Spot the suppression order

It is indeed sad that    I am news worthy   for the wrong  reasons. I am again made out to be a sinister person who goes round defying  orders.. but what if there is no  suppression order ?

I feel I have to defend my reputation to responding to the  news items   regarding me of late   here and here 

What I find remarkable is that  when New Zealand ratified the united nations convention against corruption  the news papers were silent on it , In Australia a local politician was convicted of fraud.. not a word was uttered in our press    fraud and corruption are dirty words.   New Zealand is free from fraud and corruption because  we conceal it so well and  attack those who  say “but   hey  this isn’t right” .

For 11 years I attempt to  report a serious public fraud which has been concealed by a constant attack on my character . The perpetrator is a good guy loves animals   has grey hair  runs charities . I am the “ litigious and irrational person who might be expected to re-engage in a campaign against the practitioner should the present matters come to that person’s attention.

By Litigious , I presume he means that I put up a fight and  don’t like being bankrupted or  having my company put into liquidation on a false affidavit 

I have been made out to be a bad person  because by doing  that ,the ton of evidence  which I have  to  prove the frauds and corruption  are ignored. They work  with the approach that   you just need to look at the person  and  decide if they are good or bad  and  if they are perceived to be bad you can safely ignore the rest.

The next trick is to get judges to say bad things about the person,   and then you can say ” [27] The litigation pursued by this person has been the subject of adverse judicial comment at all levels” and this is    enough  for    the perpetrator of what appears to  me to be a matter  of  “theft by a person in  a special relationship” to get name suppression  and  not be charged with a criminal offence which had the potential of giving  him 7 years inside .

Background

In 2006 I questioned serious corruption and was sued for for defamation  in the same year. I was denied the statutory  defence of truth and honest opinion

Defamation  is impossible to  fight if you  are defenseless..    but apparently that is justice in NZ even if you are telling the truth, serves to conceal corruption very well there by  enhancing business and attracting more suckers who can be ripped off .

I have learned that much comes down to  language  and   since English is my second language  I have through the  defamation hearing  learned  from he  lawyers  involved that   “Is”  means sometime in  the future, “has been” means something  that  is intended  and now I am told that   “Justify”   means order    and “Granted ”  means Ordered    . Having trouble finding dictionaries that agree .

The act of questioning corruption  cost me my family  and  well over $300,000  in cold hard cash and   11 years. The attack on me was  by using a trust formed to mislead the court  and using charitable funds from which   the lawyer profited himself  to the tune of some $57,000 which  has never repaid to the trust funds he plundered . False statements roll off their lips like false claims that caveats were placed over my property  but I am crucified for the truth . Endless complaints to he police chariteis commission and law societies and they come out as angels  and I  am the  wicked witch of the west .

All appeared well for a while  and then out of  the blue  my Private investigator   certificate of renewal is  declined.

There are no real reasons  but it transpires that  there was a police file in 2012  where a  police woman who only spoke to me by phone  apparently came to the conclusion  that I was a conspiracy theorist . . Her opinion influenced the private security licencing authority   in 2017 and  while no  real reason could be found to deny me  my licence  he focused on the opinion of the police woman in 2012  and made it relevant  for today  so relevant that  it had to become headlines.

Do I smell a set up   yes I do   .

No one has spoken to any of the victims of crimes that I have helped , not one of my clients have complained  but  invariably it is   the rogues ,who use the  court to   conceal criminal behavior ,who then attack me and seek to have me put out of work .

So while I was researching for my appeal I looked at  the penalties that Lawyers get  and  I came across the following item.

  I had no idea that this person had been  before a disciplinary tribunal  but from the   above  I recognized who it was   and asked a simple question …  is this ? I  made reference to this item  two more times Why I am a danger to society….. I must not lift rugs and Time to support Whistle-blowers …. why we need an independent commission against corruption

What happened next is recorded  at Whistle-blowers .. Government fights back… Police make up offences to attack whistle-blower  I have since been trying to get a copy of the so called order   and wrote an open letter to Napier Police Open letter to the Napier Police Prosecutions

The police relied  on this alleged suppression order as existence of an order  as can be seen   it is all blacked out except two paragraphs  .

I  am later sent  an email exchange between the lawyers of the  Ministry of justice and the Police

one states that the order can be found at paragraphs 22-26  the other states  paragraphs  22-28

I am provided only with 22  and 28 .

Fortunately I found the full decision on line   https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016nzlcdt34-waikatobayofplenty-standardscommittee-v-mr-m.pdf  and the police kindly gave me a  unredacted copy  some two weeks later  but  not  before  I had been charged with  five counts of breaching an order under section  240  of the lawyers and conveyancers act. The Police called it breaching a suppression order and did not refer to the correct wording of the offence section   being 263  of the lawyers and conveyancers act  which relates to knowingly breaching an order of the disciplinary tribunal.  1. there was no order  and secondly  if an order was made it would have been  one of three sections , some how the police allege that it is  section 240 (1) (c)   unfortunately I’m not  clairvoyant and wonder how they know  that such an order exist and if there is  one why are they not gibing it to me.

Natural justice  would state that you have to know of the existence of an order before you can breach it  .

Would love for some one  to  find the order under  240 Restrictions on publication  in the decision  of Mr M . It is of note that the  committee opposed   suppression and the person was noted as  lack of insight or remorse   and while the tribunal clams that offending only occurred over weeks   my knowledge of  his dealings with this lady goes back to  the mid 1990’s . to me it indicates  the smoothness of his tongue and his ability to deceive.

I was provided with  this  decision  from the high court which grants  suppression under the lawyers and conveyancers act  ORDER SIMON J Complainant A v NZLS v Z 10.5.17 not one of those sections is enforceable on any one not   party to the tribunal process section 188 Disclosure of information      30 Publication of identity and 31 confidentiality of decisions   regulations.

Would love some help    whistle blowers should not    have to go through what I have been subjected to.  I note that  Mr M suggested the  charges  to the  clerk of the tribunal  .

The court is not the forum for concealing fraud and corruption  and all of us should be  held accountable  to the law  to the same extent. If I have the book thrown at me  for breaching a order whihc is   invisible    just  weeks after  mr M makes a complaint , why  has our government not done anything about the corruption I reported   11 years ago .   Are we all equal before the law  or  are some more equal than others?

While I  received a warning shot through the head  and the lawyer in the law society article   gets a slap over the wrist with a wet bus ticket  for a criminal offence apparently sanctioned by the    the law society process.  He should have been referred to police for prosecution under the crimes act . It  would appear to me  that that the law society  looks after its own it is an association after all .

A law degree does not make a person honest.   we should all be answerable to the law  to the same  extent  and whistle-blowers should not be crucified and lawyers who are supposed to be officers of the court should be held  accountable to the law to a very high degree.

time for change  lets make it an election issue

Leave a Reply