The real face of NZ Justice: David Bain to Receive Compensation – Yeah right. (Part II)

yeah-right3-edited

Following on from Part I in this investigative series:

Lets now look at the remaining content of the email from “Tanty Ted Thomas” to Jim Farmer QC where it is made clear that either Sian Elias or Alan Galbraith QC are liars, or it could be both are lying to the now irrelevant “old fart”;

“Secondly, Bill has not spoken to the CJ about the matter since the Courts judgment came out.  He has not made full disclosure as you claimed.  Sian spoke to Bill before the hearing and he gave her a “categorical assurance” that he was not ‘beholden” to Alan. No indebtedness was mentioned. And nor was there any reference to a guarantee.  She believes [correctly no doubt] that if she were to approach Bill again she would get the same categorical assurance. 

Sian said that she could not, or was not prepared to act on the basis of an anonymous report.  She would act, however, if she received a complaint or a formal communication.  She might handle the inquiry herself or refer the matter to the Judicial Conduct Officer [presently Ian Haynes but about to change].

She absolutely refused to believe my understanding [from my informant] that Alan Colin and you were of the view that Bill must resign and that Saxmere must get a rehearing. But she seemed aware that Colin had been seeing Bill.  She pretty much accepts that the issue will break in the media eventually.

Sian thought that I should get the “anonymous” informant to make a formal complaint or communication. At no time did she suspect that my informant was you.  Indeed she thinks that saxmere is behind it.  They copped an earful, which seemed somewhat inexplicable. 

I suggest that as soon as you are clear of your trial we get together and I will show you my notes of what I read to her and of my conversation with her. I cannot understand Alan. If the truth is eventually ferreted out and he has not been forthcoming he will lay himself over to the charge of being party to a cover up.

Speaking of a cover up, I implore you to not email me and tell me that you have spoken to Alan again and find that Alan and/or you got it all wrong.  Frankly, I would find that hard to believe.

For you information, the cases in the Supreme Court where Alan appeared in front of Bill are;

New Zealand Recreation Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Limited [2009]

New Zealand Exchange Limited v Bank of New Zealand [2008]

Ngai tahu Property limited v Central Plains Border Trust [2009]

The Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey [2009]

…. I know that you are a great mate Alans but you are also a great mate of mine and I don’t think it is too much to ask that you help sort things out in a way that preserve the integrity of the Court – with prejudice or damage to Alan”

Curruthers QC

The swash-buckling piss-head Colin Carruther’s QC

This email is damning against the cabal of Elias, Thomas, Farmer and Galbraith.  Firstly Elias is having a fucking clear lend of “tanty Ted” pretending not to know what has occurred. Elias is not overly bright but has already had counsel from her QC mates Galbraith, Farmer and the swash-buckling piss-head Carruther’s QC before she returned dear old irrelevant retired “tanty Ted’s” telephone call.

Elias taunted “tanty Ted” with the promise that she would act only when the “informant” was prepared to lay a complaint.  She already knew who was informing “tanty” and that “tanty” could not breach the trust of Farmer, and Farmer would never make a complaint as it would be the end of Elias and Galbraith, and Farmers, career and reputation. Elias had the old scroat fucked and was tea bagging  “Tanty Ted’s” ball sack

If Elias were honest, which she clearly is not, she would have gone straight to Wilson and made him confess, and then accepted his resignation after getting an undertaking that he would assist her in making a complaint against Galbraith because Galbraith and or his clients, who were obviously the party that would benefit from any wrongdoing.

Again “Tanty Ted” is proposing, somewhat ludicrously, that Wilson should be fucked, but his best mate Alan Galbraith should be saved from having to face the discovery of an obvious conspiracy to defeat or pervert the course of justice.

But “Tanty Ted’ was not about to have his “back door kicked in” by a person that was not even Wilson’s equal let alone his own, so he decided on another course of action which was set in place immediately by him informing Farmer QC that he had only spoken to his brother and his wife about what had occurred, other than his discussion with the other conspirator Elias, when in fact this was a bold faced lie.

This is where the whole debacle becomes quite embarrassing to report given the obvious dishonesty involved.  “Tanty Ted” had tried to raise the pressure by indicating, quite rightly in our opinion, that whenever Galbraith had appeared before Wilson (albeit inside a quorum), those litigants needed a rehearing as did Saxmere.

The conspirators being Wilson, and Elias as Supreme Court Justices, and the gaggle of QC’s being Galbraith, Farmer and Carruthers, were now aware that “Tanty” was bullshitting them with feigned concern for Galbraith and in fact now wanted revenge for being pushed out to pasture and for now not being taken seriously.  The “shit was hitting the fan” and no amount of air freshener would deal with the obvious smell of corruption wafting through the corridors of the Supreme Court.

Email Farmer QC to “Tanty Ted” 24 July 2009 at 11.11 am;

….I do not welcome the pressure you are putting on me.  I am not very happy about the fact that you have told Sian that Colin, Alan and I all think that Bill should resign even though that is the fact.

……I thought that from my last email and our discussion at Court the other day that you had got the message that if this matter is probed, it will be likely to bring down Sian as well as Bill.  While I have no brief for Bill, I do regard Sian as a close friend and I will always put friendship and loyalty above concerns about the “system” which has its own processes for looking after itself. I would always have thought that would be your position too but am now concerned that you wont leave this alone”

Now its the content of emails and documents such as this that makes the whole system in New Zealand corrupt beyond repair if those present in this true account of the facts remain involved in the Judicial system.

