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 giving 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.
I have in the mean time found the full decision http://archive.is/qbOdL or https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2016-NZLCDT-24-Waikato-Bay-of-Plenty-Standards-Committee-v-Mr-M.pdf
I believe the $80,000 mentioned was destined to buy the new building for the Te Kuiti Rnzspca .
this man who has given me hell is repeatedly referred to as Victim by the police , read the decision you will wonder why he is the victim ? he should have been charged with theft by a person in a special relationship . well there is justice he was judged by a much higher authority . Hope its not too hot for you down there Neil at least you are with friends .
Leave a Reply