Protecting legal worker’s marketing image from the truth
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.
Although NZ has an Evidence Act, this hearing promises to show how this can be worked around, so that evidence won’t limit what the caught$ can do!
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 staffÃ¯Â¿Â½s apology for their poor performance. He employs them for this.
In terms of legal strategy, BenjaminÃ¯Â¿Â½s 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 familyÃ¯Â¿Â½s 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 parentÃ¯Â¿Â½s parenting skills.
So if others have warned about BenjaminÃ¯Â¿Â½s legal ability, I can only qualify it by saying before using BenjaminÃ¯Â¿Â½s 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.
Auckland District Caught 3 Kingston St 10.00 am (means anytime between 10 am and 5pm! So you don’t need a working watch) caughtroom 5.3
Where denied psychiatric need meets denied psychiatric help – even the staff couldn’t get competent psychiatric treatment, even if they slept with a psychiatrist. Sparks are expected to fly and fur will be singed, like using an electric chair to give ECT and sadomasochism, (but the electricity bill was never paid)…. All done with incompetence and received with incompetence. Funny, but for the reality of failing to serve the NZ public in any way or sense.
Just a flagship to presentation over substance, gowns, gavels and greed over respect. Insensitive to meeting any social needs, but pandering to the lost narcissistic psychotic bullies who run the NZ legal system. Stalin could be proud, but they don’t believe in him.
I admit to having particularly little sympathy for Mr. Evgeny particularly Orloff, at the outset.
However, watching him deal with the Law Society’s particularly evidence-less approach to supplying particular evidence, they were virtually asking him to roll over and go to jail, without them having to go to the particular trouble of providing any evidence to prove the elements of the particular offences.
He didn’t seem to see the need to accept such a particularly prejudiced proposal and put them to the trouble of admitting they had no evidence, clause by clause. They just couldn’t see the particular pattern that Orloff was working to, they had no evidence on this paragraph, or on the next, or on the next, or on the next. He explained these basic legal points to them, again and again, as much as was required to light them up. 20 particular paragraphs later, we were saved by the particular clock getting particularly close to 5pm.
At first I saw this as a time wasting exercise, but as it went, I realised that he had to do this, as the judge, the two lawyers standing in for judges and the two agreeable sleepy people on the outer edges of the bench seemed to be particularly slow learners. When the ceremonials demanded it, judge green/clarkson would discuss points with the lawyers on either side of her, but didn’t need to discuss with the pliant agreeables on the ends of the benches.
The lack of particulars was particularly obvious and seemed to be particularly important in demonstrating the particularly critical elements of the offences, in the particular manner particularly required. Particular….
So Orloff went over the particular lack of evidence, particularly many times patiently with them. By the end of day, they might have been particularly starting to wake up? The Law Society Standards Officer was reduced to particularly agreeing with Mr. Orloff’s proposition that she hadn’t particularly investigated or searched for relevant evidence, but just taken the judge’s complaints as proven by the fact that they had made a complaint.
She hadn’t understood the particular distinction between particular facts and pleadings, but on being taken kindly through these issues by Orloff, didn’t particularly indicate that she couldn’t understand the distinction.
Without Orloff’s courteous and particularly patient help, the Law Society wouldn’t have stood a particular chance in their prosecution. I guess the pitiable intellectual situation of their staff and the judge evoked his pity and he did try to give them a level playing field, despite their greater financial resources.
If anyone out there could come to the hearing tomorrow, to give any particular help to the Law Society, I am sure that it would be greatly appreciated. There must be many particularly unemployed lawyers, who could come and help them a bit and reduce their embarrassment? It is hard to watch such an uneven situation proceeding.
Otherwise, the lawyers were nicely dressed, but with little creativity, ingenuity or imagination. It seemed they had one brain between them and it was Orloff’s. The people at the top table were slow moving into place, not sure if it was an energy problem or motivation?
