and that the nation is in the depths of discussing conflicts in interest not a point that will reach short of my mark.
Who else will support Vince? Is someone able to post the website link to this site? I doubt I will be able to access this from the library.
First day of my food strike to support Vince. Has anyone looked for his site to see what it is he is striking over – or do you lot not really care about those others who fight your battle to get justice and then fall?
Hope this is clear – published so cannot do much to detract from it now.
New Zealand Corruption (part 1)
By Benjamin Easton
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Tena koe Chief Justice Sian Elias,
Tena tatou katoa,
I write today Chief Justice after a long and drawn out period, ready to support my friend and fellow campaigner Vince Seimer against corrupt judicial and parliamentary practices. As you are aware Vince Seimer has been sentenced to jail and fined for his refusal to withdraw a website dedicated to exposing judicial corruption.
You are also aware of me and familiar with my topic. I am sure that you will be confident you comprehend the scope of what I could write in these letters supporting Vince.
Both Vince and I challenge judicial corruption and I extend my challenge to a breach of the principle of comity by the Court of Appeal, improperly protecting the then Attorney General Margaret Wilson for falsely introducing the Care of Children Bill 2003 on June 10th 2003. Alternatively or additionally it can be argued that the Right Honourable Margaret Wilson now promoted to office as the Speaker did not table a report on the Bill’s inconsistency with human rights as required to be consistent with the Bill. Either way, the argument I present accuses Justice Mc Grath and others in the judiciary of acting mischievously, manipulating the truth to disarm my argument’s natural, correct and powerful conclusions.
As you are aware, before my second appearance before the Court of Appeal as relevant to a protection order that was taken out against me, I have asked you to intervene in these circumstances recognising that a breach of natural justice is extremely prevalent in the circumstances of my case. You may or may not be aware that I have canvassed the authority of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and at this stage have not put forward a complaint.
Additionally you may not be aware that I have canvassed the authority of the Ombudsmen’s Office establishing the grounds for a complaint that will end at the recognition that indeed the Care of Children Bill 2003 was not tabled as required by mandatory obligation to the function of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990. This impropriety under s.6 and s.7 has identified a consistency in fault and failed for its event the due process of our constitutional arrangements in making law.
It is accepted by all those who defend her that the authority for the Attorney General to act in disregard of the obligations as set by the legislation is a prerogative of parliament and there is no authority for such a breach by act to impeach parliament for its event. You know that I continue to disagree and that I brought this information before the Court of Appeal. The later parts of my writing will describe my argument as against its replies in full.
I have not yet laid a formal complaint before these two final authorities that are set to protect society from any abuse of procedure or behaviour for indiscretions by our bureaucratic officers. This letter as it is linked to many others I have written is specific to that reason. I have no evidence to trust any bureaucratic officer with any acting authority for this nation. This letter as best I can presently describe is to determine for you the quality of my argument, whether or not it means anything to define a different end from that presently engineered by all of those about whom I can complain.
While this story has many different places from which to start and traverses incompetence and other anomalies that are well accepted by officers of varied administrations there seems little to be gained from entering another long or at least extended diatribe on the events, from its beginning so I will attempt to keep this letter specifically to the issue of whether or not you and or Justice Mc Grath have been acting appropriately to your jurisdictions and functions in justice.
You are aware that I wrote to you before appearing before my Court of Appeal hearing on the second occasion bringing to your attention my allegations against Justice Mc Grath and that he should not be presiding over my case where it canvassed his bias and the impropriety of his behaviour from the earlier proceedings. So you are aware that the content of this letter challenges your authority in maintaining the integrity and independence of the court.
As the Chief Justice where my challenge on your authority is unprecedented I hope that you have read my files, so that you will be quickly familiar with the precise nature of my allegations and their validity to objective reason.
I will start with my appearance before Rhys Harrison on 16 August 2002, as this was the commencement of my appeal process contesting that I was in fact legally guilty of committing a crime under the Domestic Violence Act 1995. I point out here, as is consistent throughout these proceedings that the information I provide is very varied from the information as it is related to the judgments given by those justices who have heard my presentations.
