abuse of process

Human RightsIt would appear that New Zealand is  over riding the  requirements of not only the universal declaration of Human rights  article 10 but also the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 14

Both state pretty much the same

All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

Yet in our bill of rights the  only persons who get an assurance of a ” fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal” are those  who have been charged  with a criminal offence

In civil matters  you are on your  own   running the  gauntlet and there is nothing fair about  it  .

I have  sent an OIA to the minister of Justice  who has  said that there is no justice any way  .. so as   one  reader puts it..  then what is she minister of   Minister of In- justice ?  or perhaps minister of Milk promotion

Dear Minister of Justice,
the declaration of human rights at article 10 states

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal
charge against him.

Yet our bill of rights only mentions the word Fair once
public hearing once ,independent once and impartial once
and that is in section 25 of the bill of rights which only relates
to criminal proceedings.

the universal declaration of rights does not confine the rights set
out in article 10 to just criminal matters but to all matters , the
operative word being “and ”

section 25 states
• 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
• Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the
determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:
• (a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial court:
• (b) the right to be tried without undue delay:
• (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law:
• (d) the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess
guilt:
• (e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a
defence:
• (f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to
obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence
under the same conditions as the prosecution:
• (g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the
penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and
sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:
• (h) the right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according
to law to a higher court against the conviction or against the
sentence or against both:
• (i) the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a
manner that takes account of the child’s age.

By way of OIA please advise why the New Zealand bill of rights does
not conform to the universal declaration of human rights and
explain why do people in the civil jurisdiction and family courts
do not have the right to “full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations ”

and Why section 25 only provides for people charged with an offence
and not for any one appearing in court in civil/ family
jurisdictions

This is particularly important to me as a claim of defamation was
filed agaisnt me , my defense of truth and honest opinion were
struck out because I failed to get $12,000 with a two week period
and the matter went straight to quantum . The issue involved being
a whistle blower on a matter of serious government corruption where
law enforcement powers were given to a fictional organization .

additionally

In family court every day people are denied a public hearing as
these hearings are conducted behind closed doors and through the
medium of confidentiality .

Please provide all discussion papers and documents which consider
the bill of rights and the obligations to be in line with the
universal declaration of human rights.

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

response from Judith Collins

ethicsDo you know what your rights are  in Civil jurisdiction? well it would appear that you don’t have many

I claim that you have exactly three rights

1. Put up – when some one takes action against you  there is little that you can do to escape it ,  claims do not have to have any merit  and  there is no need for  evidence .  Once you are before the court the  current will take you  with it.

Like any rip  if you fight it  you will  tire out  because the rip is intended to take  you under .

Sometimes miracles occur in the form of  an  honest and  competent judge

2. Shut up – action is often taken  to silence those who  could speak up  about  wrong doing.. those who provide transparency as a Private Investigator  I find that    white collar criminals see me coming before I  even know what I am dealing with  and so I find myself in  court  facing a  harassment claim  or a defamation  claim  which   finds it way though the system because the  crims  have   tactical lawyers, , deep pockets  which ultimately provide tax write offs.

3. Pay up– Ultimately it’s all about the scorched earth policy with the costs against you ,   you are effectively powerless  to fight back  because  our justice system is based on nothing more  than  he who has the most money wins.

If a judgement has been brought against you based on lies, it is virtually impossible to turn the case around. In New Zealand we simply don’t prosecute perjury and there seems to be an acceptance in the court that everyone tells lies.

So if you respect the law and you don’t tell lies you may survive with your own conscience intact but your reputation will be mud  and you will be bankrupted. – This is the harsh reality of  civil justice NZ style.

The civil court  is routinely used to conceal criminal offending and corruption. It is also a great tool to severely beat someone up or commit a crime  which if done without a lawyer  would be a crime  but done with a lawyer  suddenly becomes acceptable.

We have a presumption that the court is being used only where genuine disputes need to be settled. This is not true. The civil court is a weapon of war and is used as such it is used to steal anything  from children to real estate  and to silence those who could expose corruption.

The structure and nature of the civil court and the huge penalties which can be imposed , these penalties often have far greater implications as the vexatiousness of the proceedings extend to using these penalties for bankruptcy and liquidation.

The bill of rights act   gives  criminals rights to justice, these rights are not  given to civil litigants.  In particular

section 25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
  • Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights:

    • (a) the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court:

    • (b) the right to be tried without undue delay:

    • (c) the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law:

    • (d) the right not to be compelled to be a witness or to confess guilt:

    • (e) the right to be present at the trial and to present a defence:

    • (f) the right to examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses for the defence under the same conditions as the prosecution:

    • (g) the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty:

    • (h) the right, if convicted of the offence, to appeal according to law to a higher court against the conviction or against the sentence or against both:

    • (i) the right, in the case of a child, to be dealt with in a manner that takes account of the child’s age.

The civil litigant  is not ” charged with an offence ”  the same is true of those who   incur an infringement , it therefore follows that the   rights afforded to a criminal  do not apply to  those who have not been charged.

There is presumption that civil proceedings are brought legitimately and that the statement of claim is factual. There is no requirement to resolve disputes prior to going to court and if you have money you can simply bring any charge for anything against any one.

I was taken to court by one such person   Terry Hay  I wrote about him in this post Disparity in crime.. who you know matters 

I have also  made a complaint to    Michael Heron and to  Chris Finlayson  with regards to the back door option of  buying justice

 The reality I that Lawyers who are supposed to be officers of the court are there to ensure that only   proper action is  brought,  but would you seriously expect a lawyer to tell their rich client  sorry mate cant represent you   on this  because you have no  valid claim.  The lawyer knows full well that there are  $$$ to be made    and so he places his client ahead of the rule of law  and  keeps his child in private school for a few more years.

The  lawyer represent  Hay ,Peter Spring  from Keegan Alexander  brought  his   ethics and those  of his  firm  to notice in 2010 when  he took legal action agaisnt me on trumped up charges.  What are the ethics of Keegan Alexander law firm?

I had to  be silenced as  Terry Hay   had created a  fictitious liquidator and  Director and  I discovered that  fact. Hay was eventually charged  but he paid   off the crown law office  , it appears that economy  is more important than justice.

Hay took me to court for  harassment when I had  never been near him , spoken to  him or investigated him  , Lynne PRYOR   the  woman  who fronted the business for  him  was  sentenced for fraud  and received a slap on the hand with a wet dish cloth   , she is currently still running  the  business for HAY  . the  new company is company called READY FRESH LIMITED  and or  SALAD FOODS LIMITED  her brother Graham PRYOR is down as the  director   but Lynne still runs it  for Terry Hay.  the shareholders are concealed  from  public view through   KEEGAN ALEXANDER TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED

No matter what you uncover about the lawyers action the Law society like an over protective mum of an only child be selectively blind to their deeds.  

The rules of civil procedure would work if lawyers worked as peacemakers and healers, instead many lawyers involved in civil litigation use it as a weapon of war and then employ the strategies of war which has historically been used in the battle field, the fight for victory in the civil court is not confined to the court it plays out in the community by discrediting the opposing party and doing as much collateral damage as possible. It is war in every sense of the word and war intent on winning at all costs.

I recommend that any one finding themselves in court familiarities themselves with Books on the subject  such as Sun Tzu’s   the art of war and   Robert Greene  33 strategies of  war.