As we left I was able to chat with the particular kind lady who was the evidenceless witness for the Lore Society. I said I was pretty sure that I had seen Orloff committing particular legal-worker’s aid fraud in caught and why were they not prosecuting for that? She didn’t seem to know or have any idea about relative seriousness of complaining about judges or fraud of Government or party’s money. The whole thing seemed quite particularly lost, in real terms.
I have tried particularly hard to make up for the lack of particulars in the hearing.
I think you will find this all started when a particular high court judge who wasn’t particularly smart tried to incarcerate Mr Orloff for contempt of court – and failed which was particularly embarrassing for the particular judge aforementioned
Thinking of the previous days entertainment provided by the Or Society, it seems that today should see the judge and her overpaid valueless sidekicks volunteer to hop into the dock, along with the incompetent Or Society staff.
If I was a paying member of the Or Society, I would be fuming with anger, like boiling nitric and sulphuric acids, ready for nitrating cellulose or glycerine.
As a member of the public, I could only think that the display of beautiful, well dressed, complete incompetence from the Or Society and obviously from the judge and her functionaries, for the case to reach open caught in such a disorganised state, was concretely showing the NZ legal system for exactly what it is.
Orloff particularly pointed out that the many earlier complaints about him from several judges, was exactly what he was being complained about in this instance. But not a single one of those complaints had ever been upheld, up to this particular hearing. So, if those complaints had no foundation, why had those judges not been prosecuted for bringing the legal profession into disrepute? The nicely dressed darlings from the Or Society were courteously, particularly piteously silent on this point.
Being a 5th floor caughtroom, I won’t get to see judge green taken down through the hole in the floor to the holding dungeons below.
Anyway, this is intellectually what will be happening, so I can be happy with that. The truth will out, it just takes a particularly long time. It brings back the framing of Arthur Allan Thomas, Mark Lundy and a list that we don’t know a fraction of the names. It could be improved by public accountability.
Thanks Downunder, can you provide names and dates? Thanks MurrayBacon.
Little of this case seems of relevance to MENZ Issues, except perhaps the allegation that Orloff provided false evidence in a Family Court case. Am I missing something? And does anyone have more information about the details of the Family Court case?
Dear blamemenforall, you are partly right, that competence in caught$ and familycaught$ shouldn’t be a significant issue in most men’s lives.
However, as I recall the years when North Shore Men’s Centre operated, although familycaught$ directly only tied up say 0.002% of most men’s time, in terms of the DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Lost Years) familycaught$ seemed to consume men’s life far more than the proportion of time that they spent inside the bully walls of the familycaught$.
The average NZ man loses 5 days of life, by familycaught$ and child [and spousal] support suicide. This includes men without children, married and single men. If we take them out, the average separated father loses 12 days of life by suicide related to familycaught$ and child [and spousal] support. These figures are unpalatable, but normal. (If we went back eighty years, we would find similar figures among mothers who had lost access to their own children. Modern men are just taking the same medicine as those unfortunate women, which is ok I guess – why save them if we could extort money by killing them? Who could care less for their children’s later suicide risks? The families and parents of these men silently suffer, but do nothing to save them. Thus, legal workers view them as not being worthy of saving, nobody fights for them.)
One father alone lost 35 years of his life, when he used exhaust gas carbon monoxide to terminate his own life and the pain and suffering that it involved. This was his Christmas present to himself. I am sure that there are many other examples, that I don’t know about. These are logical decisions and easily foreseeable in these situations.
I have not said that Orloff provided false evidence to familycaught$. I have said that he submitted an application, in a situation where he knew that there was no basis in fact that would support the application to succeed. (This assumes that familycaught$ follow correct procedures, so in practice such an application might succeed in front of an incompetent judge, or if the father did not fight it competently, as no doubt happens often.)
For him to profit from submitting a baseless application, amounts in my non-professional opinion, to fraud. I am sure that in this respect, Orloff is no different to 80% of practitioners, so this isn’t making an unpalatable accusation against him, or the other practitioners or the “judges” who turn tens of thousands of blind eyes each year.
I would value the public being given accurate information about these legal discipline problems, so that the public could sort out these problems themselves, nobody else is going to!
