‘State capture’ obtains when a small number of firms (or such entities as the military) is able to shape the rules of the game to its advantage through massive illicit, and non-transparent provision of private benefits to officials and politicians. Examples of such behaviour include the ability to control legislative votes, to obtain favourable executive decrees and court decisions. A relatively new concept, the main proponents being World Bank researchers, it echoes that of ‘crony capitalism’ and covers cases where high-level corruption is pervasive.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/state-capture#ixzz1E0fTEZHG
By recognizing the dynamics of state capture, we gain a much clearer understanding of the factors underlying the persistence of corruption in many transition countries. Although corruption has usually been seen as a symptom of weak state institutions, our analysis highlights the powerful forces that have a strong interest in fostering and maintaining these weak institutions.
Any reforms to improve the institutional framework, which might undermine these highly concentrated advantages, will be strongly opposed by captor firms that have the political influence to derail such reforms. Consequently, tackling the problem of state capture is a prerequisite for reforms to improve governance and strengthen the legal, judiciary, and regulatory environment. But once the capture economy has become entrenched, how can the country break out of the vicious circle?
How does it relate To New Zealand?
we need only look at the workings of the former Waitakere City Council and its relationship with the Auckland film studios as an example of state capture .
Over the next few days I will be revealing the inside story for a taster visit How to invest using public funds
It has long been a concern of mine that court action can be brought by any one on anything.
If you have a larger wallet than the person you are taking on and wanting to beat them up and totally destroy them then the court is your arena.
Defamation claims are always good because they put the onus of truth on the other party and then when you can ensure that their defence is struck out- you are on a home run.
I have been fighting this for four years and have met up through the course of events with Vince Siemer who has had a similar experience.
While we spend years arguing law, the facts are not put before the court. Lawyers who are skilled debaters can win any argument especially when they do not have to produce the facts to back them up.
The police do not act on perjury complaints, I have had one with them for 6 months now for a matter I was involved in and it has not progressed
Through my Fresh prepared Limited case I can prove categorically that the courts are abused .
Today I received some documents from Vince , he has asked me to put them up on the transparency site and I have done so in the interest of transparency.
Regulation required if judges can’t be trusted
Liam Baldwin | Friday April 16, 2010 – 03:59pm
There is a fundamental flaw in the Guidelines for Judicial Conduct in that they are not binding.
The guidelines, which were kept secret until late last year, were coincidentally publicly released after the repeated badgering of the Crown Law department by judge-busting lawyer Sue Grey.
The purpose of the guidelines, dated August 2005, was to “provide practical guidance” to judges.
“The general principles can readily be accepted as standards all judges in accepting appointment agree to live by and the public of New Zealand is entitled to expect in judicial conduct.”
However, the guide is not intended to be a code, it self-decrees. “It does not identify judicial misconduct. It is advice.”
But, given the judicial rort that surrounds the precarious situation of Supreme Court judge Justice Bill Wilson, the government should start to look at these guidelines as an opportunity to create statutes – laws that actually govern what a judge must reveal before sitting on a case.
Justice Wilson was a fresh-faced Court of Appeal judge when he sat on a case between superfine wool producer Peter Radford against the Wool Board Disestablishment Company (Disco). He was part of a panel that overturned a High Court ruling in favour of Mr Radford.
Queen’s counsel Alan Galbraith was Disco’s lawyer. He was also Justice Wilson’s business partner and friend.
Because of Justice Wilson’s failure to be completely honest about aspects of his personal business dealings, a mockery is being made of the judiciary. If the government finds itself unable, or unwilling, to do anything about it, the least it should do is seriously consider sweeping changes to the rules.
The guidelines actually go on to explain further why they should only be an advisory.
These guidelines are not principally concerned with the sort of misconduct which would justify removal from office. They are concerned with the promotion of higher standards of conduct.
No system of discipline to impose and support a code of conduct for judicial officers exists in New Zealand or comparable jurisdictions for good reason. It would undermine the fundamental principle of judicial independence.
The guidelines claim judicial independence is not protection for judges but for the people of New Zealand.
In the case of Justice Wilson, the disqualification of judges’ guidelines are particularly pertinent.
The judge must be alert to any appearance of bias arising out of connections with litigants, witnesses or their legal advisors. The parties should always be informed by the judge of facts which might reasonably give rise to perception of bias or conflict of interest.
Justice Wilson failed to do this. There was some attempt to point out the nature of the relationship he had with a lawyer who appeared before him, but the true scope of it was only made clear when it was prised out of him by the Supreme Court.
If that wasn’t enough, there’s more.
Judges should disqualify themselves if in a close relationship to litigants, legal advisors or witnesses in the case. It is impossible to be categorical about the relationships which may give rise to concerns about impartiality. Clearly close blood relationships or domestic relationships are disqualifying.
That seems clear. However, it might not have been clear to Justice Wilson – it doesn’t specifically refer to bloodstock.
Justice Wilson is, or was, friends with Alan Galbraith QC, apart from being a business partner. Mr Galbraith is, or was, clearly friends with Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. These three, along with Dame Sian’s husband Hugh Fletcher, also had shares in racehorses together.
But, wait, there’s more.
Shareholding in litigant companies or companies associated with litigants should be disclosed. They should always lead to disqualification if the shareholding is large or if the value of the shareholding would be affected by the outcome of the litigation. Where the shareholding is small, full disclosure should still be made.
Justice Wilson and Mr Galbraith each held 50% of Rich Hill Ltd. A 50% shareholding is considered substantial. In additions, this was a company that owned land worth millions of dollars. There was also debt which led to the Supreme Court concluding Justice Wilson was financially indebted to Mr Galbraith.
It is impossible to be categorical about relationships which give rise to disqualification but a judge should always disqualify himself or herself whenever a party, lawyer or witness of disputed facts is a close blood relative or domestic partner of the judge or a close relative of the judge or where such person is a close friend or business associate of the judge.
It is purely semantics to argue the fine points of the guidelines because, as they point out, they are simply guidelines and not absolute rules.
The intent of the guidelines is clear. Justice Wilson should have fully disclosed his business relationship with Mr Galbraith even prior to the Court of Appeal case being considered.
If New Zealand can’t rely on a man’s integrity, then the government must regulate. It has no reasonable choice.
By PHIL KITCHIN – The Dominion Post