this court decison is important as it proved that there is no contract between the vehicle owner and the car park enforcer

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/misleading-and-unenforceable-parking-ticket-quashed-after-disputes-tribunal-challenge/4ZQPVCEEGBFF7LFVWZI3PZV7NQ/

the owner has no obligation to a private company to advise them who the driver was

step 1. remove your ownership details Revoke authorised access to my personal details 

https://transact.nzta.govt.nz/transactions/PersonalInfoAccess/entry

step 2 if you get a tricket dispute it and ask them to prove every thing

do not tell them anything get information from them .

they cannot send it to a debt collector as long as you write to them that you dispute the debt and want them to prove it

a photo of your car is not proof of anything see previous posts on this site

Dogs New Zealand exists as a legal entity, a legal person and we have incorporated under the companies act to prove that others using this name are doing so in a precarious manner

The New Zealand Kennel club incorporated is an incorporated society formed in 1932 and deals with the registration of pedigree dogs you can find its constitution here and the Audited Financials for 2021 Year Book.pdf at the second link

The year book provides some background to the organisation and at least acknowledges the trading name adopted by the kennel club but in contrast the constitution is silent about any authorised trading name .

The only legal rules for any organisation are those registered on the companies web site . We could not have registered the name Dogs New Zealand if an entity with an identical name existed . proof of their lack of existence is our successful incorporation.

Trading names

A trading name is a name other than the legal name generally it is a name by which customers know the organisation .In this case the kennel club has registered the trading name at IPONZ.govt.nz to prevent any one else trading in the categories in which the trade mark has been listed. Usually the trade mark has a encircled “r” behind it to differentiate the trademark from a legal name .

Its a bit like the guy up the road real name Trevor Jones but known to everyone as Curly . If you were to contract to or enter into a legal agreement with Curly you would do so in his real name and only legal persons and real identities can enter into contracts.

It is therefore essential that every time the NZ Kennel club uses the name Dogs New Zealand that they specify that this is a trading name, failure to do so opens up legal complications and potential deception .

You may well ask what legal complications ? well for a kick off the kennel club now appear to have no members they are getting people to sign up as members of Dogs New Zealand, this is probably because the Kennel club is unique in not providing its members with a right to have a say over their organisation .

Members however can get together call a meeting and change all of this and put themselves back in control . see the incorporated societies act .

To add to the confusion the fictional Dogs New Zealand advertise themselves as being ” formerly the New Zealand Kennel Club” which is a deceptive practice as the Kennel clubs still exist as can be seen by the registration with the incorporated society register

The deception goes deeper than this people joining Dogs New Zealand get a membership card that registers their membership but makes no mention of the Kennel club , they have effectively become a member of something which exists in name only and has no legal ability to enter into any agreements , accept money or keep a register . this from their web site …

“Dogs New Zealand”offers membership https://www.dogsnz.org.nz/dogsnz/join-online but as stated above it cannot accept money from you or give you a membership you can only join legal entities e.g. the kennel club but that membership is not being offered and you therefore have no voting rights .

It is very concerning that on the page https://www.dogsnz.org.nz/dogs/buying-a-dog warns you about unofficial organisations when Dogs New Zealand posting that does not exist .

Dogs New Zealand only exist as the limited liability company which is posting this blog and we do not have members and do not accept memberships or ask for funds

Why is this going on?

There has long been a struggle with incorporated societies, the issue is they are run by their members and should always be under the control of their members. The members vote the leadership team into office each member gets a vote and if a person wishes to remain in power they need to ensure that they have bums on seats on voting night or they will be out on their ear.

This insecurity is unwelcome to these who like the power and control so they ensure that the incorporated society in this case the Kennel club has no members other than the desire few who have the reins and therefore total control .

It appears that the deception deployed through use of a fictional organisation is to disempower any members who may realise that they can oust the current executive .

” members” are duped into thinking that they are members of a legitimate organisation but if you are a member of Dogs New zealand you cannot have voting rights as Dogs New zealand does not exist as an incorporated society or anything else other than a trade mark supported by domain names and web sites .

Some very good advice from those sites …”check that they are telling the truth ask for papers “.

If you are a member of Dogs New Zealand and have not been to an AGM then something is very wrong all members get to go to an incorporated societies AGM .

What can you do

I will be sending this blog to the Kennel club and the contact address for the fictional Dogs New Zealand . If they do not tidy their act up within a week then it is proof that the deception is deliberate .

