Archive for May 2012

Do Brookfield’s lawyers support corruption? – a formal complaint

Over the past  six years I have been before the court   because I questioned corruption.

Not just any corruption this would have been the perfect public fraud.

The only thing which could save the perpetrators neck was to discredit me, the inadvertent   whistle blower.  So  enter Brookfield’s  with  the solution.

I have  advised Brookfields of the situation many times  but  because they are not an incorporated law firm as defined by the  lawyers and conveyancers act , they  apparently can get away with  it ..  another one of  those silly loop holes in the law.

This how they physically  did it  and I   am making this complaint to all the lawyers int eh practice int he hope that one may have a  conscience  with regards to  the rules.

First  to  barristers make a complaint to a law clerk, the dedicated law clerk springs into action after hours and attempts to  secure a result through intimidation. ( hyperlinks reveal   each segment of the story )

When this fails The law clerk   gets her husband  Nick Wright involved  he happens to be a partner  at Brookfileds   (You will note  from the link that  he claims he is a solicitor in a law practice   but if you look him  up  on the register  you will find that its actually  just false advertising- shows integrity? )

Nick Wright    gets David Neutze involved, David is apparently one of those types  who signs anything without checking   and then when he does find out  about the very big oops  ,will go out of his way to  cover  up  even to the extent of  filing bankruptcy and liquidation papers on someone  who has him  before the LCRO  on  claims of negligence .

While there are rules of conduct for lawyers  you  will find  that  even large law firms  like Brookfield’s    are happy to  take  your money  to  defend the indefensible even if it means ignoring the rules all together.

Brookfield’s were very clever  they managed to win   a defamation case without  the need to produce those awkward documents  which really don’t say what they have   claimed they say.  Read the blog How to win with no evidence .

Basically if you take a leaf out of David Neutze book you can win at anything using his formula .

  1. File fictitious claims. Produce no evidence..
  2. use interlocutories to  trump up the costs,
  3.  demand the costs  in a short time frame
  4.  Have the defence on the   remaining matter struck out.
  5. With draw the fictional claims.
  6. Skip formal  proof
  7. Go straight to Quantum
  8. Deny  any opportunity   for appeal
  9. Seal the orders and go straight to bankruptcy and liquidation
  10. Continue liquidation and bankruptcy action   even though the   judgment is challenged  on  having been obtained by fraud.

The strategy in a way is  a bit like that demonstrated by Rowan Atkinson in the  skit Fatal beating  You take something trivial  and escalate it  and take something major and  trivialise it.

It was good to see that  Ben  ATKINS   did not  turn up at the high court this week  and for the first time  in 6 years  David Neutze   turned up in person.  It would seem that   Ben  recognises  that there is fraud involved  but   Brookfileds management  are still happy to  see the bankruptcy and liquidation go through  despite the facts.

The last time  I saw Ben ,he was holding a folder which contained the affidavit  which  I filed in support of the   claim of obtaining a judgment  by fraud  , the  folder   had the name of  the  fictional organisation AWINZ on it  .

This  brings about another question    since the funds which were used to  pay Brookfields  are charitable funds ( as shown in the annual returns )  how come only  Mr Wells is claiming it in his own name.. is that not money laundering.. are Brookfield’s  now complicit to this criminal act as  well?  Or are they so fixed on civil matters that criminal matters  don’t matter? where  do they get the imunity from to be using their office for fraud?

How do they get away with it?

Perhaps Brookfileds can answer the questions raised in this  video they  obviously support  these principals.

We would  love to her from Brookfields  .. why are you immune to the  rules ?

2 A lawyer is obliged to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice.
  • 2.1 The overriding duty of a lawyer is as an officer of the court.

    2.2 A lawyer must not attempt to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

Proper purpose
  • 2.3 A lawyer must use legal processes only for proper purposes. A lawyer must not use, or knowingly assist in using, the law or legal processes for the purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to another person’s reputation, interests, or occupation.1

Conflicting interests
  • 5.4 A lawyer must not act or continue to act if there is a conflict or a risk of a conflict between the interests of the lawyer and the interests of a client for whom the lawyer is acting or proposing to act.

    • 5.4.1 Where a lawyer has an interest that touches on the matter in respect of which regulated services are required, the existence of that interest must be disclosed to the client or prospective client irrespective of whether a conflict exists.
    • 5.4.2 A lawyer must not act for a client in any transaction in which the lawyer has an interest unless the matter is not contentious and the interests of the lawyer and the client correspond in all respects.

Proper professional practice

 11 A lawyer’s practice must be administered in a manner that ensures that the duties to the court and existing, prospective, and former clients are adhered to, and that the reputation of the legal profession is preserved.
Misleading and deceptive conduct

11.1 A lawyer must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive15 anyone on any aspect of the lawyer’s practice.

Prevention of crime or fraud
  • 11.4 A lawyer must take all reasonable steps to prevent any person perpetrating a crime or fraud through the lawyer’s practice.

and the act itself

4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers
  • Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:

    • (a) the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:

    • (b) the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:

    • (c) the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:

    • (d) the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.— that is   court  first client second .