I would like to draw to your attention a comparison between the emphases on claims responded to by Rhys Harrison in his judgment over my submissions.  … Essentially he seeks to revisit the validity of the protection order made in the District Court on 12 March 2001 under s.14 Domestic Violence Act.
This claim is clearly inconsistent with my application to appeal by error of fact and law. I wrote… The Domestic Violence Act under which I have been convicted is invalid as it is in breach of three provisions in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as well as the Act of Torture.
During the proceedings I was imprisoned by the judge where I withdrew from the court an apology he had instructed me to make where I accused him of not listening to me. I withdrew the apology because after giving it the judge continued with his exercise by not listening. While the above gives you an indication that there was a difference in the points of our reasoning this complaint is lesser in value to the interference the judge instituted with natural justice. I was imprisoned where bringing this point to the judges attention reading for his benefit the second principle of natural justice, that where I could expect to be tried by an impartial authority. I was telling him that problems for families are social issues and for him to be paid without the social complications being given active social consideration his jurisdiction was partial to his ongoing authority and its competent jurisdiction. While I appreciate I have made this point on numerous occasions the event in the court proceedings was marked where this point is in no area reflected in the judges statements.
This point was important to register against the value of the judgment as the judge gave himself jurisdiction, where this was openly contested and throughout his perception of what it was he was being told he pursued a logic of competence that I was arguing against the validity of the Act and not contesting the validity of the order.
This point would be interesting to analyse against the written evidence I submitted and more pertinent as to why the proceedings collapsed as they did where the judge further rejected to describe accurately the events as they were presented against how he ruled on them. For example, on entering the court I complained where the High Court Registrar Gordon Sulliman had directly misled me. On being appointed a hearing date, representing myself and having little court experience I immediately visited the court to be certain that all of my facts were correct. The Registrar emphatically advised me that I was seeking leave to appeal before the High Court and not that the hearing was my appeal. I say emphatically because I was surprised and asked him to qualify his comment. He assured me that this was the case. I had not heard of seeking special leave before.
This information led me to alter how I prepared for the proceedings and I worked through principles rather than developing my case as it would be presented. On finding out that we were in direct proceedings I immediately requested an adjournment as I recognised the disadvantage that I was under. If I was aware that I was appealing, rather than establishing that right I would have researched and set different goals. For the reasons given in the judgment this adjournment was declined with the judge adding that my written submission was already comprehensive.
The point I raise here that alludes to a corruption by process is that the judge focused in his judgment that there was no order granting leave to call further evidence for what I would present and this left him with the responsibility only to determine my appeal on the transcript supplied by the District Court, adding that accordingly he declined my application. This overshadowed any misinformation that was given to me by the registrar as inconsequential where my preparation was to get into court, without having concentrated on what I needed to provide to the court in order for justice to be measured. These points on there own may not lead any reader to conclude that the difference of opinion between the judge and I was anything more than ordinary and within the jurisdiction of the court. More interesting to me as an affect of corrupt practice is the exchange between the judge and I where I was held in contempt of court and put into prison for an hour.
I had told the judge he was still not listening and withdrew an apology given earlier for his objection to a similar complaint I had made. He demanded that I was to re-apologise and while in the cells would order counsel to talk with me. Two lawyers visited me in the cells. With counsel I did not place my emphasis on my argument of constitution. I concentrated on other material that was included in the document I had stated in court as relative to Gordon Sulliman and that which I had sent as relative to the Waitakere Family Court Manager Steve Cleal and a judgment by Judge Mather. The judgment was that which forced me to attend court proceedings for refusing to attend a living without violence course because the allegations that I had been violent as well as manufactured did not include any physical violence.
The Family Court Manager had lied to protect either the judge for not providing a judgment in time for me to appeal or he for not recognising that the judgment had been made and that I was entitled to its copy. Given a conversation I had had with the Manager the former was far the more likely.