Justice Judith Potter, no stranger to "fixing" judicial out-comes

Justice Judith Potter, no stranger to “fixing” judicial out-comes

Farmer QC has stated quite categorically that he will look after his friends who have committed significant wrongs against what the system sells to the average New Zealand citizen, before he would act to protect “justice” being seen to be done.

It is clear from the following content of the same email that Farmer has spoken to Elias directly and informed her that he will not be making a formal complaint and so the matter should end there without any inquiry;

“…I will leave this as it is beyond saying that (1) I wont under any circumstances be making any sort of complaint to anyone (I would be appalled if you did and also if you did not continue to observe confidentiality”

Farmer is saying quite clearly that as he will not be formally complaining; it is up to Thomas to do so; and that their friendship would be at an end if that were to occur.  In no uncertain terms this is Farmers call on “Tanty” to observe the New Zealand judiciaries criminal code of “omerta”.

What happened next was that “Tanty” broke the code, and did so by sending his emails to one of our mates at Kiwisfirst judicial blog that has highlighted corruption for many years now, and whose owner Vince Seimer should be on the New Years honours list.

The following events that impacted on the founder and operator of Kiwisfirst anti-corruption site, should indicate to some significant extent how far the Judiciary went to try and fuck his courageous site in order that their corruption not be reported on.

In SC26/2007 [2007] NZSC 53 other Supreme Court fuck tards, Tipping and McGrath JJ ruled that a man could be put to prison based on hearsay evidence – so long as the prosecution for imprisonment originated as an interlocutory application or a civil action.  The very same day that this ruling was made public High Court Justice Judith “piss-pot” Potter sent Mr Vincent Siemer to prison for six weeks for contempt.

Justice Andrew Tipping

Justice Andrew Tipping, a man who had possessed a solid reputation until now!

Tipping and McGrath, as supreme Court Justices, would finalise the cover up of the criminal behavior of their Chief Justice, brother Judge Wilson, the gaggle of QC’s, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, when not reporting the full extent of their behavior in the Courts final decision on Saxmere.

McGrath, a former Solicitor General,  whose desire to be independent was thwarted by his desire to further his career; ultimately ruining his reputation and career”

So it was against this background that “Tanty” had to release sufficient evidence to “Vinnie” Siemer to get the “upper hand“, so to speak, on Elias and her criminal cabal of corrupt jurists.

Email from “Tanty” to Farmer dated Sunday 20 September 2009 at 6.22 pm;

“Kiwisfirst confirmed this week that judge Bill Wilson violated longstanding New Zealand Law when he continued to play an active business role in his horse breeding company after his appointment to the Court of Appeal…..A senior lawyer who prefers to remain anonymous  stated; “This goes beyond a technical violation and bad taste”

With good reason Farmer QC was not easily fooled by “Tanty” Ted’s sudden interest in Kiwisfirst just when that site got the good oil from a “senior lawyer” who wanted to remain anonymous.  Farmer QC was livid at what he construed as a breach of their omerta code and responded to “Tanty” Ted’s further denials of involvement in the leak;

Email “Tanty” to Farmer QC dated Monday 21 September 2009 at 7.17 pm

“Dear Jim

Yes Kiwifirst is written by one Vince Siemer, a right wing American crackpot who is regularly committing contempt of Court, see the other articles in his diatribe.  Fortunately, no one would believe that I would have anything to do with such a shithead, so no one will think that I have leaked information to him”

Farmer QC’s response;

Have you?  There is a saying that if some gets into bed with a dog he will catch flees. Siemer will not hesitate to disclose his sources of information.

Justice Campaigner Vince Seimer (2009)

Justice Campaigner Vince Siemer (2009)

“Tanty” Ted is now starting to play with his old best mate Farmer QC by “taunting” him as Elias CJ had taunted “Tanty”:

Email “Tanty” to Farmer dated Monday 21 September 2009 at 7.17 pm

But does he have any information over and beyond what he has obtained from the Court files?  There could be some other source.  How otherwise would he know that there has ben a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner – if that is in fact the case?

In a way, Siemers intervention may assist Bill Wilson.  No one will want to give the time of day to Siemer.  There is therefore a danger that Bills breach will be seen as nothing but a Siemer rant.  That has to be countered, and I wondered if someone should get in touch with the judicial complaints commissioner, who is now David Gascoigne. 

Farmers threatening response to “Tanty’s” taunts warns “Tanty” that his retirement might have no friends to talk shit to about the good old days;

Who do you have in mind?  If you are thinking of doing it yourself, then you will ultimately be an even bigger loser than Bill.  I would hate to see you do this to yourself”

Clearly then the gloves are now off and these two scumbags are exchanging power blows.  Farmer QC is saying that “Tanty” will be disowned by all jurists and legal organisations and will be a pariah for his breach of the criminal code of New Zealand jurists.

The final “Tanty” taunt (and very clear threat) for that day was;

“I am still worried about Alans position.  The notion that the amount Bill owes is less that first thought because Bill has taken over liability for some of Alans debts does not ring true when Bill cannot pay what he owes Alan anyway.

If it is no more than a “paper” reduction, that will no doubt come out – with I would have thought, repercussions for Alan”

By now “Tanty” is clearly beginning to warm to the task before him – that being the destruction of Bill Wilson – for personal reasons not professional ones.

However “Tanty” is “right on the money” as far as how the Elias backed plan to minimize hurt to her mates Wilson and Galbraith could viciously backfire as an attempt to alter the truth ‘after the fact’.

From left  (2nd) Justice Andrew McGrath. (3rd) Sian Alias

From left (2nd) Justice Andrew McGrath. (3rd) chief justice Sian Alias; the other three are irrelevant in this particular tale of woe.