I also said that the judge took no action over the baseless application. I viewed that as a far more serious crime, even if it too is commonplace among NZ “judges”. She ignored the financial element to the fraud and perhaps even more importantly, ignored that these actions had denied the child contact with her father, over a 2 – 3 year period. She could have struck out the baseless application, saving the child the denied access and the father $14,000 in baseless legal bills from his own lawyer. This lawyer didn’t commit the fraud directly, but they silently profited, in the same way as the “judge”. As Ellis’s research showed, the denied access puts the child under a much increased risk of younger puberty and teenage pregnancy (and other hazards as well, including suicide).
Although I have mentioned familycaught$ details about legal-workers and “judge”, I don’t have permission to discuss the family details. Even if they gave their permission, I wouldn’t discuss details on menz anyway. I have only presented generalities of the nature of the situation, as affect many other families too, not personal details.
The main point is that the Or Society is expensively and apparently particularly incompetently pursuing Orloff, for behaviours that are commonplace within the legal-workers, up a bench or down a bench. To prosecute him only, is to misrepresent to the public that legal-worker’s aid fraud is a rare event, when we all have seen it here, there and everywhere. Government accounts show that the totals are a major multimillion dollar NZ social problem. The costs onto tax paying litigants are causing them major problems.
Orloff’s actions, in my opinion, is a commonplace not rare situation. The Or Society are attempting to misrepresent the situation, to wrongfully attempt to advantage themselves. It is just that they are not skilled liars, surprisingly. How $300,000 worth of investigation, over 8 years, could fail to identify particular evidence seems astonishing. I hope the Or Society won’t pay their legal counsel’s bill! I don’t want them to be ripped off.
To my eye, the spectacular incompetence with which the Or Society is pursuing just Orloff, while comical and humorous, is offensive in the sense that it does not meet the public interest test that prosecutors are meant to follow before instituting prosecution of any form. It is just persecution.
To ignore child abuse, despite the father’s efforts to protect the child from the familycaught$ thieves, is a criminal act. To extort legal worker’s bills from the father, on pains of his child’s suffering, is criminal. To allow the legal worker’s to extort from the mother, through dropping a legal services loan onto her, which she may be required to pay back, is serious financial fraud on Government and mother.
I wish that these problems were insignificant for NZ men.
The performance of NZ Parliament, in failing to protect NZers from extortion by legal workers, through deliberately passing ill thought out laws, that set up the public to be ripped off by legal workers, suggests that NZ would be better off by being an Australian State, even if was without voting rights. Painful to admit.
If Or Society had read Duncan Webb’s articles, they might not have got themselves into such an embarrassing situation:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Yesterday Orloff challenged the Or Society witness about the provenance of several of the documents, that they had submitted as evidence, attached to their affidavits. She claimed she could not remember, but by her manner she was not caught by surprise by Orloff’s question.
Orloff reminded her that she had her files in her suitcase, but she refused to open them and said that the question had been raised previously and they could not identify how the documents appeared in their files. I suggest that such a defensive argument is failing to answer the question – were you supplied these documents in breach of Privacy Act?
Her answers to other questions indicated that many documents were supplied to her by justice randerson, with his complaint about Orloff, but she refused to confirm that this particular document was supplied by randerson. In answer to other questions, she indicated that the judicial complaints commissioner had refused the Or Sociey’s request for further documents, on grounds of privacy and confidentiality.
If I, as a relatively uneducated observer took a guess, I would say that a likely inference to be taken is that the document in question by Orloff, was actually supplied by randerson, through the access to the file that he had as principal high caught judge. He abused this access, in his pursuit of abusing Orloff. As Orloff suggested, this whole prosecution is just an abuse of process.
As a member of the public, I am thinking that if randerson abused the Privacy Act or privileged access through his position as principal high caught judge, then is he a suitable person to be paid to do that role? I think not.
