Transparency New Zealand

The following  article was written in response to an email from Tatsuhiko Koyama   and Paul Gee …

There  appears to be something inherent in NZ about  covering up   , its all about saving  $$$   and saving face  so  we  unjustly  leave  citizens with the cost  and the  degradation    which comes with being a whistle-blower .. no wonder there are so many suicides  we just  give some one a pill  and tell them to go away .

Our legal system is totally out of whack  it does not deliver justice  and our public servants have a massive rug under which  anything  suspected  of being  even   slightly rotten is swept.

Our systems are broken  I petitioned for an independent commission against corruption  it was thrown out by a man who left parliament under a cloud , the reason it was thrown out.. it disclose fraud and corruption… go figure read  about it here 

I was charged and  found guilty  for breaching an order  which cannot be shown to exist  for an un name person  the  Lawyers disciplinary tribunal decision   makes no reference to any orders  nor does it caution  the existence of one , the decision was one where the  tribunal effectively condoned  criminal behaviour of one of its own  have a read…. https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016-NZLCDT-24-Waikato-Bay-of-Plenty-Standards-Committee-v-Mr-M.pdf. I believe that this is  the same man who wrote the legislation for the animal welfare act for his  own  business plan  and  then made a fraudulent application which gave him statutory law enforcement powers and no accountability , the court has protected him and  MPI has protected him because they never checked the facts  they were reckless and its easier to make some one else’s life hell than show that they system is not working .

The ombudsmen’s office provides a document 130 pages long  http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/system/paperclip/document_files/document_files/463/original/managing_unreasonable_complainant_conduct_manual_october_2012.pdf?1351456121    which  allows  a person who  uses CAPITALS , underlines words , uses a different Colour or Highlights  a word to be  declared an “ unreasonable complainant .

To complain about  being an unreasonable complainant makes you even more unreasonable

The ombudsmen  do have a book on how  to deal with complaints  its only 32 pages long  of which only 5 pages deal with  the  actual guidance of dealing with complaints

This culture of treating any   complainant  whether whistle-blower or some one pointing out a flaw in the system ,as a villain  only serves to make New Zealand more corrupt.

I had a first hand  demonstration   of how effective this system is   Ian Holyoake  who has been a rotarian for many years  totally defamed me with his  opinion which was so skewed  that logic was totally absent   ,

Ian  is of such standing that  his word is  gospel    and all he needs to say is   that he is a fine upstanding person  and that is sufficient for his opinion to hold against any one.  When I asked for a retraction and an apology  he could not possibly do that   and when I mentioned the possibility of defamation action  he went round  telling  people that  I had already served him with papers . The local assistant Governor  told me that an apology from Ian would  be unlikely   the pattern in my opinion  appears to resemble the rules  shown here

When you are the innocent party   every reasonable  thing you do to set things right  is turned into  a sinister act it is a real art form  all perpetrated with  fallacies  but more on that later .

Whether that society is  your  local rotary club the  Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, Law society or  our government,when facts and evidence  don’t matter   the society you are involved in corrupt  but it appears that it is also a crime to expose the corruption.. that is what the   real problem is .

When the headlines read ” Bar Association says ongoing suppression breaches in Grace Millane murder case endanger trial ” they got my attention . Fair trial  here in New Zealand   No way !!! so how could   the breach of the suppression order  which is implied to exist   possibly damage the fair trial of a murderer  when many others  who have not been associated with  murder do not get a fair trial .

Any one   who has been fortunate enough  not to have   entangled with the law is  of the mistaken belief that our  justice system is robust and works like a well oiled machine..  don’t be fooled  there are many things which   impact on natural justice here in New Zealand

Suppression  . By suppressing the name of the offender  the  chances  of a material witness coming forward is laos reduced , if the  offender was named   someone who knows him  is more likely to remember a relevant fact a week out from the murder  rather than  upon hearing his name a month or so later .. and what could have been relevant evidence is diminished  by doubt and confusion which occurs  with time.

How do we know that there is a suppression order, well you wont find anything from our court stating that there is a suppression order   , the judge in this case refused  one  but he mere fact that the lawyer for he accused  said he would file for one was sufficient  for  suppression  until the next appearance to be available .  But the court did not  make any statement that this is the case for that you have to search the statutes or  wait for a  reporter to write an article .

But  can you  believe the press  , one report states  that this was  court ordered suppression    when another explains that   it a statutory obligation .. why nothing  from the courts   directing what the situation is,   Despite there not being any firm direction and the name being freely available on any search of Graces name .

The police  are talking about prosecuting those who breach suppression this is done in  a flash and they  don’t even need evidence as the court supports their   prosecution.