This could amount to a criminal conspiracy to pervert of defeat the course of justice.  Of course, not in the sad shithole of New Zealand.    This conspiracy is confirmed in Farmers reply to “Tanty” Ted;

“Alan has now bought Bill out so there is no question of indebtedness”

However things, as we have indicated got worse between these two scumbags.  The following correspondence shows a steady decline with the inevitable looking like “Tanty” would do anything to anyone so as to fuck over Wilson;

Email from Farmer to “Tanty” dated 22 September 2009 at 4.34 am (obviously Farmer was unable to sleep that night due to his belief that “Tanty” had broken Omerta in contacting justice and anti corruption campaigner Siemer);

“Glad to hear that you didn’t contact him I would have been amazed if you had but had read your email as hinting that you might but that no one would think you would have. Equally of course neither I nor anyone else would think you would in any circumstances break a confidence one owed to a friend.  You are distressing me very much with statements that you are considering doing so”

The previous email was in reply to an earlier email from “Tanty”Ted to Farmer QC dated 21 September 2009 at 9.23pm;

“Dear Jim

I resent the thought that I may have tipped Seimer off.  I did not know of the website, “kiwifirst”, until my son sent it to me.  I now think that I may have made a mistake in not disclosing the source of my information in my letter to the powers that be.  It would have carried much more clout.

Perhaps, if I am to be compared to someone getting into bed with a dog and catching fleas it is not too late.  Just back off that sort of drivel”

Now this is classic “Tanty” Ted with the unprofessional outburst involving not so veiled threats to fuck careers and lives.  But this is the first mention of an actual letter to the powers that be.  Supposedly, when speaking to Elias, “Tanty” Ted had just read from notes he had made about his conversations with Farmer QC.

There are clearly emails that the team at Lauda Finem are not privy to at present but we hope to have our source get them for us in the near future.  Our source is one “amongst the mix” so to speak, and we look forward to bringing our readers some never before seen emails.

In researching this article we have however read “Tantys” book ‘The Judicial Process: Realism, Pragmatism, Practical Reasoning and Principles”  and can comment that it is the most narcissistic work written by a New Zealand jurist whilst pretending to be a common man.

judicial process

A book that contemplates by example, a significant range of mental disorders as found in the DSM IV manual

The common thread throughout “Tantys” book is that most other judges are complete fucktards whilst virtually, “Tanty” alone, has the answers that all lay in his unique, but in his career unobserved, genius.  A sycophant reviewer by the name of Steven Price of the Media Law Journal quotes “Tanty” as saying;

It is remarkable that, even today, judicial opinions that are in substance contrary to plain common sense, and even absurd, will be honoured as being ‘legally sound”.

Powerful stuff, well not really the authors a fuck tard.  Of course it is not remarkable, if it happens every day in New Zealand Courts, fuck tard!!!.

We suppose it is better than calling his brother judges “shitheads” like he did “judicial activist” Vince “Vinnie” Siemer, but nevertheless, “Tanty” is calling most judges shitheads in his book, but by other names.  And remind us why this old scroat was so unpopular.

Other readers of the soon to be recycled $135.00 roll of bullshit paper had the following comments;

Sanctuary Says: 
June 27th, 2008 at 1:04 pm To argue that the law is a tool to serve society and, therefore, we must be subject to judicial law making contains an obvious internal inconsistency. Lawyers and judges are just as subject as any other element in society to group capture, and the idea that an un-elected expert elite of technocrats should be elevated to position of equality to, or superiority over, the people as expressed in the house representatives is to my mind little more than an absurd power play. Like all technocrats, lawyers are as surely part of a priesthood with its own arcane language and rituals as any friar or preacher, and it is my view no priesthood can be trusted with any sort of executive veto. To believe other wise displays a reckless disregard of the collective wisdom of the common weal that underpins any democracy.


Steven Says: 
June 27th, 2008 at 1:08 pm Hmmm. I guess you mean a “judicial veto”. Like the US Supreme Court has, for example. I’m informed that many Americans regard their country as a democracy.


nigel_k Says: 
July 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm Without formalism, law is just politics but with politicians who can’t be voted out.
Thomas’s view, both in his book and his judicial decisions, is that judges are perfectly entitled to reform the law to suit their own political agenda, and if people don’t like it they can wait for them to turn 68.

Well it seems we are all agreed about “Tanty” and that probably includes the other crooks in the cover up conspiracy such as Elias CJ and her retarded gaggle of corrupt QC’s protecting the Queen Bitch staying on to serve the likes of her husband, one of the richest men in New Zealand.  Obviously Elias’s appointment by Shipley was a further “handshake” for the Fletchers “investment” in National.

With the likes of fat fuck and thug Jerry Brownlee giving the Fletcher Group the go ahead to handle virtually all of the rebuilding of Christchurch, at the exclusion of every local contractor, it would appear that the National party will get great financial support from the Fletchers in their bid to remain in power.

brownlee

“Bottom of the barrel” Brownlee should have stayed a woodwork and crafts teacher at St Bedes, but instead the National Party needed a thug to beat up 60 year old “save the trees” campaigners at Party Conferences.