It also raised the spectre that she as a lawyer, was protecting someone, probably justice randerson from the proper legal consequences that would flow from his own actions. By doing so, she is protecting this person (probably randerson) from prosecution and is party to his offences. This is an issue which should be prosecuted. She didn’t look keen to prosecute herself. She seemed quite confident that she wouldn’t prosecute herself. Anyway, I am sure that these offences will subsequently be addressed by upcoming private prosecutions, as the legal system actors ain’t acting.
Also, if the Or Society proceeds with illegally obtained documents, that they clearly knew were illegally obtained, then are they competent to supervise the competence of legal workers? I think not.
Orloff was charged with bringing the legal profession into disrepute!
However, he made a confidential complaint to the judicial complaints commissioner about justice harrison. He did not act to publicly bring the legal profession into disrepute, on the contrary his complaint was confidential and he maintained that confidentiality.
It was the Or Society that published Orloff’s complaint about justice harrison, they acted to bring to the public’s attention Orloff’s complaint that harrison acted against the clear interests and protection needs of the child.
In fact I would go one step further and criticise Orloff for making a confidential complaint to an institution that has never successfully addressed a complaint about any NZ judge, in its entire history. As such, I would criticise Orloff for failing to protect NZ children, by not putting this serious complaint into the public domain, so that the issues raised would be successfully acted upon.
Given the apparent bullying within the legal profession in NZ, his caution is understandable, but not ethically acceptable.
About 7 or 8 years ago, I was in the back of a high caught. A father was opening his case, to harrison if I recall correctly, by noting that he wasn’t expecting a fair hearing. He used flowery and confused language. Ã¢â‚¬Ëœarrison quickly became threatening and challenged the father to repeat the comment. The father remade the comment, but worded differently. Ã¢â‚¬Ëœarrison became more threatening and asked again. Again the father said he wasn’t expecting a fair hearing, but in clumsy language. Although it was comical and brought back many years of enjoying Gilbert and Sullivan mock operas, the reality that the father was opening himself up for serious abuse was very concerning. Again, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœarrison asked the father to clarify his comments. Again the father waffled, but the essential meaning was reasonably clear and blunt.
Suddenly Ã¢â‚¬Ëœarrison regained professional composure, ignored the challenge and got on with what he was paid to do. Not that he did anything useful, it was just a whitewash exercise anyway. The interests of the children were still not addressed. Was the abuse the issue, or was the refusal to competently address the interests of the children the issue?
I never made a formal complaint, as it was well known that the judges binned complaints made about them. I guess that now that there is a pretend judicial complaints commissioner, I ought to make a formal complaint. If I know the holder doesn’t perform successfully, why bother? Should I dignify a crook, by dealing with them?
So, on hearing Orloff’s complaint read out in district caught, my own observation of Ã¢â‚¬Ëœarrison came back and my reaction was that Orloff’s complaint was well worthy of competent investigation. Such was never to occur.
Orloff raised an issue of great importance to the integrity of law and justice in NZ and the system has reacted by bullying, not by addressing the quality issues raised. This approach destroys any faith that these people are acting in any form of public interest. They just look like self serving thieves, abusing the trust placed in them.
This is what the public interest test for prosecution is all about, is this case the best use of limited prosecution resources? They appear to be worried about the image of judges in the public mind. They act by illegal bullying and attempting to chill well informed public discussion about the performances of NZ judges. They are highlighting that NZ judges do not have the ethical skills or moral fibre to competently be tenured as judges.
I suggest that a judge should be appointed for each case to be heard. After that hearing is over, they revert to any other type of work that they might do. In the future, they might apply to be judge on other cases and could be reappointed if their performance warranted reappointment. Such an open marketplace approach would be able to protect the public interest, from self interests of legal workers.
NZ’s greatest self imposed disaster has been the dangerous quality of child protection. Legal workers have publicly proclaimed themselves as serving this vulnerable group, but they serve only themselves. Through the last 35 years, their talk has been just that. Their actions have been selfish and dismally failed even to apply lessons from around the world. They are lazy and only move forward, when forced by public pressure. So, bring on well informed public pressure and lets find people who have protection of children in their heart.