From 20 April on if the web site is still claiming that this is formerly the kennel club and asking people to join Dogs New Zealand then you can make a complaint to either the police for obtaining funds by false pretences or the commerce commision for breach of fair trade,

We are the only legitimate entity called Dogs New Zealand and we do not register dogs nor do we take members

What traps should you look out for? a quote from Buying a dog

paying funds to a organisation which does not exist.

Being a member of an incorporated society which does not allow you your members rights

False claims as to legal existence

False claims that this is a legitimate register

We are concerned with the legitimacy of the dog registration in New Zealand if it is done through a fictional organisation and the members of the incorporated society have no rights to their own society then there can be no legitimacy of the incorporated society or its register or its code of conduct

Implications of the Code of conduct

Penalties have been imposed on persons, these penalties have not been set down by the kennel club and are therefore unlawful and should be challenged

This week we received yet another disputes tribunal  application  from some one  disputing their parking ticket

The ticket they received was deceptive , it used the name Parking enforcement services, this is not the   legal name of the  company issuing the ticket, it is however our legal name  and we do not  issue tickets .

The name is relevant as only legal persons  can enter into contracts,  its a bit like entering into a contract with a cat or a bike.. you simply cant do it

Both sides have obligations to a contract and if you cannot identify who the other party is then   no contract can exist

We have complained to the commerce commission several time and have been fobbed off and its back to business s usual with millions going off shore in so called penalties  at time even for parking on property  which could not possibly have a contract to a third party for parking.

The company which runs  the scam  parking enforcement services  is  Wilson parking new zealand limited  you can see their details here 

It has only one new zealand director, he is a professional director married to  the former councilor Victoria  Carter.Victoria Carter is involved in many  entities as shown on the companies register , she is also the first  female president of the northern club  so any complaint against her husband  will  probably be dealt with   behind  closed doors . her linked in profile is here  She is the daughter of journalists Valerie Davies and stepfather Pat Booth

The company is entirely owned by a singaporean company  and an  ultimate  holding company  Genuine Result Limited in the  British Virgin Islands.

How much  Tax  Wison pays or even GST depends on  the fees that they pay  for  associated  franchises to their associated companies . the amount of GST paid is also Unknown .

But what is known is that vehicles  emblazoned with the name of our company  are passing themselves off as being legit ,

People who are registered by the private security licencing authority   are condoned in  executing this fraud.

The constitution of Wilson parking states   how it can enter into contracts  the constitution is found here 

the relevant section is   

Therefore Wilson parking can’t enter into a contract by erecting a bill board  and most certainly a contract  by a fictitious name cannot be enforced

we have lots of information on the site as to  dealing with the issue,  disputing your  claim  with  wilson only gets a response from a computer .  simply tell them repeatedly that you dispute it and you want them to prove it .. do not pay them  , report the scam to the police  and to the commerce commission   we need lots of voices to make this change

Please read the what to do  on http://www.civiljustice.co.nz/parking-enforcement-services-2/ 

there is also alternative advice on https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/77bz67/how_to_defend_a_65_wilsons_parking_ticket/

Please don’t phone us  and please don’t waste your time and money  sending us disputes tribunal documents.

do write to  Norm Carter  include him as director  in any court action

also contact your local Mp .

Why is this corruption being condoned   why are millions of dollars being   stripped from New Zealanders ,Probably tax free and GST free and sent overseas.

 

 

Headlines in today’s paper Shoppers’ fury at private parking warden’s aggressive clamping in West Auckland

The company involved ELITE PARKING SERVICES LIMITED is part owned by the bankrupt Gordon Harold WARD see details below

it appears that he has  a long history of being involved in  parking   see Wheel clamping company issues penalty of $450

South Auckland wheel clamping called ‘threatening’ and ‘over the top’

West Aucklanders clamped while using car park ‘legitimately’

Wheel clamp ‘bullies’ in liquidation – NZ Herald

Clamped and fined $200 after parking two minutes

Shoppers warned to beware of fine print after clamping complaints 

 

there is  a very easy solution  .  Unless the owners of the property have given consent for their car park to be patrolled and monitored   then there is no delegated authority and no one can make a demand of you

The parking company representative has to show   delegated authority from a real  or legal person  who owns the land  and unless he does so  he cannot  enforce any ” contract “for  land which is not his .

Also no sign is valid  as  contracting  has to follow the constitution of the company and so often as is the case above  there is no identifiable person who is claiming  that a contract exists .  the fact that these companies use the car park means that it has been made open to the public .

How many times have you gone to a shop  and found they don’t have what you want , well  if that happens you won’t have a  receipt .