Brownlee was successfully sued for assault and had to pay the victim, Mr Neil Able, who feared for his life, $8,500.00 in damages.  Brownlee then unsuccessfully tried to worm his costs of $48,000.00 from the Government coffers.  When found liable for the significant assault District Court Judge McElrea found;

Mr Brownlee was up to twice Mr Abel’s weight and was younger and fitter. Mr Abel was one week short of his 60th birthday at the time”

 Now is probably a good time to look at what “Tanty” thought about Hugh Fletchers fuck, Elias CJ’s, involvement in this fucking judicial farce.  According to “Tanty’ Elias is not the sharpest bitch on the bench; just unfortunately the “chief justice”.   This is what “Tanty” had to say about his former boss;

Email from “Tanty” to Farmer Saturday 4 July 2009 at 11.14am;

“I have a residual fear that Sian may not initially see the seriousness of the matter and not act decisively enough.  For that reason, Alan may want to consider asking either the Attorney Genral to be present or advising Sian that he also proposes seeing the Attorney General.  He should, I feel, also let Sian know that Colin, you and I are aware of the facts and believe that the matter requires firm action….. if nothing is done the matter will eventually leak anyway….I will not intervene unless Alan wants me to, but I would be prepared to let Sian have my thoughts if she is open to discussion.

It is clear that “Tanty” wants to involve other power brokers to force Elias’s hand not to cover up and in doing so fuck Wilson.  In desperation “Tanty” decides to lay his lack of reputation on the line in one long email to an equally stupid Farmer;

“Dear Jim

But lets clear the air.  As you know I am slow to anger, but your comment made me unbelievably angry, and I am still angry.  The problem is that, if could think I would have any truck with a lowlife like Siemer, others such as Colin, Alan the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General could think the same.  At some point I will need to clarify that, if Seimer has an informant it is not me.

I note that you are distressed you sound like Weatherston. We are all distressed. Those who have expressed used the word “sick” to describe how they felt about this whole sorry business include, you me, the chief Justice and the Attorney General.  To make matters worse, it is a distress that could have been avoided if Alan had followed your original advice and tabled the true facts with the Chief Justice at the outset”

Now this is interesting because it is the first time that “Tanty” has mentioned that Galbraith was advised by Farmer to table to Elias his involvement with Wilson before the hearing of Saxmere which clearly underpins why all would feel so “sick” about what had occurred as it had been avoidable.  Yeah right!.

Now we are getting to the core of why everyone is upset.  Allegedly, Galbraith waited for Wilson to recuse, but when he did not he did not go to Elias.  But this seems to be a lie given that Galbraith had allowed Wilson to sit on the other cases identified by “Tanty”, which we remind our loyal and exponentially growing reading, are the following;

New Zealand Recreation Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Limited [2009]

New Zealand Exchange Limited v Bank of New Zealand [2008]

Ngai tahu Property limited v Central Plains Border Trust [2009]

The Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey [2009]

It is clear that Galbraith, Elias, and Wilson are best mates with benefits and that Elias would have known, and did know, about the Wilson-Galbraith relationship.  In fact Elias and her mega rich husband Hugh “Hugo said you go and Elias said no you go where I go” Fletcher were horse mad investors that actually knew about Galbraith’s and Wilson’s multi million dollar stud all along and that’s why Farmer, Carruthers, Galbraith, and Thomas knew that Wilson was not as guilty as they made out as he had the effective clearance from Elias to sit before Galbraith. Why disclose something that Elias J already knew?

But something happened to make Galbraith panic, and as Wilson owed him money the last thing he wanted was his money making career to be fucked over by a useless lawyer that had to become a low paid judge to pay his bills.  He had to act first as Wilson was too much of a drip to understand the ramifications.  So Galbraith brought in well-connected jurist and “cleaner“, Jim Farmer QC, a massive contributor to the National party along with his best mate and hundred million dollar fraudster Colin Giltrap.  As an aside we have fresh information about Sir Colin that came in a few months back relating to his selling used Range Rovers as new ones to gullible New Zealand consumers.  We have been so busy on other stories that we have left that one to sit unwritten for the moment. But we will be researching it and writing it in the New Year just to remind New Zealander’s what a complete scumbag Sir Colin is.

Colin Giltrap dud's a Kiwi Icon

A fat cunt known as Sir Colin Giltrap; fraudster and Kiwi i-con?

Carruthers QC was brought on board to “handle” the stupid Wilson and show support to the scumbag Elias CJ.

But the criminal cabal made one mistake and it was a fucking massive error.  Farmer called narcissist and intellectual “wannabe” Sir Edmund “Tanty’ Thomas and from there……fuck they were fucked.

That is how Elias could be brought down by Wilson and the only way?.  We believe that Elias CJ must go and now.  But loyal readers it is up to average New Zealander’s to demand that she must go as she will never fall on her sword , and Judith Collins is so fucking corrupt with the support of John “show me the money” Key that parliament will not do it unless such action will pull votes for the next election.

That is why Elias wanted the whole thing covered up, and this is where ultimately Judith Collins came in to help out the “Fletchers”.  Christine Fletcher  was a National Party Minister with serious clout as Auckland mayor to award contracts to her family’s companies.  But more importantly Christine and Judith are great mates. Below Judith Collins takes a definite position when it comes to defending the “fletchers” against injustice at the hands of any likely independent inquiry into anything;

Judith Collin's has been know to take a strong stand.

Judith Collin’s has been known to take a strong stand when it comes to fucking New Zealander’s, David Bain is but the tip of this bitch of an Ice-berg…..think  Bronwyn Pullar, Michelle Boag and many more!