I suggest that people contact their MPs and demand that Orloff’s complaint be dealt with by a Parliamentary Committee, with sufficient powers to get to the bottom of these stinking issues and then sort out the problems successfully.
If lawyers cannot even organise a law society to protect their own interests, maybe they each need a competent lawyer to protect them, until they could ever become competent themselves? Am I just getting confused? It all seems so seriously psychiatric…… If I was a lawyer, I would want to marry a psychiatrist.
I have enjoyed a day away from the bloodsport, attending a seminar on the costs of white collar crime. W. S. Gilbert said of deer hunting, that it would be a sport if the deer were armed.
Looking back over the hearing, the thought that comes most to mind is: So, I consider Orlov to be a minor legal-worker’s aid fraud, to a small extent, on one occasion that I have seen.
However, in my own personal experience, judge green/clarkson deliberately delayed my access to familycaught$ hearing, to reestablish my ex-wife’s custody, after an abduction. She manufactured evidence by forcing a years delay, despite my request for urgency, to manipulate the outcome.
“Legally” acceptable, it seems, but did she serve my children’s interests, or her own ideas about bringing up children? I am still dealing with the losses to my children, 25 years later. So, in my own limited personal experience of Orlov versus green/clarkson, I would say I view green/clarkson as being over 100 times more socially damaging than Orlov.
Ok, that is just in my own limited experience, of these two legal workers. Maybe if the whole truth was known, the evaluation might be quite different? None of us has any way of knowing, given the familycaught$ abuse of secrecy to protect themselves from accountability?
I have read a little of Orlov’s human rights claims. Initially I was unimpressed. However, as time has gone on, I have realised that very, very few NZ legal workers will touch these cases. These cases are always difficult and speculative, so it is easy for any moron to criticise the legal workers who are brave enough to take them on. The customers usually are not able to pay much. Almost all NZ born legal workers are too selfishly interested in their own reputation and cashflow, to touch these difficult cases. In a word, selfish cowards.
I am also aware, from hearing many fathers and mothers speak of their familycaught$ experiences and trying to check on what they have said, that familycaught$ processes are more random than serving of children or family relationships. One father complimented judge clarkson for detecting perjury in his ex-wife’s affidavit, though it was never prosecuted!
I would guess that half of all young legal workers have submitted applications, which they knew were baseless or that the legal basis relied on perjury. Nonetheless, all of them have profited from such applications made by other legal workers, but they haven’t reported these incidents. I would guess that almost all judges have similarly profited from these legal-worker’s aid scams, but not reported them. They have benefited in that if these rorts had been policed, there would have been 50 less judges appointed. Conversely, if legal-worker’s aid was to be effectively policed, this is the number of judges who would be washing caught windows and answering questions on how to get to caughtroom 5.3?
I am left with the impression of a crook prosecuting a trivial crook who has done significant service and yet the major crooks aren’t even being dragged into any type of caught or public accountability. If my impression is correct, this is hypocrisy of the lowest order. This just looks like law society setting up window dressing of “maintaining standards”. It looks as though law society are just protecting their own personal interests, against the actual public interest for a relevant, competent, independent legal workforce.
This prosecution appears to fail the genuinely applied public interest test.
The history of law society prosecutions show that the Justice Minister is not monitoring the actions of the law society and making sure that they are fully honouring the trust placed in them by Parliament. The need for working outside supervision of law society supervision of the legal profession, has never been more apparent. Presently it is bedevilled by unmanaged conflict of interest.
Anyway, the torment goes on… MurrayBacon.
Orlov the penultimate story – divert attention away from…..
I was struck by the intense diversion of interlocutory applications that had taken place in getting the prosecution to caught, apparently by both sides. These seemed to delay, increase costs to both sides and dis-serve justice as much or more, as they might have ever served it. It just gave the marine smell of playing legal worker’s games, when there was a job to be done, but no one wanted to do the job.
If the job was important, why was no one actually doing it?
The prosecutor Pyke mentioned that Evgeny Orlov had changed his name by deed poll, but I didn’t catch any explanation about why this was material. (I am fairly deaf, so I do tend to miss quite a bit.) I am always cautious about people who change their name, whether by marriage or by deed poll. Cautious, not prejudiced.