We then come to the trespass act   and it is our opinion that at best you can be warned for trespass   that in itself will stop you from ever shopping there again .

The simplest action is for  a boycott of the shops who  support this type of enforcement .

There is no obligation on you to prove anything to any one who has no  proof of his/her  right to make demands of you. it has nothing to do with uniforms,  it has everything to do with delegated authority.

If you are shown delegated authority  get your phone out take a photo of it and of the person presenting it  .

you can then dispute the  matter in the disputes tribunal and or lay a complaint with the police for extortion standover tactics ( but they probably wont take the complaint despite the fact that is really is extortion  )  .

Remember  there is no obligation  for any one to say who the driver is   the law only provides for this information to be passed by the owner to the police of council  enforcement  , not private  companies who are  enforcing a civil contract.

As it stands now  all you need is a sign  , an outfit that looks like a uniform , a note pad and a wheel clamp any you are in business  supported with nothing but BS

 

Bankruptcy details WARD, Gordon Harold Leslie

Estate Details
Insolvency Type		Adjudicated bankrupt on debtor’s application under S.47
Estate Number		874234
Name		WARD, Gordon Harold Leslie
Month & Year of Birth		April 1963
Supplied Address		13 Church Road, Mangere Bridge, Auckland, New Zealand
Insolvency Status		Current Bankrupt
Adjudication Date/Time		15-Jul-2015 12:18
Court		Auckland High Court
Occupation at Adjudication		Client Service Representative
Multiple Insolvencies		No
Petition Type		Debtor Petition
Office for Enquiries		Auckland
Case Officer		Please contact Insolvency Office
Email Officer

The following is an email from Tatsuhiko Koyama    we  believe it is worth sharing

From: Tatsuhiko Koyama [mailto:tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, 22 February 2018 9:05 a.m.
To: Rt. Hon Jacinda Ardern <Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz>

Subject: THE SEVERE DEFICIT IN THE GOVERNANCE – NEW ZEALAND REQUIRES INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION

22 February 2018

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern

Prime Minister of New Zealand

Dear Prime Minister

I am an enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand.

This email follows my email, dated 15 February 2018, with the subject of “NEW ZEALAND CORRUPTION – Interconnected networks of criminal syndicates, using state power for their illegal purposes, protected by the law enforcement.”

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NGJkYjdkYmQ4MGRkNjIyZQ

In my previous email, dated 15 February 2018, I wrote, “The heart of New Zealand corruption is the interconnected networks of criminal syndicates, which are working inside and outside of the government and Courts, to do all kinds of crimes, with impunity, protected by the law enforcement.”

IN NEW ZEALAND, ORGANISED CRIMES ARE FREELY AND FRAGRANTLY USING THE COURTS AS THEIR INSTRUMENTS OF CRIME, WITH IMPUNITY, PROTECTED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT; BASICALLY, NEW ZEALAND JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A “SCAM.”

The level and extent of corruption in New Zealand Justice System is unprecedented in any developed nation.

You can find out the endemic nature of the corruption in the justice system by going through the FALSE, FORGED, documents, issued by New Zealand Courts on the CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY FRAUD.

(1) Letter of Mitch Singh, Associate, Glaister Ennor, dated 25 September 2015

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6N2U3NjgxNzU0NDA2OTc3Zg

* “Judgment Dated: 28 May 2014” is a FALSE, FORGED document of the High Court of New Zealand.

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsuhikokoyama/forgery-in-new-zealand-courts

(2) FALSE DOCUMENT – “ORDER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE AS TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF A BANKRUPTCY NOTICE,” dated 18 September 2015, (sent by Mitch Singh on or around 25 September 2015)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6N2U3NjgxNzU0NDA2OTc3Zg

(3) FALSE DOCUMENT – “JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE as to substituted service of Bankruptcy Notice,” dated 18 September 2015, (sent by Dunedin High Court on 1 October 2015)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NmYwNjIzOTkwMTVlM2EzZA

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NTViMzBmZTExYTU1YWRkYQ

(4) FALSE DOCUMENT – “ORDER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE AS TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF A BANKRUPTCY NOTICE,” dated 18 September 2015, (sent by Dunedin High Court on 1 October 2015)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NzBjZWM4NGFhNmQxNTE2Yw

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NTViMzBmZTExYTU1YWRkYQ

* The signature on the document, dated 18 September 2015, is a computer-generated image, pasted on the document. There is NO practice in the High Court of New Zealand to put an digital image on the original court document.