Just so you, our loyal readers, will be able to recognize a portion of the corrupt cabal in question we managed to grab a group photograph whilst they were all celebrating fucking over New Zealand;

national party cunts

But before we get on to that sad sack of Satan’s shit Judith Collins we will return to the communications between the equally corrupt combatants Farmer and “Tanty” who openly admit that they are committing criminal offending, but equally play a game of one-upmanship with “Tanty” still in a threatening mood with his clear goal being to somehow get rid of only Wilson, without getting rid of the people who were just as responsible as Wilson;

Email from “Tanty” to Farmer dated 22 September 2009 at 2.38pm;

‘I have managed to preserve your confidence to date, but I have not done so as a matter of principle.  If principle were to avail I would be free to disclose my source.  After all a reporter can be required to disclose his or her source if the public interest so requires.  So too, reserving the integrity of the Court must outweigh any claim to confidentiality.  Mr restraint has been based on loyalty, not principle.  Going through my collected papers I have been surprised at the number of occasions that I have assisted your career or promoted your interests.  You will have forgotten them, or most of them, as had I.  But loyalty can be strained and your comment certainly had that effect.  I am not, therefore prepared to give a blanket assurance that your identity as the source of my information will not be disclosed .  Much will depend on developments.”

In the same email “Tanty Ted decides to run Farmer QC through the whole saga no doubt to “put to paper” a record he could use at a later date against the cabal of the conspirators;

“I feel let down, as well as distressed, at the way this matter has developed at the hands of Colin, Alan and yourself.  Initially, that is, even before the judgment in the application to set aside the Courts decision in Saxmere had been given, you described Bills behavior as totally unacceptable.  You were horrified by it.  You said that you, Alan and Colin, believed that Bill had to resign.  His indebtedness was of the order of half a million.  Alan had been demanding repayment for some time.  Alan “needs the money” you said more than once.  Colin had said that Bill “had feet of clay”.  Bills position was so untenable that, if he doesn’t resign, the facts would come out in the media and he would be forced to resign.  Resignation was inevitable . You had little sympathy for Bill”

Now this is where “Tanty” was saying to Farmer QC “fuck you” mate for treating me like shit; I treat others like shit because I can, and more importantly, I like acting like a complete cunt because I am, and when doing it have always been, untouchable.  Of importance it is not impossible that Galbraith actually used Wilson’s indiscretion to sit in Saxmere against Wilson to force payment of the debt.  This is very possible given that Galbraith could not have been that stupid not to realize that there was a massive conflict.

And “Tanty ted” had more to say about how he understood the game would be played out with him “in control”;

“Somewhere along the way, it was decided to back pedal. You were persuaded to go along with what I described as a “fools errand”, trying to persuade Bill to resign.  Of course that did not work.  Subsequent developments have the faint smell of a cover up.

Bills indebtedness at the time of the Saxmere case is now allegedly reduced by him having accepted responsibility for certain of Alans debts, for which Alan will remain primarily liable, when Bill couldn’t even afford to repay Alan what he already owes him.  Yeah right!”

“Tanty Ted” was aware at that stage that he was losing the battle to kick Wilson off the bench and what followed was further disclosure to the media.  In fact “Tanty” moved to publicly speak out after the media “got hold” of the story.

After the media ran the story for a while a deal with the media was done to minimize harm to the judiciary as a whole, and of course Galbraith’s, Farmers, Carruthers and Elias’s criminal misconduct was swept under the carpet.  Lest we also forget “Tanty Ted’s” dishonest behavior in wanting to only “out” Wilson’s behavior, and save Elias and Galbraith from facing serious censure.  As we have said Elias CJ can no longer stay.  She brings the Supreme Court into serious disrepute.

chris fraud

Chris Finlayson National Party MP and toady

Then of course there was the Attorney General and the Solicitor General who obviously sat in on the corruption.  As the AG is a politician, (at that time Chris Finlayson National Party MP and toady). On 13 December 2012, Finlayson  was appointed a Queen’s Counsel due to his role as Attorney-General.   We suspect that the “role” he received the title of QC for was protecting the Chief Justice and her gaggle of QC’s facing criminal charges.  The charge of course would be attempting to cover up the respective behaviours that were perpetrated to try and keep Wilson a Judge.

But what of Saxmere and their costs.  Well this is where things become quite ludicrous.   Both Saxmere and the Woolboard have presented invoices to the Solicitor General for their costs when before the Supreme Court with Wilson sitting.  How the fuck can Galbraith QC claim costs from his client, the Woolboard?  Galbraith QC should have to pay Saxmere’s costs, and repay the woolboard’s costs as well.

Wilson finally resigned with a $1m payout; now how the fuck does that work when he is as guilty of dishonesty.

Well it works like this; Wilson was going to “inform” on absolutely everyone’s role, not only in Saxmere, but we can only imagine that he had the inside story on all sorts of other judicial and political corruption.  After all, Wilson got his job on the Supreme Court as a big “thank you” from his National Party mates, and as “Tanty Ted” noted about Wilson’s past, “Tanty” alleged that Wilson ran with the hares and hunted with the hounds .

A complaint was made to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, (a complaint that was fully supported by none other than“tanty ted”), but that was a complete waste of time as David Gascoigne’s recommendation that there be a full and well funded inquiry into what had occurred, an inquiry that would have seen “Tanty Teds” emails released (the same emails that Lauda Finem now have and provided excerpts from) was fucked over by the Judge’s he is supposed to be able to exert influence  over.

David.cm

Sir David Gascoigne, KNZM CBE LLM. He took up the position of Commissioner on 3rd August 2009 and we suspect that he will not want to be re-appointed

Gascoigne, from what we have seen, appears to be honest but underfunded but being in Australia we rely heavily on information received via email.  Apparently Gascoigne has such little funding that he has to operate out of an office in his old law firm. (Fuck New Zealand is pathetic).