Photo of Narodetsky in his tender youth
I was struck by paranoia, maybe Orlov was not telling the whole truth? My paranoia and anxiety know no bounds, so the distrust needs to be tested in both directions, maybe all directions? I stopped taking some of my anti-anxiety (hypnotic) drugs for a few days, to let my paranoia run free and unmanaged.
There was a feeling of both sides ignoring filing deadlines and throwing the heaviest possible bundles of papers at each other at the last possible moment, ie working by ambush rather than good faith evidence discovery and problem resolution. Such might be able to be tolerated from a self represented litigant, as Orlov was in this situation. When done by the prosecution, quite apart from being black and white unethical, is stinks of incompetence, or worse misleading. But why would the prosecution want to mislead, what about?
The game was to have the minimum amount of relevant material diluted into the maximum amount of irrelevant rubbish. If the law society were as guilty as Orlov of these games, then do they have any real interest in achieving justice, let alone professionally economical justice?
Why would a prosecution rely on well over 1000 pages of woolly documents, many served in breach of district caught rules, illegally late before the hearing? Were they were disguising the nature of their real complaint by obfuscation and the very same prolixity that they accused fiend Orlov of?
So what were the prosecution wanting to hide from me or the public? They were presenting the issue as boring details of professional incompetence at hearings of familycaught$ cases, of deranged people with uninteresting lives, going about their dysfunctional business. (I am guessing this is what the prosecution were intending, though I would see the same description as applying to their work and lives as well.)
This certainly wouldn’t attract public interest. Not a single reporter from entertainment profit media showed up. NBR had run a story, but it wasn’t titillating or important enough to send a reporter to caught. Kiwisfirst has some reporting.
I have seen Orlov act with incompetence and inefficiency. I have now seen him act with a high degree of competence, when his interests needed it. What a powerful incentive. Overall incompetence, I guess not. I see Orlov’s claim of racial or ethnic prejudice being made out. I trust the judges will see this and protect Orlov and NZ public from these problems. Was Orlov acting incompetently, any more than the average legal worker, who knows? This is an extremely important question.
So what was the story that would be more embarrassing to the law society, should it come into the public domain?
Transparency NZ website gave Orlov’s first family name, Narodetsky and suggested that he was a prolific creator of shelf companies and gave examples of other people’s shelf companies being used for illegal “laundering” of illegally obtained cash. Note, no hard evidence that any of Orlov’s shelf companies had later been used for fraud by their owners, though definitely connections with known fraudsters.
Orlov’s Fish Investments
Orlov’s shelf companies links into moneylaundering By Richard Smith? – this name is taken from OTHER posts on this page, so may not be correct? mcb.
Even supposing that some of the shelf companies created by Orlov had later been used for international money laundering, this would only be chargeable onto Orlov, if he knew that was what the purchaser of the company intended to later do. This might be hard to prove and almost certainly expensive to even try.
Investigating and Prosecuting international fraud is very expensive and I can understand the Law Society for not wanting to put themselves to this amount of trouble and cost.
Language is capable of being pushed and pulled, for a fairly wide range of meanings. Legal precision is not like the sharp edge of a scalpel, but more like a political border line on a map, on the ground it is many hundreds of metres across.
Orlov’s incompetency charges were not to be clarified, detailed and proved in caught by “experts”, but to be taken for granted, without any expert witness swearing under oath.
How convenient! Although the LCP Act allowed the judges to accept any form of evidence, even that which would be inadmissible under the Evidence Act, Orlov pointed out that for a severe possible penalty, the standard of evidence should be at a high level and quoted authorities (which I have not checked). This sounded both reasonable and practical. He also pointed out to the Law Society evidence-less witness, that she had personally signed the earlier, now withdrawn charges and was thus personally accepting responsibility for them.
Every prosecution puts on trial the prosecutor and the judges. (I heard a lady criminal prosecutor say that in about 2004 in NZ and she honoured what she said.)