The counsels were emphatic that I had excellent grounds for appeal. They stressed that I should put my trust in them and apologise to Justice Harrison, that they would seek an appeal that we would then construct. I advised them that I would make my decision from the dock and they returned to the court. When I arrived in the dock something extraordinary occurred if you are to protect the judge’s action as within the scope of reasonable justice, conduct or judicial behaviour. If not it was downright corrupt. The counsel and the judge had obviously been engaged in discussion. The judge dismissed my obligation to apologise and then dismissed counsel. There was an objection by counsel — to which he rebuked saying that they were dismissed. I was appreciative that the lawyer in question on one occasion spoke out of order and with open disgruntlement at the manner of the court and he was unsurprisingly rebuked again. Justice Harrison then manipulated the circumstances on how we were to proceed. He forced me into a condition where I should apply on my own for an adjournment where that adjournment was sought for me concluding that I had nothing else to present. I have had this trick used against me again in the later example by Justice McGrath excusing himself from the responsibilities of his corrupt practice from being exposed to the jurisdiction of the court. Justice Harrison declined my application for an adjournment and ruled against me saying that there was no validity to an adjournment because a variation to call further evidence was not before the court. The registrar’s active misinformation of circumstances I presume a casualty I would have to accept in hardship for not having studied or been qualified in law. Additionally Justice Harrison made the comment in his judgment  …Even if I had that jurisdiction, none of the numerous arguments raised by Mr Easton would sustain a successful challenge to the protection order. And should this declaratory statement be accepted as fair from a learned judge I do not see how my comment that he wasn’t listening could be so alien. This failure to recognise that the appeal challenged the Act and not the validity of the order, destabilizes his comprehension of the proceedings and relativity to the evidence, surely additionally questioned is his competence to preside.
While my challenge is more directly and callously angled at your own collusion with unprecedented injustice and more directly defining that Justice McGrath has been instrumental in keeping my information away from public awareness and its predominant observation on the breach of comity, the fact that I too as has Vince open myself to be punished for challenging this injustice does not go beyond my attention.
I remind you that what I am consistently alleging under the protections of Children Young Person’s and their Families Act 1989 s.15 and 16 is that these injustices are determining extreme deprivation by our administrations toward the nations’ children. So while I have already been imprisoned overall about these issues for approximately 60 days and my son and daughter are still consistently withheld from my rightful parental care, guardianship and association, the nature of their justification may well continue by response as inconsistent with the applications of the laws of my and my son and daughter’s protection.
The above description does not involve the false introduction of the Care of Children Bill in June 2003. Yet Justice Harrison’s rejection to evaluate his own behaviour under test detracts from observing the principles of human rights protections is remarkably consistent to the Attorney General’s want to manipulate the circumstances before her as to comply with a want in an outright abuse of power: And that this want underlies all of the presentable evidence both by Vince Seimer as myself if any official with authority recognised the need in national protection, properly to observe the demand of s.27 (1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
To be continued…
(of a) fathers’ coalition.
Thanks Rob for recognising that we need to have our challenges in from a legal perspective – and for agreeing that we need to be active, effecting – and as well for being part of that affect as it transpires.
Yet as with the number of protesters we can muster to hit the streets in protest, there are few others who are there in that same place, ready to stand for their principles, ready to protect their children and their children’s children with that stand.
Technically this is where the legal responsibility draws its ethical line: at self. The philosophers say you are only likely to see your children’s children and at the outide maybe your children’s children’s children; so that is where we draw the line. I cannot remember how far Dr Hook went to rechallenge Peter Pan. Yet if we are to be real and face the truth, we all have to step ourselves to be rewsponsible to a future that for natures call we are ot entitled to witness. And we should be proud in this; as proud as the families of our fallen, maimed and wounded soldiers families are of their menfolk who have struggled us along to this juncture where we exercise in freedom.
Yet we as a species group have grown complacent within this freedom, exploiting in its limitations as if the ownership of freedom is an inherent right and not a privelege that has been earned from the blood and guts of our fallen warriors. And for that we need to change our minds.
So what has been done to us and mankind about which we can complain?
Our authorities have surrendered to capitalism. We have excused ourselves from protecting our young. We wound each other in order to take more and we demand of those that we wound that they will be subservient and that they will furnish our want. This site is an institution from where we can reach the changes that are necessary to effect the changes from our damaged state. Yet it needs others to recognise that they will not tolerate the abuse of the young. It needs the men to put in their efforts again to say our young require our assistance.
