People who make false allegations about the judiciary could be held in contempt of court under a new law passed in Parliament last night. It passed with the support of Labour, New Zealand First and the Greens, with National, Act and Jami-Lee Ross opposing. Awesome know what Im going to be writing about in the future wanker judges and their wanker verdict overseen and appealed by other judges who more often than not come from the wrong court (and thus have no jurisdiction) or are no less than their own cuzzy bros.
Composition and locations. The High Court comprises the Chief Justice of New Zealand (who is head of the Judiciary) and up to 55 other Judges (which includes the Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal) and only 255 district court judges. Most of these are related by marriage or by blood and in the High court ‘most’ means a majority. The very size of New Zealand means we should be adding checks and balance to our justice system to avoid possibility of nepotism not heading in the opposite direction to entrench it.
Is this why the Judges are now living in closed gated community with armed guards living across the road as several people have reported to Ben’s world (as far back as Janauary this year ) is now happening. Have we got to the point our government now fears it people for its people increasingly fear it wont get justice from the government?
This ruling flys in the face of the issue currently facing our court were we have over 900 reported case of bullying corruption, experienced by nearly 70% of the laywer themselves when in court. Bullying (another word for exceeding ones authority) is at a scale so out of control its just one more thing NZ getting a reputation for along with shitty river, a toxic obsessed culture, a police service with out an interbal watch dog that is independent, lack of transparency and money laundering.
In fact I suspect one of the reason this law is being passed is because what labout former Attorney General Marget Wilson referes to as 25 years of judges passing verdict on legislation created by politician that are simply constituionally wrong.
Wilson else were repeats that statment in opening adress in NZ Journal of public and International law
“The silence common in constitutional instruments about the proper role of the courts leaves much about their role to be gleaned from the practices of the courts themselves and from their own pronouncements and relations with the other arms of government. These conventions and cultural understandings surrounding the courts relate to such matters as how the courts are constituted, including notions of judicial tenure and independence, and the need for the separation of the personnel and functions of the courts from the legislature and executive….. The outcome of such conflicts was to confirm both the courts’ jurisdiction over questions of law and their ultimate deference to the power of Parliament. The tension between these two ideas persists today. Echoes of old conflicts on the role of the courts can still be heard. In 1610 in Dr Bonham’s Case, the Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, said:2 And it appears in our books, that in many cases, the common law will controul Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it, and adjudge such Act to be void … “
In the UK this has sparked fears and public debate in relation to a potential constituional crisis that has come under fire fromjournalist overseas which under this law would be forbidden.
Not withstanding the issue of parlimentary judical nepotism which took place when Helen Clark suspened the Priviy Council with questionable due procrss anc brought in a Supreme court in which the law makers now get to pick and infleucne the fortune of the law reviewers.
(* Contray to most people opinon we do have a constitution but it is not a fixed constituion with one set document by a series of constituional arrangement made up varying act or decrees)
NZ Justice111 are in fact producing a documentary on this very topic. Their home page states “I hold unequivocal and undefeatable evidential documents that I have been gathering for over eight years which proves, absolutely, that certain New Zealand Judges (right up to Supreme Court) have, and are, delivering deliberately lawless and illegal judgments to serve their own personal vindictiveness against any member of the public they take a dislike to, or deliver a winning judgment to one of their favoured barrister or solicitor’s.These judges, who are just members of the NZ public like you and I, need to be stopped. They are destroying the lives of hard working honest average New Zealanders”.
I have yet to see the documentary but have no problem believing it having seen the shocking conduct of judges my self on numerous occassions as I report on news story be it John Banks wet bus ticket verdict, Mike Sabin absurd name supression farce, David Fisher Vs Crown whihc rule books are not a form of journalism. Or the current march 15 shooting were the judge has asked for outrageous controls over the media which of course our corporate media agreed to instantly. In fact I suspect this law being made with this upcoming case in mind.
It is further absurd as Labour itself undertakes a two prong attack on our judical system claiming it broke to say you cant critic the judges verdict.
One step they made publically is when they invited the UN to review us (to be done by upstanding nation like Russia, Saudia Arabia and Indonesia) and then less noisly set about an internal reviw in which the hand pick panel included gang apologist Jarrod Gilbert. (Funny eh were worried about white guys with guns but yet oddly that exclude the Head Hunters, or other bikers gangs with decade long supremacist values). And now they pass a law to say a judge verdict is above critism I bet Arthur Alan Thomas and Peter Ellis are two people who might think that this law is not only nuts but justs down right evil.