Although unsaid, no doubt the same goes for the judges in this case. As they sign to their judgement, from then their professional reputation will clearly be on the line.
However, framing Orlov and putting him out of business by un-evidenced false methods, is to use methods which we can be confident can and will also trap totally innocent people and almost certainly have done so in the past. For such a prosecution to run successfully, allows us to be confident that innocent people will continue to be damaged by the caught system. We already know that the NZ caught system is not particularly effective at exposing police or other perjury, or even prosecuting it.
On the contrary, prosecuting perjury would greatly reduce the workload in all of our caught$, thus would be greatly against legal worker’s interests, up a bench and down a bench.
To me it looks as though the Orlov trial has in a subtle way brought out the practical truth about the NZ caught system. In its taste for getting to the “right” or “convenient” place, by any methods, fair or foul, it is showing itself to be both incompetent and corrupt.
Not very much, just enough to be NZ’s largest single social problem through the last century, when all of the faces of the legal problem are included. The faces range from leaky buildings, familycaught$, criminal, civil. And all covered up with nothing more than good clothes.
For what it costs us, the NZ public are being given dismal and criminally poor value for money. This is my opinion, based on what I saw. I fear that it will get worse, before it gets better. It will only turn around, when the caught’s processes are publicly visible and not hidden behind judge-protective socially damaging secrecy. Judges who cannot work in view of the public, are not satisfactory enough to be paid for any task. If we don’t give legal workers positive incentives to work professionally, then it serves us right if they take advantage of our failure to manage their work.
This is not a problem of one or two errant legal workers, but the majority are not performing professionally efficiently. This is a complete market failure, being managed for the benefit of the industry, completely against the public interest. Such market failure is best addressed by removing the protections against competitive market conditions, that currently protect many legal workers from competitive market conditions. So many of their rules and procedures are inefficient. In the end, they are defeating of justice.
Being pragmatic, while MPs with legal training vote on bills in which they have an indirect pecuniary interest, NZ’s management of the caught$ will never improve.
Such legal workers, for example The Right Honourable Sir Douglas Graham (not yet jailed for his financial frauds, although they were laid off as lazy incompetence), have received large financial rewards for protecting legal worker’s interests from the public interest, for example later “clothes horse” company directorships.
Even though I offered witness of both Orlov’s incompetence at time management in familycaught and I believe legal-worker’s aid fraud too, the law society were not interested.
I can only presume that they have little taste to start prosecutions of legal workers (up a bench or down a bench) who had taken profit from legal-worker’s aid fraud. Would these prosecutions ever finish?
This distraction away from fraud may be the genuine agenda of the law society? I suspect that few NZ legal workers could not be charged with this offence.
I don’t have confidence that the law society are properly targeting the most incompetent or the most unethical legal workers in NZ. On the contrary, they seem to be quietly protecting them. The law society appear to be not just irrelevant to justice, but dangerous to it.
Orlov’s complaints about judges still need to be addressed. Simply accusing Orlov of incompetence does not answer the complaints that he has laid. Just because NZ has a JCC, who has earned a reputation for trashing complaints (and has indicated that his office has insufficient funds to be able to investigate complaints anyway) is no reason to fail to competently investigate Orlov’s complaints.
I apologise if I have made any mistakes. If I have, please draw this to my attention so that I can make corrections. I suspect that I have been too trusting, for far too long.
Lets sort out these problems.
I need my clonazepam.
Just for your entertainment – on Friday 6th September 2013, judge green/clarkson made an order suppressing the names of the people involved in the familycaught$ cases which were discussed in caught, or their papers presented as attachments in affidavits.
See #7 above:
Through the trial I had been wondering that the supposed issues about privacy of families in the original familycaught$ cases seemed to have been forgotten. This issue seemed to have not just been forgotten, but to have been truly unimportant and inconsequential, of the lowest possible priority, forgotten even. This was surprising, as one of the parents was a sex-worker and mental health issues were extant, but parental privacy as a topic didn’t arise among any of the legal-workers. (Time we changed the law!)