(5) FALSE DOCUMENT – “INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR,” dated 10 September 2015, (sent by Brian Sceats, Deputy Registrar, Dunedin High Court, on 2 October 2015)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6YzU1NGNhZTIwY2VkYjU5

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6MTI2OGU5Y2I0YWVkZmJmMA

 

(6) FALSE DOCUMENT – “AFFIDAVIT OF MARY ELIZABETH OLLIVIER IN SUPPORT OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR,” dated 9 September 2015, (sent by Brian Sceats, Deputy Registrar, Dunedin High Court, on 2 October 2015)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6YzU1NGNhZTIwY2VkYjU5

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6MTI2OGU5Y2I0YWVkZmJmMA

 

(7) Letter of Mitch Singh, Associate, Glaister Ennor, dated 28 January 2016

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NzhjM2M4MWVmMWM4NWI4Mw

* “DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON COSTS APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT,” dated 28 May 2013, is an interim decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, issued before the deadline for the parties to make their submissions.

* “Order of the Court (Costs) Dated: 4/6/2013” is a FALSE, FORGED document of the High Court of New Zealand.

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsuhikokoyama/forgery-in-new-zealand-courts

* “Judgment of the Court,” dated 8 November 2013 is a FALSE, FORGED document of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsuhikokoyama/forgery-in-new-zealand-courts

* “Judgment Dated: 28 May 2014” is a FALSE, FORGED document of the High Court of New Zealand.

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsuhikokoyama/forgery-in-new-zealand-courts

* “Judgment dated 14 October 2014” is a FALSE, FORGED document of the High Court of New Zealand.

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsuhikokoyama/forgery-in-new-zealand-courts

* “Judgment of the Court,” dated 20 October 2014, is a FALSE, FORGED document of the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsuhikokoyama/forgery-in-new-zealand-courts

(8) FALSE DOCUMENT – “FURTHER ORDERS OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE AS TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO DEBTOR AND CREDITOR’S APPLICATION,” dated 26 January 2016, (sent by Mitch Singh on or around 28 January 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NzhjM2M4MWVmMWM4NWI4Mw

(9) FALSE DOCUMENT – “SUMMONS TO DEBTOR,” dated 21 January 2016, (sent by Mitch Singh on or around 28 January 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NzhjM2M4MWVmMWM4NWI4Mw

(10) FALSE DOCUMENT – Handwritten minute of Associate Judge Osborne, dated 26 January 2016, (sent by Rebecca Fahey, Civil Caseflow Manager, Christchurch High Court, on 18 February 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6MzBhMjViOGUxMGJlOTk1Yg

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6MTcwYmI2N2EwYTQxYTVmYw

(11) FALSE DOCUMENT – “JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE upon review of Deputy Registrar’s decision,” dated 1 March 2016, (sent by Keroli Smith, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 1 March 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NTI4YzlhYjcwNzI0MzEwOA

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6ZWM1NzNiM2QwNDQwOTVi

(12) FAKE HEARING IN DUNEDIN HIGH COURT on 3 March 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1nzidjU7Qo

* Associate Judge Matthews was NOT at the hearing; someone impersonated the judge at the hearing.

(13) FALSE DOCUMENT – “ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS,” dated 3 March 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 4 March 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NGFjYjdjMWY3NTlhODk3NQ

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NmYyZTcwY2M2ZjdkNmU

(14) Letter of Hayley McKee, Senior Associate, Glaister Ennor, dated 9 March 2016

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6MWE0ZjU2MTJhZDAwZjc0Nw

(15) FALSE DOCUMENT – ”ORDER ADJUDICATING DEBTOR BANKRUPT,” dated 8 March 2016, (send by Hayley McKee on or around 9 March 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6MWE0ZjU2MTJhZDAwZjc0Nw

(16) FALSE DOCUMENT – “MINUTE OF DAVIDSON J (following memorandum of counsel for judgment creditor dated 9 March 2016 in relation to alleged recording of hearing by judgment debtor),” dated 12 April 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 April 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6MTVkYWIyYzIyZWYzM2E5OA

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6MWUxMTNiMmVhODJhN2M2ZQ

(17) FALSE DOCUMENT – “MINUTE OF DAVIDSON J (following memorandum of counsel for judgment creditor dated 9 March 2016 in relation to alleged recording of hearing by judgment debtor),” dated 12 April 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 April 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NDdiZTY0NzcwNTY2Yzk4Mw