How Gascoigne was fucked was that Wilson’s brother Judges of the Supreme Court Justices Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, and Anderson JJ ruled that there were insufficient grounds to grant an appeal to Saxmere relating to bias regarding Wilson, when Wilson sat on that case in 2007.

But “Tanty” was not happy with that and supplied counsel for Saxmere further information, and further legal grounds.  In a Supreme Court [SC 64/2007 [2009] NZSC 122] judgment dated 27 November 2009 Justices Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, and Anderson JJ recalled its earlier judgment dismissing Saxmere’s appeal for a rehearing in the Court of Appeal, and ordered a rehearing in the inferior Court.  Their reasoning was that “fresh” information had “surfaced” which ‘tipped the balance” towards a rehearing.

Now this is where we feel a real case for complaints against Wilson, the Chief Justice, and the gaggle of QC’s can be made out because even though  Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, and Anderson JJ made light of what occurred, the emails that we have published in this story show that everyone was aware of the actual position before the original judgment refusing the Saxmere appeal.  The Supreme Court found;

[6] After the recall application was made and no doubt having in mind certain comments made in our earlier judgment, to which reference will be made hereafter, Wilson J, in a memorandum to the Court, sought leave to provide a statement in reply to the application for recall, in which it was suggested that he had not made a full disclosure before the earlier hearing.

[7] With the leave of the Court the Judge furnished a further statement and thereafter, at the invitation of the Court, supplemented it with further factual information.

[8] The first of the matters on which the appellants now rely was the absence of any earlier mention of s 4(2A) of the Judicature Act 1908, which was inserted into that Act by s 3(2) of the Judicature Amendment Act 2004 on 20 May 2004. It reads:

 “(2A) A Judge must not undertake any other paid employment or hold any other office (whether paid or not) unless the Chief High Court Judge is satisfied that the employment or other office is compatible with judicial office”.

[9] We find it unnecessary to decide whether that subsection has any application to a Judge of the Court of Appeal or of the Supreme Court who, although technically also a Judge of the High Court, does not in practice sit on the High Court Bench and in respect of whom the Head of Bench is not the Chief High Court Judge but, rather, the President of the Court of Appeal or the Chief Justice. It would be odd, to say the least, to require an appeal judge to obtain a consent of the kind envisaged by the subsection from the Head of a lower Bench.

[10] Nor need we decide whether the “other office” referred to in the subsection encompasses anything other than a public office which might be incompatible with holding the position of a Judge.5 However that may be, the flaw in Ms Gray’s argument directed to s 4(2A) is that it does not at all follow from the fact that a Judge may have overlooked, or failed to heed, the requirements of the subsection, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the Judge has not brought an impartial mind to the resolution of a particular case. It does not follow that a failure to comply with the subsection provides any evidence that the Judge might unconsciously favour Mr Galbraith’s client in a case in which Mr Galbraith was appearing for one of the parties.

[11] The same can be said of the second ground advanced in support of the recall application, namely that Wilson J failed to comply with the Guidelines for Judicial Conduct. It is surprising that this point was advanced as we had rejected such a view with reference to a similar allegation relating to non-compliance with the Guide to Judicial Conduct published by the Council of Chief Justices of Australia. McGrath J said:6

“The views of such bodies do, of course, provide important guidance as to appropriate standards of judicial conduct but departure from them by a judge in respect of an association with a person having an involvement in litigation

The section addresses the composition of the High Court and the reference to a “Judge” in subs (2A) is plainly to a Judge of that Court.
Wilson J did not have “paid employment” with Rich Hill Ltd.
At para [113].

does not establish that the nature of the association is such that it has the capacity to influence the judge away from impartial decision making.

And Blanchard J commented that “it does not follow that a particular business relationship with counsel which goes beyond the guideline will necessarily give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias”.

[12] There is nothing in these two points which justifies a recall.

Now, how stupid does the Supreme Court think average New Zealander’s are.  If the matter of the judges relationship was of no concern, or that an average New Zealander, let alone “Saxmere“, would think it was of no concern, why would there have been a fucking appeal about it.

Equally, why would there have been such a fuss to cover it up on the one part, and such a concerted effort by “Tanty” to get Wilson to resign.

Further ‘Tanty Ted’ raised section 4(2)(A) in his emails to Farmer and we are certain that Farmer would have sent those emails onto Galbraith.   As Galbraith had represented the Wool board, he had an obligation to the Court to inform the Court of the applicable law whether it helped his client or not.  He did not do this on purpose, and we can imagine just how fucked off “Tanty” would have been.

But “Tanty Ted” got them in the end, not for justice however, clearly just out of pure spite.  The Courts judgment continued;

[13] There is, however, cause for concern in relation to some matters not contained in the disclosure made by Wilson J before the earlier hearing. It may be that because reported decisions on apparent bias relating to the relationship between Judges and counsel are quite rare – there appear to have been none in New Zealand – that the Judge had not anticipated the view which we would form of the applicable principles in that connection.

Fuck off you fuck tard’s; of course this shit is rare because it is covered up just like you are doing now you corrupt suck-holes.  What do you mean that the judge had not anticipated the view that “you would form of the applicable principles” relating to blatant dishonesty.  Look at the fucking emails between the conspirators and then look at the Courts decision.  They are poles apart.

