7 Comments »

1. 

   Orlov’s trial is about obedience to the Court system/authority.

   Lawyers are allowed to cheat in whatever way they want, lie to clients, overcharge and use mistakes of the system in their favor in exchange for silence, obedience and compliance while participating in it.

   NZLS is used for keeping the system clean from those who are brave enough to express their own position and complain about judicial system.

   JCC, NZLS, LCRO are fake to fool the masses and pretend that there is a compliance system.

   Comment by CSA — Tue 10th September 2013 @ 3:16 pm

2. 

   It is little surprise that Mr Orlov is in trouble with the Law Society.
   I have little experience before the Law Society but have found their fees review process effective for one guy about 5-6 years ago. Lawyer did appalling work, no strategy, poor advice and charged top dollar. Fees review committee found the work done at a level of office junior and bill should be reduced accordingly. However no fault was found with regards the advice provided.

   Comment by Allan Harvey — Tue 10th September 2013 @ 9:11 pm

3. 

   I take it you mean legal workers to include judges.

   Corrupt little piglets like Sir Patrick Mahoney quite happily destroyed evidence to protect the family court system (and for their own benefit).

   How can anyone logically expect a system to improve when it cannot be honest with itself? They are not there to make a difference to anything but their own circumstances.

   Rise oh knight, for your services to the law. Lol – what a load of crap.

   Comment by Downunder — Wed 11th September 2013 @ 10:00 am

4. 

   Any one that has actually had to deal with Orlov should know why the Law society is doing what it is doing. I have been on the other side of the courtroom so to speak with Orlov representing my ex wife, He is an absolute twit and has no idea what is going on and seems to be living on mars rather than earth. Good riddance I say. His name isn;t even Orlov nor is he Russian. He has a twisted concept of law that is intolerable.I do however thank Orlov that due to his complete incompetency he made my (now successfull) application for custody of my five children possible.

   Comment by Gary — Thu 12th September 2013 @ 5:14 pm

5. 

   Dear Gary,
   your comment reminds me of my own single experience of seeing Orloff in action:
   MurrayBacon
   Tue 7th February 2012 at 7:10 am
   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.
   Thanks, MurrayBacon.

   MurrayBacon
   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.
   self-representation-in-familycaught

   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.

   One father that I know was very appreciative of Evgeny Orlov’s services and happily paid him his fee. Orlov cross-examined the psychologist and under challenging and intense questioning from Orlov, she backed down to a more realistic position and the mother then agreed to a shared parenting arrangement. That arrangement had run well for over two years, at the time the father told me about it. Overall, it seems to be a mixed evaluation.

   Cheers, MurrayBacon.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Thu 12th September 2013 @ 7:59 pm

6. 

   “Grossly excessive” fraud criticised – common as dishwater. Let the buyer beware!

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 1st January 2014 @ 8:10 am

7. 

   Evgeny Orlov struck off roll of barristers and solicitors

   13 November 2013

   The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal has struck Evgeny Orlov off the roll of barristers and solicitors.

   Mr Orlov was found guilty of misconduct that would justify a finding that he is not a fit and proper person to practise.

   The charges were brought by the New Zealand Law Society’s National Standards Committee. They included charges that Mr Orlov had made allegations about a High Court Judge on a number of occasions that were either false or were made without sufficient foundation.

   The Tribunal found the charges proven on 18 October 2013 following a five-day hearing. It has now ordered that Mr Orlov be struck off but has reserved its reasons.

   In its substantive decision the Tribunal said that in making the allegations Mr Orlov had expressed himself in an unrestrained, unprofessional and at times outrageous manner. In doing so he had utterly failed in his duty to the legal profession, to the court, and to the public in terms of their reasonable expectations of his behaviour.

   The President of the New Zealand Law Society, Chris Moore, said that lawyers as officers of the court were expected to treat others involved in the court processes with respect.

   ‘The allegations made by Mr Orlov undermined processes of the court and the dignity of the judiciary and breached his over-riding duty as an officer of the court,’ Mr Moore said.
   ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

   During the trial, I remember Mr. Evgeny Orlov commenting that it was a show trial. At first I thought he was being melodramatic, but as I listened through most of the trial, I gained a very strong feeling that his crimes “against” the Law Society were not at all illustrated in the evidence provided.