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6MWUxMTNiMmVhODJhN2M2ZQ

(18) FALSE DOCUMENT – Signed “MINUTE OF DAVIDSON J (following memorandum of counsel for judgment creditor dated 9 March 2016 in relation to alleged recording of hearing by judgment debtor),” dated 12 April 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 April 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NDliZmJmMzE3OTIyNWEwMA

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6MzcyZjg0MzBjMWZkNTQ1Ng

(19) FALSE DOCUMENT – Singed “ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS,” dated 3 March 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 June 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NTdlMWE3YzAyOTE0Y2Y3Mg

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NjY2NzI1ZWNiZDM1ODNmOA

(20) FALSE DOCUMENT –  Minute of Associate Judge Matthews, dated 13 June 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 June 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6N2EyYTJkZmQ5NjY5Y2QyNg

(21) FALSE DOCUMENT – Handwritten minute of Associate Judge Matthews, dated 13 June 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 June 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6MTZkZTU4NDEzNzI1NWE5NA

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6M2JkMmYyOTI4NGY4MzYx

(22) FALSE DOCUMENT – Signed “MINUTE OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS,” dated 17 June 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 17 June 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NzNiN2ZiZmI4MDhhZmUyYg

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6MjVjZWUyYWJmYTM1NTUwNQ

Grant Slevin, Senior Investigating Solicitor, Insolvency and Trustee Service, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in his email, dated 12 December 2016, wrote: “I would be grateful if you could refer it to Associate Judge Osborne and let me know in due course if my appearance on Thursday 15 December is excused.”

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRldGF0c3VoaWtva295YW1hZG9jdW1lbnRzM3xneDo3YzZkMmVkYTM1ZjhlNDUy

Memorandum of Grant Slevin, dated 12 December 2016, states, “the counsel submits the hearing scheduled for 15 December should be vacated and a date in January 2017 allocated for a determination on the papers or, if the need arises, a case management conference by way of telephone conference.”

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRldGF0c3VoaWtva295YW1hZG9jdW1lbnRzM3xneDo3Mjg4YWE3MDMyNTQxMzU5

(23) FALSE DOCUMENT – Minute of Associate Judge Osborne, dated 5 December 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court ONLY to Grant Slevin, Senior Investigating Solicitor, Insolvency and Trustee Service, Ministry of Innovation and Employment of New Zealand Government, while Tatsuhiko Koyama WAS NOT in New Zealand, on 5 December 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRldGF0c3VoaWtva295YW1hZG9jdW1lbnRzM3xneDo2MGNiZmI4ZDk2NDNhOGIz

(24) FALSE DOCUMENT – “JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE annulling adjudication,” dated 13 December 2016, (send by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, BEFORE the scheduled hearing on 15 December 2015, while Tatsuhiko Koyama WAS NOT in New Zealand, on 13 December 2016)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRldGF0c3VoaWtva295YW1hZG9jdW1lbnRzM3xneDo1MmQyZmUwZWM3NzgwMjc3

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6MmUxODFlOWFmMDI0YWI2OQ

(25) FALSE DOCUMENT – Signed “JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE annulling adjudication,” dated 13 December 2016, (Sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 4 January 2017)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NjFhNzA4MzVkZWFhNjk1NQ

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NTYxN2RiNmVlMDQ0OTIxOQ

* The signature on the document, dated 13 December 2016, is a computer-generated image, pasted on the document. There is NO practice in the High Court of New Zealand to put an digital image on the original court document.

(26) FALSE DOCUMENT – “ORDER ANNULLING AN ADJUDICATION,” dated 13 December 2016, (Sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 4 January 2017)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6MjRmMDY5Y2ExZjgwYmZm

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NTYxN2RiNmVlMDQ0OTIxOQ

 

These FALSE, FORGED, documents are part of the collection of FALSE, FORGED documents, issued by New Zealand Courts.

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsuhikokoyama/forgery-in-new-zealand-courts

 

The situation is absolutely endemic, everywhere and at every level of the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

New Zealand requires international intervention, due to the severe, pervasive, entrenched, corruption in the justice system, which is freely and fragrantly used by organised crimes to use state power for illicit purposes, in violation of domestic laws of New Zealand and international treaties for which the state of New Zealand is a signatory.

It is my wish that you will allow the international community to intervene on this matter, as many people in New Zealand are seeking such an action.

Yours truly

Tatsuhiko Koyama, BA, Juris Doctor, PGDipHealSc, MHealSc

Enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand

17 Radnor Street, North East Valley, Dunedin 9010, New Zealand

TEL: +64-3-473-7810

 

“if you don’t know your rights then you don’t have any “.