How can we assist them? By punishing those who would hurt them? Other fathers or parents who hurt them because they too know no better? It is a fool who would answer in this way. It is a fool who does not look in a mirror and answer to himself how he damages others around him and in turn suffers that damage. It is a fool who judges others and punishes them for his own defficiency.
IN NZ our executive are proved to have faulted. After reading more today our Judiciary are proved to have faulted. OUr system is under review for its own faults numerous and overpowering. Our menfolk are suffering the blame because it is our menfolk who are weak.
Before the Human Rights Commission is an opportunity to tell NZ that it is wrong to discriminate against men in a way that has everyone believe that men are responsible for domestic violence. There is only one complaint to support a challenge on this discrimination. There should be more. It is time to fix this problem where men are the whipping post of hatred. You won’t do this sitting down. You won’t do this by hitting anyone and you won’t do this by shouting.
Just do it.
Today’s parliament question time.
National just got thumped.
The precision of Labour was clinical. John Key will have much difficulty reviving himself to become a confident candidate to oppose the Prime Minister as an effective leader. it appears that he will have to do an aweful lot of reading very quickly to survive. Bill English and Gerry Brownlee are well advised to show him what to read and by which paragraph if the challenge, if we get that far, on parliament at the next elections can withstand the king hits from every labouring mouthful. Now Labour is left with the task of the challenges outside parliament on whether or not the consitution has been operated in a manner of consistent function as protective to the public interest. The alternative return is that the smaller parties consume the platform soaking away the weaker National vote and stabilising the MMP frame in a majority demanding jurisdiction.
However, irrespective of the slaughter National suffered Rodney Hide got in the best question on freedoms of speech against incumbent powers to mitigate truth by diversifying away from protected freedoms. I was dissapointed he didn’t follow up on his excellent question to the Minister of Justice, (who answered competently) with much the same by supplementery on Ron Mark’s shot to damage the freedom of association for gangs to be gangs. Ron Mark wanted to abolish this freedom of association. Again the Minister was fairly confident with his answer, although even if addressing the question I though it inadequate to effectively represent against the initiative that Mr.Mark was trying to make. Yet that is a party collective inadequacy rather than a stumbling block for any one MP. Labour don’t have to consider this dilemma as they are the given target, and their protocols of reply are fairly well rehearsed now so that the sensitive issues are negotiated before any government supporting MP takes his or her seat in the House at question time. And that is a constant problem in Question time.
I was pleased to read in yesterday’s paper (Herald) that Tariana Turea was well recognised for her direct and excellently delivered point on the Labour drama of each MP bringing a red folder into the House marketing the red brand for all to see. I admit I missed the point of why this was done, but there will be some hidden reason – some nasty dig at someone else in there somewhere. The Maori Party often brandish their logo on their House folders, yet I don’t believe this is a deliberate act. Tariana noted that the folders all bore the Parliamentary Crest. This meant that it was funded by the public purse. Given that in the House at the moment the biggest debate is the reform of the electoral act and whether or not it is an abuse of government power, or a correction to remove the abuse of power as applied by groups such as the Exclusive Brethren in ther last election, Tariana’s point deeply soured any hit that the Labour think tank wanted to score. You could feel the silence as the weight of her words unfolded. Only a few folders appeared on Wednesday.
Some of you will be up with the play on what is happening in the house and I am hoping to be able to describe the events in as brief a manner as possible. Hopefully John Potter will give me license to do this, and on the odd occassion I would couple this up with a cartoon. I am sure very few of the readers will be very aware of how the parliamentary system works, and I again admit that my experiences of this are still fairly limited. I do my best to explore the unknown. Question and requests even are most welcome, if John accepts my request. There are, I am sure many reasons for him to say no.