Evidence is not required

I read  a publication by the law society which was so detailed that from my own  experience I could speculate as to the identity of the lawyer who  had  defrauded his client.     He   had been given name suppression by the  law tribunal  to conceal this corruption .   I was prosecuted, no evidence of  a suppression orders existence was required , the court merely said the tribunal had a right to make one.. when actually there is no scope for a suppression order under that legislation but they can make an order for non publication. No evidence existed as to the identity of the lawyer who appeared before the tribunal  or if an order under  the non publication  criteria was ever  made .  basically the question I still have   is   whatif I had said Mickey mouse would I have been similarly guilty  as there is about  much evidence that Mickey mouse was the lawyer  as there was for Neil Wells.

I have learned that    evidence is ignored all it takes is for a lawyer to say  I  have it on good authority your honour  that the sky is green  then the judge will say   it must be right as he must not knowingly mislead me

Perjury

perjury happens all the time       but  it is too difficult for the  police to prosecute it  so people  perjure all the time. In a recent case a  forensic accountant gave evidence   to support his  client despite the fact that he had sworn an oath that  as an expert witness he was obliged to   act in accordance with the code of conduct

An expert witness has an overriding duty to assist the court impartially on relevant matters within the expert’s area of expertise.

An expert witness is not an advocate for the party who engages the witness

“There seems to be no doubt upon the authorities that a voluntary association, such as the plaintiff, which has never been incorporated in any way, cannot sue except in the name
of all the members unless advantage is taken of rule 20 and an order is made by a Judge that one or more of the members may sue for the benefit of all persons interested.”

thus  it is very  clear that   prawn pickle and herring  cannot  sue or be sued, therefore how could they enter into a contract least of all claim to   represent their clients  when in fact  they could nto be lawyers

There is a culture in New  Zealand that has to change  and that is   practice of keeping up appearances .

We  just love keeping the illusion of ” all is well”  alive  and again today I read Maggie Barry whistle-blower threatened with legal action, as more bullying alleged. The tool box  supporting the illusion  consists of  suppression orders, confidentiality agreements, denial , character assassination and using the court to turn  fiction into fact .

Our courts have become a tool for the concealment of corruption ,  our courts themselves are corrupt  ( being that they do not work the way that they are supposed to work.. they simply do not  deliver justice and are manipulated )

People have in the past kept quiet because to speak up  means that your life is over .  Yet we encourage people to speak up, we pretend that we are anti corruption but when you say  “hey there is something wrong here”, be prepared to be destroyed financially and reputationally.. it’s called scorched earth .

I have been in the thick of it for 12 years   I proved that a private  law  enforcement  authority had no legal existence and came about  out of fraud . Now 12 years later I found myself being totally slandered by a former  Police assistant commissioner  Ian Holyoake   who had the  nerve to  send this The Brief x  to the people in my Rotary group  when he was unsuccessful in getting me thrown out of Rotary .

When Ian Holyoake and his mate David Hills  initially  attacked my character  I made a complaint to   the president of  our  Rotary club who chose not to do anything and put off meeting with me, the usual  delay   and pretend   it doesn’t exist  tactics were used  . When Ian Holyoake breached the confidentiality agreement by sending out “the Brief”  no one did a thing   , yet when I  published this post I was asked   to an urgent meeting. It appears to me that  the  act of being defamed is of lesser importance than  the fact that you  say that you have been defamed  , by doing so you  apparently defame the defamer .

When mud is  flung  there are those who don’t   take the time to talk and find out  and prefer to sit  and judge . I wonder what would happen if  this had happened to them .

I  was told to keep quiet and was denied the right to  defend the destruction of my reputation by this man  saying no more  than “look at me I am a fine upstanding citizen and this woman  should not be allowed  in Rotary “. Not a skerrick of evidence was  ever shown  to exist and  it was 10 weeks after Ian holyoake made his slanderous  complaint about me   that  I  was first advised of the  complaint  but was not allowed to see it  or address it  . Holyoake had been a past district governor  and he had credibility sufficient to persuade  others to  remove me from my group on nothing more than his say so   .  (I do not believe that this is reflective of rotary but rather the lack of leadership   in our group and the inability of  our president to be impartial )

There is a lot to be learned  in running an incorporated society and the first lesson is to treat all members equally and fairly . We also need to look at the so called noble men in history who  have impeccable reputation but transpire to be rogues. Reputations need to be maintained  that I why I fight for mine .

The whole scenario has taught me lots about how things are done in New Zealand . We had  agreed to confidentiality. It appeared that the confidentiality only applied to me  and  not to the others  and certainly not to  Ian holyoake.