[14] In his reasons Blanchard J said:

“[25] The objective observer might then turn attention to whether the Judge might in some way be beholden to Mr Galbraith because of the business dimension of their relationship and might unconsciously favour the side represented by Mr Galbraith because of some fear of disadvantage to himself (the Judge) if Mr Galbraith’s client were to lose the case. Such a situation might theoretically exist if, for example, the Judge had been lent money by counsel or was dependent on counsel in order to meet some liability. However, the materials placed before the Court reveal nothing of this kind. There is nothing to indicate any indebtedness by the Judge to Mr Galbraith, nor any indication of any inability of their joint company, Rich Hill Ltd, to meet its obligations”

And McGrath J observed:

[115] Aspects of the business relationship are relied on as having the effect, objectively, of potentially influencing the Judge to be more receptive to MrGalbraith’s arguments in Court, so that there is a reasonable apprehension the Judge would subconsciously favour them in order to maintain the closeness of the association. I am satisfied that the feature of mutual trust and confidence and mutual financial interest cannot be perceived to have such an influence over a judge in the circumstances of Wilson J. Objectively these aspects add nothing to what is present in ties of friendship and personal association. In particular, there is nothing which indicates that the financial aspect could make the Judge beholden…

At para [29]:

“Mr Galbraith. A fair-minded and informed observer would accept that the Judge’s professional obligations are more than sufficient to keep aspects of the business association from diverting the Judge and that their presence does not alter the position in respect of the personal friendship and professional association aspects. This is not, of course, a case in which the Judge has any financial interest in the outcome of the litigation”

Now children of the long island of smoke and mirrors, we refer you back to the emails between Farmer and “Tanty” that you have already read that show this “factual finding” by the corrupt court to be completely wrong.

Tanty Ted to Farmer;

But lets clear the air.  As you know I am slow to anger, but your comment made me unbelievably angry, and I am still angry.  The problem is that, if could think I would have any truck with a lowlife like Siemer, others such as Colin, Alan the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General could think the same.  At some point I will need to clarify that, if Seimer has an informant it is not me.

I note that you are distressed you sound like Weatherston. We are all distressed. Those who have expressed used the word “sick” to describe how they felt about this whole sorry business include, you me, the chief Justice and the Attorney General.  To make matters worse, it is a distress that could have been avoided if Alan had followed your original advice and tabled the true facts with the Chief Justice at the outset”

“Tanty Ted”  to Farmer;

“Somewhere along the way, it was decided to back pedal. You were persuaded to go along with what I described as a “fools errand”, trying to persuade Bill to resign.  Of course that did not work.  Subsequent developments have the faint smell of a cover up.

Bills indebtedness at the time of the Saxmere case is now allegedly reduced by him having accepted responsibility for certain of Alans debts, for which Alan will remain primarily liable, when Bill couldn’t even afford to repay Alan what he already owes him.  Yeah right!”

“Tanty Ted” again to Farmer;

“I feel let down, as well as distressed, at the way this matter has developed at the hands of Colin, Alan and yourself.  Initially, that is, even before the judgment in the application to set aside the Courts decision in Saxmere had been given, you described Bills behavior as totally unacceptable.  You were horrified by it.  You said that you, Alan and Colin, believed that Bill had to resign.  His indebtedness was of the order of half a million.  Alan had been demanding repayment for some time.  Alan “needs the money” you said more than once.  Colin had said that Bill “had feet of clay”.  Bills position was so untenable that, if he doesn’t resign, the facts would come out in the media and he would be forced to resign.  Resignation was inevitable . You had little sympathy for Bill” 

The Pigs snout?

The pigs snout SG David “corrupt” Collins who lied by omission to the first and second Saxmere hearings in the Supreme Court and is now a High Court judge.

“SG David “corrupt” Collins who lied by omission to the first and second Saxmere hearings in the Supreme Court and is now a High Court judge.

Now lets think about this.  “Tanty Ted” had written to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General no doubt giving both the ‘good oil’ on Wilson, and indeed the others.  Why was it then that the AG and SG, let the Supreme Court, that ruled so clearly and factually incorrectly, clear Wilson and the others from their significant wrong doing.

Well the SG David Collins, who was well aware of the level of dishonesty involved, especially in constructing “paper reductions” of debt, did not inform the Court of what had transpired as did not Galbraith, or Wilson.  In fact Wilson produced the very material that misled the Court.  In the application for recall David Collins was “intervenor“.

Now in entering the proceeding as intervener, the Court must have been satisfied that Collins had something worthwhile to contribute.  Well apparently he did.  He acted, as he always has acted, in a completely corrupt manner.  That Collins went on to now hold the position of High Court Judge means that this wholly corrupt individual may one day be a Supreme Court Justice where he can really use his dishonest ways.

Anti-corruption (in the judiciary) website Kiwisfirst has a lot to say about Collins career.  As Mr Seimer has never been sued for the publication of the following material, one can assume that the content is absolutely true.   So Collins has a history of perjury, ripping off the tax payer, and being a fucking hypocrite.   Justice campaigner website Guerilla  has similar things to say, calling Collins a “one man crime wave”.

The Supreme Court apparently refused to allow this fuck tard to speak to his submissions given that they probably knew that the submissions were misleading and had made up their own mind that “Saxmere” must get a rehearing, and had also deciding how they could rule in a manner where they “made light” of very serious offending.   Below is how they “got away with it”.