   This showed up clearly and starkly, in the casualness by which the Law Society had gathered, stored and presented “evidence” to the caught. They just assumed that he was guilty and that the “judges” (whom they supplied!) would make the same finding.

   It did not appear that they approached gathering evidence with the view to convicting him of the charges presented in caught. The evidence was more relevant to the unspoken charges, whatever they might have been. (I believe that commenters above have covered these issues well.)

   Orlov challenged the witnesses many times, in ways that I thought were relevant and critical to the written charges presented to the caught. In challenging the written charges presented to the caught, apparently Orlov had not addressed the real issues that motivated the Law Society to hold him out to dry in public and would motivate the “judges” to find him guilty of somethine-arother….

   So, in my opinion, Orlov was right to characterise the hearings as a show trial.

   Wikipedia’s definition of show trial:

   The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial in which there is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than correctional justice and also conducted for propagandistic purposes. The term was first recorded in the 1930s.

   Wikipedia’s definition of political trial is also relevant (substitute Law Society for Government and lawyer’s interest for the dictator’s interests):

   A political trial is a criminal trial with political implications. A composite definition of a political trial might be “an examination before a court concerning the conduct of governmental affairs or somehow relating to government.” T. Becker writes that “in a sense, all trials are political. Since courts are government agencies and judges are part of the ‘system’ all judicial decisions can be considered political.” A political trial is characterized by the fact that public opinion and public attitudes on one or more social questions will inevitably have an effect on the decision.

   Political trials can include trials for civil disobedience and other forms of protest against government policy. The government may use prosecution to frighten potential supporters and sympathizers of a movement,[4] and to discredit a movement and compel its members to spend time, money and energy avoiding conviction and imprisonment. A defendant in a political trial may offer a “legal defense” or a “political defense”. A technical defense would argue that the alleged crime did not occur as a matter of fact or law. In a political defense, a defendant may assert the political motivations behind the conduct in an attempt to convince the jury or the public of the justness of the political motivations and of the injustice of the prosecution.

   There is some question as to whether political trials are necessary or if they are a disease of politics and law. Political justice is defined in terms of the state’s reaction to perceived threat; and political prisoners are defined as those incarcerated because of either political crime (political criminals) or political justice (victims of repression).

   Defendants in political trials tend to participate in the proceedings more than defendants in non-political cases, as they may have greater ability to depart from courtroom norms to speak to political and moral issues.[4] It has been suggested that in political cases, justice will be better served if the lists used to impanel jurors are more complete and if challenges and excuses are minimized, in order to ensure that the jury more accurately reflects the diversity of the community.

   Where the Law Society acts with power of punishment or damage, there is a strong obligation to put aside their own personal and financial interests and to serve the public interest faithfully. To my eye, it looked as though they were shamelessly serving their own interests, directly against the public interest. This is a challenge, that I believe that they have failed miserably to separate out the public interest and their own desires to “punish” someone who in essence has publicly shown up the total lack of independence in the NZ bar. They are all trying to climb up the same greasy pole and in doing so are a failed and corrupted force in playing any role in protecting democracy in NZ. I would go further and suggest that their individual and collective greed is the largest single threat to the welfare of New Zealanders.

   Note that the judgement has been reserved, for quite some time.

   Mr. Orlov pointed out to them, that in signing any judgement that might come, they are fully putting on the line their reputation as legal practitioners. I hope this responsibility bears fruit, in whatever way is appropriate. I guess it is hard to put pen to paper to sign such a document?

   To me, it just looked like psychiatric narcisistic delusions running out of control, which interestingly was exactly what I had thought of Judge Harrison, at the only time I had seen him working as a judge. Quite acceptable for entertainment, but not useful or relevant for judgements on real individuals.

   One of the duties of any prosecution, is to set a similar standard onto all people subject to the particular law. I have seen so many cases of legal workers serving poorly or disastrously, who have never been on the receiving end of the Law Society’s wrath. Even when I offered them my own observations of legal worker’s aid fraud by Mr. Orlov, they were clearly not at all interested. (In my opinion, judge walker’s role was ethically far worse than Orlov’s.)

   Sanity would serve the public better.

   I hope that Mr. Orlov can hold the Law Society to account. MurrayBacon – axe murderer.

   Comment by MurrayBacon — Wed 1st January 2014 @ 1:48 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