Yesterday in the House we again had the battle of MP’s versus the Speaker. There are only a few real players in this, when it comes down to an analyses. I think my favourite in this game, so far, is Gerry Brownlee. For such a large man, I figure he has requested a super spring be stitched into his seat, where he bounces up and down firing back on MW points of order that aren’t. He was thwarted a bit yesterday as MW looked to gain a different hand on the way to handle the backplay of MP’s ejecting Winston Peter’s after he sratched her time and time again. While other things happened in the House of importance, yesterday, this in my mind was by far the most significant. MW, only “just” has control.
I may be wrong here, but there has been a bell installed in use for Question Time. If this is the case it brings the House to order when they are getting out of hand. It rang yesterday for a second time that I have heard. There was no other explanation for it to be rung. I couldn’t see why. By revolting standards the discord seemed relatively mild – yet I am not to judge. On the first occassion it rang, its meaning was quite clear. MW’s authority had been directly challenged. The bell rang and the House went quiet.
If I had longer today, I would like to go into the detail of “Points of Order”, this is absolutely fascinating, that which does constitute a point of order and that which does not. It is the weakest point in the House and by far the most exploited. I haven’t got the time because I would like to offer alternative suggestions, and they can come later. However, there was some comedy when GB and WP were having a bouncing match calling non point of order, recognising openly that this was the game. MW nearly had the last laugh trying to bring this game to a close but that, as I remember was just before WP got the boot. WP won.
The most important detail of this banter on authority, however, doesn’t come from here, it comes from entering and leaving the chamber. As many are aware in court the lawyers all stand and bow to the judge coming into or leaving the court, he or she, in return, does the same. This is also a practice in the House with the Speaker. Or is it?
As WP left I caught the faintest of nods as he rose, so he would be accurate to describe that he had complied to the order, even if it was only a hint of respect after the ejection. Additionally Ron Mark gives the deepest bow, even as he is ejected, in fact the more violent the ejection the more accented the bow. Yesterday as if to mark my thinking at the time Mr.Mark was leaving the House at the same time as Nandor and MW screamed that MP’s leaving the House should do so in relative silence, to which Mr.Mark turned, dipping his head deeply as if to wipe the floor. But more, more, more importantly and I will be watching now with an intense interest is how the Prime Minister leaves. Does she not have to bow to the Speaker?
Privy Council: Lord Steyn
[The judiciary must as an integral part of its constitutional function have the power and the duty to enforce its orders and to protect the administration of justice against contempts which are calculated to undermine it.]
We may be one of four countries left that does not have a codified constitution; this does not however mean that through a milieu of documents our constitution and the principles of one do not exist. That said, I put it to you that there is a substantial difference between contempt of court in a traditional context and in the constitutional context. Putting yourself in Lord Steyn’s frame of mine would you agree that his wording creates not only a duty on the judiciary to its function but also to the constitution? If you didn’t read it this way the court would only serve its function and not its purpose.
As blind as Justice should be the Judiciary is not given the power to turn a blind eye to any contempt that does undermine the administration of Justice or the constitution.
I refer specifically to the actions of the Solicitor General and his court case against Mr Vince Siemer.
The reason I do so, is that to the international observer the Supreme Court Judgement issued against Mr Siemer makes us look like the bigger of the smaller islands of the pacific and not the smaller of the bigger islands, a distinction we should all feel duty bound to defend if we expect our constitution to be respected both by participants and observers.
The Judiciary may feel obliged to leave this matter to the management of that integral part of the constitution to which he belongs, and the media, or, I know, we’ll all just take the do nothing option.
That’s the best any criminal could hope for.
The man’s identity was revealed during the trial last week by the Auckland blogger who is already facing five charges for breaching suppression orders.
Defence lawyer Mike Antunovic today called for action against the “renegade” who named his client.
“The whole situation is just totally outrageous and I can’t understand why nothing has been done about it,” he told NZPA.
“When judges make suppression orders, they mean what they say. I would’ve thought that anyone who deliberately breaches a judge’s order … (would) be dealt with swiftly.”
Mr Antunovic questioned why the website had not been shut down.
“Why is he allowed to get away with this?
One law if you are a very senior Police Officer accused of punching your son in the face. What was his defence, nothing less than section 59 which is no longer on our statute books.
However another law for all the rest of us who have paid his very considerable salary for the past 2 years when he has not been working.