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 .
- File fictitious claims. Produce no evidence..
- use interlocutories to trump up the costs,
- demand the costs in a short time frame
- Have the defence on the remaining matter struck out.
- With draw the fictional claims.
- Skip formal proof
- Go straight to Quantum
- Deny any opportunity for appeal
- Seal the orders and go straight to bankruptcy and liquidation
- 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?
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.
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
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.
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 .