My crime .. to speak up about corruption . 10 years of court action was not enough , the  woman who initiated it all , now a lawyer for the FMA  and who appears not to know  what a trust is ,  took action against me to make me lose my Private investigators licence  by making very serious allegations   which were never proved , when that was not  enough she  decided to take me to court for saying that in 2006  when she  intimidated me   that she was not a lawyer. now in the defamation  matter which she has taken against me she has kindly provided evidence that she was not  law society dossier.  I very much suspect that she was behind the action in my group   as this mirrors  the events in the past years .

We have to question where society is going when it is a greater crime to speak up about wrong doings than it  is  to commit them .. does this mean that we condone  corruption? 

in 2017 I found myself  in court again  this time  charged with breaching an order  which cannot be shown to exist ,  the action was taken to  protect the confidentiality of the   lawyers tribunal  who  without hesitation condoned theft  of money   by a barrister   from his  client.  see the  decision here . The law society wrote  this up  in this news item and from the detail and my own knowledge of events in Te Kuiti which I had reported well before this event  see  post  spot the suppression order

I took it to the court of appeal but it is apparently not in the public interest that a person is charged with wording which reflects the  section which creates the offence , near enough is good enough especially when you can introduce wider meanings  than  that which  statute provides for..   In this case I was charged with  breaching 263  lawyers and conveyancers act   the  wording for that  event would be along the lines of without lawful excuse  breached an order made under section 240  lawyers and conveyancers act. Suppression however can be achieved by many   ways  and he lawyers and conveyancers act  does not provide for  an offence for breach of suppression

In charging me this is what the police relied on alleged suppression order  the full copy of this was available on line   here

The police admitted to me  that they did not have a copy of the order, this is totally   against the provisions of the prosecution guide lines

It took the police 7 weeks after charging me   to locate this document interim order which is very nondescript and in any case does not say who it is for.

Even if mr W was identified it and the  decision being   clear,  the fact that this  document was hard to find and not in the public realm should have  supported the “lawful excuse ” content of he charge, but  when they are out to hang you    you may as well get the  dunking chair out and wind the clock back  several centuries .

It has to be noted that I had asked the  cop who contacted me ,to show me the  order which I had allegedly breached  and gave him the assurance that  I would comply with it , but there was no order  hence he could not  produce ti so  the court was used to cover up for the police.

so  we have the police refusing to investigate the public fraud  , the law society protecting  the  lawyer who  stole from his client and who perpetrated a  fraud on the minister .  the police protect the  law society  and the offender and   silence the whistle blower   by prosecution  to  protect the criminal activity which should be of public concern .

I was  found guilty  because I speculated   that Neil Wells was the lawyer referred to in the  law society article . My own speculation was all the evidence that they required.    Ian Holyoake then took the ball and ran with it alleging that I would be  imprisoned and had been convicted of a criminal  offence , he claimed he had had an email about me  then later claimed he had  not , I used to resect the man and  can only  suspect that he has gone off half cocked  because he trusted some one in a uniform , this sadly appears to be  part of the  the methodology  use people with a  great reputation to attack those  you wish to discredit .

It appears that the name suppression has now been lifted as Neil Wells is dead and a judges  have released decisions  which name him  see here decision on alleged breach of suppression of wells Disciplinary tribunal  and Pol v Siemer – Judge Blackie.  In the mean time   I am paying off yet another 6,000  on top of the 300,000 that  blowing the whistle  has already   cost me. the cost is way beyond monetary   and I reserve the right to protect my reputation

The only evidence that the lawyer  who appeared  before the   tribunal was Neil wells, was   my speculation   that it was him , but   and   this  has now become reality   through the decisions  of the court.

It appears that the  courts support   the law society  in condoning   criminal behaviour of  its barristers  and provide for the law societies ability to   deal with these ” rogue  lawyers ”  outside the criminal  jurisdiction .. covering up and not making those who have a legal obligation to he law more accountable to the law  but rather  providing them with a layer of protection    and hence  facilitating  the corruption in the  legal  fraternity

I set up my own blog sites because mainstream media wont touch any of this  and unless we  do speak up  nothing is going to change.

whistleblowers need to support other whistleblowers… no one should go through what I have had to endure.

we have a right  to justice and should not live in  fear that  speaking up will have you  bankrupted through the  justice system which  does not recognise evidence  and which apparently works on  back room deals  done  in the Northern  Club and its   associated   clubs.

we have freedom of speech supposedly  but   it is at the risk  of  you being severely  discredited.. Truth hurts.