Graeme Axford has kindly forwarded his latest publication   to publish and share .

When Child, Youth and Family (CYF) visit, what to consider.

Please read it before you have a visit from CYF .

 

Justice system or legal system

It is said that True law is inseparable from Justice, then why is it that our minister of Justice Judith Collins refers to our courts as courts of law not courts of justice.

It is a sad day indeed that our ministry of justice has no way of delivering justice

The quote above is direct from the Vatican and given the churches traditional role in law you have to wonder when the two started to drift part.

It certainly makes you wonder if God is still defending New Zealand or if we have in fact sold our souls to the devil.But on reflection and in turning to the bible Ecc 3:16 I see that this is nothing new

In the place of judgment—wickedness was there,
in the place of justice—wickedness was there.

So in 2000 years nothing has changed and I often wonder if God hasn’t been miffed by being trumped by lawyers.The bible Ecc 3:16

“God will bring into judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a time for every activity,
a time to judge every deed.”

I can only guess that this is the reason why so many lawyers associate themselves with the church, so many of them have good cause to ask for forgiveness or is it their perception of righteousness which brings them clients.

This brings us to the question does God sit higher than a lawyer, do they sit equal or do lawyers trump God.

Q. What’s the difference between God and a lawyer?
A. God does not think he is a lawyer.

Many may think that this is a joke but I have a very real story which confirms that there are Lawyers who believe they trump God.

I was married in St Georges Anglican Church in 1985, our vows sworn before God and the congregation were that that we would share everything. My husband and I became one and I distinctly remember the vicar saying Mark 10:9

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Fraser Powrie a Lawyer on the vestry of St Georges at the time and a Vicars Warden had been our neighbour for many years. His wife Elaine and I had shared the kindy run for my youngest child and her middle child.

When I was sued for asking the simple questions “Why does this law enforcement authority not exist” and “ why is a council manager contracting the council resources out to this same fictitious organisation “ my then husband went to see Fraser Powrie and was billed $33,000 despite the years of cost effective services my husband had provided to the Powries as a neighbour helping out a neighbour.

I had been taken to court for defamation and my defence of truth and honest opinion had been struck out through legal manoeuvring, Basically I had 2 weeks in which to find $12,000 and because I was a married woman I had no independent access to funds.

When my defence was struck out we also skipped the formal proof stage and the matter went to court as though I had been found guilty of defamation. The matter went straight to quantum and I was fined $57,500 plus $41,000 cost for speaking the truth.

Fraser Powrie came up with a solution for my husband and that was that 23 years into our marriage we were going to re write the marriage vows and introduce the concept of separate Debts into our marriage.
I was told that I had to sign the documents which Powrie had drafted which was effectively a consent to a matrimonial property split. To encourage me into this action all the bank accounts were frozen and I was penniless.

I suggested to my then husband that this would bring about an end to our marriage and I was told that I was black mailing. I however saw it as someone willfully re writing my marriage vows and breaking my marriage contract.

Fraser Powrie motivated my husband in to this course of action by introducing fear into him. My husband believed that my honesty and truth would eventually cause us to lose everything and so he paid Fraser the $33,000 for the advice and the strategy which would ensure that I had no alternative but to sign the document but it also brought about the end to my marriage .

I have asked the Anglican church if they could enlighten me to the order of things, how sacred is my vow , when a lawyer can force me to “ contract out” so to speak of those vows nearly quarter of a century later . Who sits higher God or the lawyer on the vestry? That was six years ago I have yet to receive a reply.
While this example proves that a lawyer can re write marriage vows and force change 23 years into a relationship the same is not applicable to contracts which lawyers write up and claim to be final and unchallengeable even when persons are forced into signing under duress.

Back to Judith Coliins.

Judith Collins is a lawyer her statement that we have a legal system and not a justice system conflicts with the statement made by the Pope that “True law is inseparable from Justice “

My experience and observations have has proved that criminals can use our legal system to pervert the course of justice, the one with the money wins. That is neither law nor justice.

Going to Court without a Lawyer? Research Project on Self-Represented Litigants

If you are currently representing yourself in the Family, District or High Court in Auckland or Waikato you may be eligible to participate in a research project on self-representation in the New Zealand civil courts. Have your say on how the system could be improved to better serve the needs of self-represented litigants. For more information see www.selfrepresented.org.nz.

Self-represented litigants are  also called Lay litigants  and  in  some countries  pro se  litigants