I know that Parliament tries hard to not use retrospective legislation. Though “judges” don’t have to be so circumspect, as they can more readily hide their actions and abuse causation (that is the forward only flow of time in the known universe).
Acts Interpretation Act
The last minute addition of the suppression order then documented that the privacy of the children, the mothers and the fathers was a technical issue, not at all close to the hearts of these interlocutory fiends. Curious and curiouser. I haven’t mentioned another similar technicality that seems to have been forgotten, so I guess they are wanting to see if any of the observing sheep are awake? Do not discuss this point on open forums, such as EMAIL or menz.
Also, Orlov was charged with bringing the legal profession into disrepute, by making a private and circumspectly worded complaint.
In caught and outside, I found him to be polite and respectful, even under harsh challenge and quite insane pressure. He was polite, insufferably polite. I enjoy some push and shove in relationship words, but I was not to get any of that from Mr. Orlov. I have been quite disrespectful of him in my comments and my only complaint in his discussion back to me is that I wanted him to be more blunt. Sorry about my bitching. I must adjust my impulsivity and psychosis management drugs, if I want to stay out of the psychiatric hospitals. I can feel them getting closer to me.
Now that the subject has been brought up, our fishy friend buckled more under pressure in caught, than Orlov. Maybe he was feeling that he had more to lose. I am happy to suggest that he go to jail, as a gentlemanly act to save judge green/clarkson?
Even judge green/clarkson expressed quite a bit of impatience, which seemed to be at Orlov’s failing to be a gentleman, confess his sins and quietly go to jail. They all seemed to think that the others were carrying a greater load of sin. Really, a mixed bunch of insoluble psychiatric problems.
There was some discussion about costs, through the hearing. For the record, I did not spend one cent, to travel to the hearings, or travel home. Cycling, I did get wet and wasn’t overheated. I felt closer to god, when next to cars and trucks and wheels, than I did in caught.
Legal services and entertainment should be free, access to judgements should not be charged and “judges” definitely shouldn’t be paid, for acting out their delusions. They should pay the costs of providing the room.
Protecting the system by sacrificing one individual? The following newspaper article reminded me of the Law Society apparently wanting to sacrifice Evgeny Orlov, to maintain a counter-factual public image of stamping out legal worker corruption and fraud.
Notice that the police general under investigation is already in jail, this investigation will not bring one guilty policeman to justice, that isn’t already in jail. If my hunch is correct, the Law Society are sacrificing Evgeny Orlov (he isn’t one of uzzzzz), to protect the image of their own clique. Selective justice is not justice in any sense at all.
Evgeny Orlov has contributed to NZ’s human rights litigation, in a way that the vast majority of “NZ” lawyers never do. He has, at least on a few occasions, contributed competent legal barrister practice, again in a manner that isn’t as commonplace among NZ barristers as should be able to be expected. To me, it looks like childish sour grapes?
One important place to start looking for fraud, is among “judges” failing to address legal worker’s aid fraud. They benefit through their own positions, as many, many of their appointments would never have been made, but for fraud and perjury among legal workers.
While these shadow games and delusions continue, NZ’s justice system is just an unmanaged psychiatric and economic disaster, not a contributor to public good. Nothing new under the sun, alas. MurrayBacon.
My hero Narodetsky rides again!
judgement from clarkson/green that was successfully appealed against
Orlov Returns – The Judge-Battling Lawyer Enjoys a Partial Success
All is fair in love and war? Anything goes when legal workers are in on the act?
The real world, where people earn their wages is a much nicer place to be…..
Evgeny Orlov Un-Struck Off – Shock Ruling (Look down the page for this item 4/9/2014
Disgraced lawyer strikes himself off 15/5/2015
When you see what legal workers have to put up with, their own Law Society, please have quite a bit of sympathy for lawyers….. though this doesn’t mean that you should subsidise their problems.
Why did the irishman [or any other suitable skapegoat group] bang his head on the wall? Because it feels so good when I stop!
So, reading between the lines, it would appear that the Law Society have now punished themselves enough over these issues!!??