 [15] The further disclosure made by Wilson J refers to two matters which require to be examined to see whether a reasonable observer might consider that the Judge was disqualified from sitting on the case because of the appearance that he was beholden to Mr Galbraith. The impression that the Court had following the earlier hearing was that Rich Hill Ltd was very largely a passive land holding company jointly owned by Wilson J and Mr Galbraith. There was nothing in the material then before the Court to suggest other than that equal contributions had been made by the shareholders to the share capital and any loan capital of the company. It now transpires, from the further disclosure, that substantial advances made by Mr Galbraith and the Judge to the company to finance in part the acquisition and development of its land were not on an equal basis. The Judge says that as a general principle they have attempted to achieve approximate equality of contribution but that imbalances in the level of their shareholders’ accounts did develop from time to time because of differing payments made to or on behalf of the company. When they became aware of a significant imbalance, usually from reading the annual financial statements when these became available, they discussed and agreed on how they should return to a position of approximate equality.

[16] It has emerged that as at 31 March 2007, shortly before the hearing in the Court of Appeal, the position was that the Judge had advanced $984,176 to the company and, by informal arrangement with Mr Galbraith, had assumed exclusive responsibility for paying interest and principal on an amount of $168,555 of bank debt owed by the company. The total of those sums was $1,152,731. On the other hand, Mr Galbraith had advanced to the company the sum of $1,226,980. The difference between those figures, i.e. the imbalance in shareholders’ accounts, was $74,249 or, if notice is taken of the fact that the Judge had not actually made any payment of the bank debt of $168,555, an aggregate sum of $242,804.

[17] Although counsel for the respondent, Mr Taylor, argued strongly that such sums, although perhaps large in themselves, were not material against a background where the gross assets of the company were about $3 million and the informal arrangements between the Judge and Mr Galbraith were of long standing and could be expected to continue, we are of the clear opinion that the objective lay observer could reasonably consider that, notwithstanding that background, the Judge was at the relevant time beholden to Mr Galbraith because of the imbalance, and that this might unconsciously affect the impartiality of the Judge’s mind in deciding a case in which Mr Galbraith was appearing. Indeed, in our view even the sum of $74,249 (or the half of it which represented Mr Galbraith’s share) is well above the level at which a direct or indirect indebtedness from Judge to counsel could be regarded as so minimal as to be immaterial, thus giving rise to no concern.

[18] There is now disclosed also a further circumstance which was not appreciated by this Court at the earlier hearing. It is that, at the time of the hearing in the Court of Appeal, Rich Hill Ltd was preparing to participate in the settlement of a sale and purchase in which it had contracted to buy one-third of a property intended to enlarge the horse stud which was being acquired by a group involving Rich Hill for $2,160,000. Arrangements were being put in place for Rich Hill Ltd to borrow its one-third share of that price on the security of its existing land. The Judge and Mr Galbraith must have been reliant upon one another, during the very time when the Saxmere judgment was reserved in the Court of Appeal, for mutual cooperation to enable the funding and completion of the purchase of the additional land. That too is a matter which might raise a question in the mind of the observer about the Judge’s ability to address the issues raised by the appeal without being unconsciously affected by this ongoing aspect of his business relationship with counsel. The Judge’s shareholding in Rich Hill Ltd was not at that time merely a passive investment.

[19] These circumstances, and in particular the first of them, would, if disclosed before the earlier hearing, have led the Court to the conclusion that the case on apparent bias was made out. There is therefore a very special reason why justice requires recall of our earlier judgment.

[20] Accordingly, we recall our earlier judgment and set aside the orders made in it. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for hearing in the Court of Appeal by a new panel of Judges.

[21] We reserve costs and invite counsel to make written submissions on them.

Now, the Court thinks it has cleared it all up and that it was more a matter of “perception” rather than reality.   The truth is that the facts were known by the parties before Wilson sat; how could it be otherwise?.  Wilson was beholden to Galbraith, and lets face facts, they are obviously best mates.

Now the truth about life is that when people are absolutely honest they act absolutely honestly.  There are no “grey areas”.  Those that are not honest act dishonestly before, during, and after an event.

These scumbags had done all three.  They knew Wilson should not have sat, he sat when they all knew he shouldn’t, and afterwards they changed the books to reflect a dishonest picture of the relationship, and then placed that dishonest picture in front of the Supreme Court defeating the course of justice in the first hearing of the Saxmere appeal.

Surely this is criminal offending; apparently not if you are a Supreme Court Justice, the Chief Justice of New Zealand, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or part of the jurist fraternity in New Zealand.

The final act was to have Wilson resign, and have Judith Collins, being the acting Attorney General at that time direct that there would be “no further inquiry”.

Saxmere lawyer Sue Grey said the issue was never about Justice Wilson;

“It was about the right to get a fair hearing,”

“But, this should not be the end of the process.

“An inquiry is needed to review what went wrong and to compensate those who have suffered injustice including my client Saxmere”

“They need a commission of inquiry in to the checks and balances on the judiciary and the competence and on whether the mandate of Crown Law and the solicitor general is adequate to ensure the law is upheld.”

Source: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/saxmere-wool-producers-still-waiting-result-after-judge-quits-131988

We will see how “Tanty Ted” Thomas feels after his reprehensible and criminal behavior is made public as well.   Given that the behaviour was well over a decade ago we suspect that Fisher and Thomas now feel secure.

Well corrupt Jurists…. All over New Zealand……you are not safe from the public prosecution of your misdeeds.   Lauda Finem is here to expose your malevolent past, a past spent destroying the lives of good innocent men trying to right obvious wrongs.

Over the holiday period we will also bring evidence that proves that District Court Judge Mary-Beth Sharp was likely hand chosen to take care of criminal barrister Anita Killeen, in finding that she was not responsible for her clearly criminal actions in forging emails that were designed to cause personal embarrassment to SFO director Adam Feeley.

Read Part I

To be continued, Part III 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 315 other followers

%d bloggers like this: