The Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias
The following is a published comment that is clearly in contempt of Court. It suggests collusion between a High Court Judge and members of the hate-sites, Justice For Robin Bain, Counterspin and guiltyfreeforums. The particular sites currently have members who are defendants in proceedings in the Auckland High Court for Defamation.
The Publisher is this instance is Trade Me, and the publication is on it's community board, sub-titled 'Opinions.' Trade Me are also a defendant in the proceedings in the Auckland High Court.
The particular group involved in the Contempt of Court and misuse of documents have also been involved in other illicit activity including stalking the Christchurch Jury which served on the Bain case. There is a large body of evidence establishing this stalking and indeed breaches of The Harassment Act 1997.
I have written to Trade Me about their publication claiming collusion between members of the hate-site and Judge Pankhurst who presided over the David Bain trial.
I am concerned about the source of the transcript and it's distribution and publication without legal authority. Inquiries from the appropriate authority would be able to determine the source that has allowed the transcript to find it's way into the hands of the hate-sites and subsequently freely into cyberspace.
The following is the url and republiciation of the claim of collusion. Also included are the urls and republication of posts by 2 hate-siters (although there are many more) claiming to have free acess to the transcript and its redistribution.
As I have written above there is a large body of strong supporting material not only about the allegation of Judicial collusion but also about Jury stalking and other serious matters which I can forward on request.
Yours etc
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=543&topic=7
ro42 wrote:
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quote
sophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=544&topic=7
pro seems to know a great deal about how to go about obtaining those transcripts,obviously must have them,and no doubt has quoted from them.
I sure hope she didn't have to pay for anything,when you can get them free,gratis,and for nothing.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:36 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27186
I've been reading the transcript and the first thing that really strikes me is that house was full of bullets. They were everywhere. Everytime something was moved there was either a spent or live bullet under it. Every room seemed to have them. Someone in that house was very active with a gun that's for sure and there were so many bullets around that they were not just from the night of the murders.
Someone seems obsessed with guns and bullets. Now who would that be?
Quote
misspw (65 ) 4:03 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27188
Sunday, September 12, 2010
In response to Judicial Collusion....
Anonymous said...
Absolutely unbelievable.
Their entire objective relies on them establishing and maintaining a reputable relationship with the Ministry of Justice.
Their method - break civil law, place the integrity of the judge in question, and commit various crimes, some of which are punishable by imprisonment.
I have to say, if it's a close relationship with the MOJ they wanted, they're going the right way about it. Their technique may also get them close relationship with the Dept of Corrections, as an added bonus.
September 12, 2010 12:43 PM
Well, Stockdale will need a flatulence proof cell for his well known self-advertised farting difficulties. Kennard is likely to be found unfit to plead on the grounds of being a hopeless, sad sack, attention seeker. Perkiss will try to sell his mates out, if that doesn't work he'll try doing a runner.
I still wonder why those raving lunatics are allowed a forum and who they are actually in collusion with, because sure as hell isn't the Judiciary.
Absolutely unbelievable.
Their entire objective relies on them establishing and maintaining a reputable relationship with the Ministry of Justice.
Their method - break civil law, place the integrity of the judge in question, and commit various crimes, some of which are punishable by imprisonment.
I have to say, if it's a close relationship with the MOJ they wanted, they're going the right way about it. Their technique may also get them close relationship with the Dept of Corrections, as an added bonus.
September 12, 2010 12:43 PM
Well, Stockdale will need a flatulence proof cell for his well known self-advertised farting difficulties. Kennard is likely to be found unfit to plead on the grounds of being a hopeless, sad sack, attention seeker. Perkiss will try to sell his mates out, if that doesn't work he'll try doing a runner.
I still wonder why those raving lunatics are allowed a forum and who they are actually in collusion with, because sure as hell isn't the Judiciary.
It is my understanding that Lindsay Kennard is an idiot.
It is my understanding that criminal court documents are Public Domain and copying is legal except for sections suppressed by Court Order, matters in the civil court may be more restricted and subject to blanket suppression on application, this is referred to as sealing.
The usual practice is for the Department of Courts to supply on application a either a full copy with notes or a full copy with suppressed evidence and names removed on payment of the appropriate fee. If a civil proceedings is 'reported' then any member of the public may use the report with citation.
Any matters in criminal court, other than those subject to a legislative or specific judicial order, are public domain only matters heard in Chambers are restricted unless appended to the trial transcript.
The Copyright of court transcripts relates to methods of citation and suppression.
Quotelinz4me (275 ) 12:11 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27180
“(2) Despite subclause (1), a record of court proceedings in electronic
form may be copied only with the permission of the
court.
“(3) Despite subclause (1), a Judge may direct that the court file
or any document relating to the proceeding not be accessed by
the parties or their counsel without the permission of the court.
I am completely confident that a High Court Judge didn't give permission for an anonymous moron called sophier and another called superdoof to have access to the Court file or to reproduce it in any way, either electronically or by print.
I am very happy for any member of the illegal hate-sites, JFRB, Counterspin and guiltyfreeforums to contact me and refer me to the legal order which allows their members access to the Court file and permission to reproduce it in anyway. I think the record, if it exists, was forwarded to them by the media, and I'm looking forward to examination of the these people under oath to reveal their sources. Thanks for your help.
The usual practice is for the Department of Courts to supply on application a either a full copy with notes or a full copy with suppressed evidence and names removed on payment of the appropriate fee. If a civil proceedings is 'reported' then any member of the public may use the report with citation.
Any matters in criminal court, other than those subject to a legislative or specific judicial order, are public domain only matters heard in Chambers are restricted unless appended to the trial transcript.
The Copyright of court transcripts relates to methods of citation and suppression.
Quotelinz4me (275 ) 12:11 pm, Sun 12 Sep #27180
“(2) Despite subclause (1), a record of court proceedings in electronic
form may be copied only with the permission of the
court.
“(3) Despite subclause (1), a Judge may direct that the court file
or any document relating to the proceeding not be accessed by
the parties or their counsel without the permission of the court.
I am completely confident that a High Court Judge didn't give permission for an anonymous moron called sophier and another called superdoof to have access to the Court file or to reproduce it in any way, either electronically or by print.
I am very happy for any member of the illegal hate-sites, JFRB, Counterspin and guiltyfreeforums to contact me and refer me to the legal order which allows their members access to the Court file and permission to reproduce it in anyway. I think the record, if it exists, was forwarded to them by the media, and I'm looking forward to examination of the these people under oath to reveal their sources. Thanks for your help.
Oh dear, it seems the law doesn't agree with Kennard, Willams and sophier8
"While any decision of the Court may be freely criticised on its merits, it is contempt of Court and punishable to attribute bias or improper motives to Judges or Magistrates, since this would tend to lessen confidence in the impartial administration of justice."
by Bruce James Cameron, B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, Wellington.
by Bruce James Cameron, B.A., LL.M., Legal Adviser, Department of Justice, Wellington.
Oh dear, 3 months for Stockdale, Purkiss and campmother?
32B Identity and address of serving or former juror or prospective juror not generally to be disclosed
o “(1) A person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to the penalty stated in subsection (2) if the person wilfully publishes any material, broadcasts any matter, or otherwise discloses any information, that identifies, or that may lead to the identification of, a juror or former juror.
“(2) The penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both.
“(3) In this section,—
“former juror includes a person who attended for jury service
“identification of a juror or former juror includes disclosure of his or her address
“juror includes a person attending for jury service.
“(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
§ “(a) the identification of a former juror with the former juror's consent:
§ “(b) the identification of a juror or former juror if the identification forms part of the exercise or performance of a power, function, or duty conferred, imposed, or contemplated by this Act, the jury rules, or a rule of law or practice relating to the trial of civil or criminal cases:
§ “(c) the disclosure of information to a court or to an investigative or prosecuting authority if the disclosure is made for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution of a contempt of court or of an offence relating to a juror or jury:
§ “(d) the disclosure of information relating to a proceeding under this section.
“Compare: Jury Act 1977 (New South Wales) s 68; Juries Act 2000 (Victoria) s 77”.
o “(1) A person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to the penalty stated in subsection (2) if the person wilfully publishes any material, broadcasts any matter, or otherwise discloses any information, that identifies, or that may lead to the identification of, a juror or former juror.
“(2) The penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both.
“(3) In this section,—
“former juror includes a person who attended for jury service
“identification of a juror or former juror includes disclosure of his or her address
“juror includes a person attending for jury service.
“(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to any of the following:
§ “(a) the identification of a former juror with the former juror's consent:
§ “(b) the identification of a juror or former juror if the identification forms part of the exercise or performance of a power, function, or duty conferred, imposed, or contemplated by this Act, the jury rules, or a rule of law or practice relating to the trial of civil or criminal cases:
§ “(c) the disclosure of information to a court or to an investigative or prosecuting authority if the disclosure is made for the purposes of an investigation or prosecution of a contempt of court or of an offence relating to a juror or jury:
§ “(d) the disclosure of information relating to a proceeding under this section.
“Compare: Jury Act 1977 (New South Wales) s 68; Juries Act 2000 (Victoria) s 77”.
New development from the hate-sites: allegation of Judicial collusion
ro42 wrote:
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quotesophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
So a quick rehash. To this point from the hate-sites we've have the following known activities.
Witness stalking: Stockdale, recorded in his own words.
Jury stalking: Purkiss, Stockdale and others recorded in their own words.
Stalking and threatening: Stockdale, D Cameron, O Brien, Christine Williams and at least six others who have already been named.
Tampering with names on the 'petition' sweetad, by her 'revelation' that a TM posters name 'happened' to be on the petition.
Allegations of perjury - many names recorded on this.
Defamation: a too extensive list to mention here.
Defamatory harassment: a too extensive list to mention here.
Newest activities: 1)illegally distributing a trial transcript 2)claims of collusion between the hate-sites and a High Court Judge, with the assertion that the Judge is/was sympathetic to the persecutor's efforts of the hate-sites.
Some readers may be aware that information regarding the hate-sites has been forwarded to the MOJ. This newest information, and the identities of posters who colluded in it's release into the pubic record will be going both to the Department of Courts through the Registrar of the ChCh High Court and additionally to the Minister in charge of the Courts. Good luck to those involved, you've elevated yourselves from being criminal stalkers to being in Contempt of Court.
The judge has given permission for you to copy and publish this information on TradeMe message boards? I don't believe you.
The judge is on our side, he's a mate of McNeishes, and he wanted Buckley's evidence in court, why wouldn't he help us, he knows who is guilty I am sure of that.
Quotesophier8 (0 ) 7:26 pm, Sat 11 Sep #27131
So a quick rehash. To this point from the hate-sites we've have the following known activities.
Witness stalking: Stockdale, recorded in his own words.
Jury stalking: Purkiss, Stockdale and others recorded in their own words.
Stalking and threatening: Stockdale, D Cameron, O Brien, Christine Williams and at least six others who have already been named.
Tampering with names on the 'petition' sweetad, by her 'revelation' that a TM posters name 'happened' to be on the petition.
Allegations of perjury - many names recorded on this.
Defamation: a too extensive list to mention here.
Defamatory harassment: a too extensive list to mention here.
Newest activities: 1)illegally distributing a trial transcript 2)claims of collusion between the hate-sites and a High Court Judge, with the assertion that the Judge is/was sympathetic to the persecutor's efforts of the hate-sites.
Some readers may be aware that information regarding the hate-sites has been forwarded to the MOJ. This newest information, and the identities of posters who colluded in it's release into the pubic record will be going both to the Department of Courts through the Registrar of the ChCh High Court and additionally to the Minister in charge of the Courts. Good luck to those involved, you've elevated yourselves from being criminal stalkers to being in Contempt of Court.
Racheal from Otorohanga: goldnkiwi pal of kal pal.
Here she shows the common intellect of a hate-siter, and additionally that she has no intention of letting the facts get in the way of a little persecution...
project_hr wrote:
Because the other child was on his paper round at the time Robin 'lost it'.
Pfft, how much time is there supposed to have been between the 'suicide' and the paper round being finished, if there was a dirty secret, that had been revealed, was David not privy to it? Why wouldn't Robin have just waited for David. I understand that body temperatures differed? Why not kill them all and leave the papers undelivered, since it was a snap attack? I hope David went and bought a Lotto and appreciates how lucky he was not to die too.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 3:56 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26554
Basically Racheal, try hiring a brain. The reason daddy fiddler couldn't get to the firearm to 'kill them all' as you put it, was because the rifle was stored in David's room. Even someone as thick as you should be able to work out that David was unlikely to be willing for dear daddy to be borrowing and loading David's rifle in the small hours so that he could go about his mission of killing the family. Why not give up, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you've been indoctrinated with lies by hate-siters like Stockdale, Curran, OBrien, who, like yourself, share the ambition to support a depressed and fractured man who is consigned to history as someone who killed his family then himself after his concern at being outed for incest. Face reality and smell a rose or something.
project_hr wrote:
Because the other child was on his paper round at the time Robin 'lost it'.
Pfft, how much time is there supposed to have been between the 'suicide' and the paper round being finished, if there was a dirty secret, that had been revealed, was David not privy to it? Why wouldn't Robin have just waited for David. I understand that body temperatures differed? Why not kill them all and leave the papers undelivered, since it was a snap attack? I hope David went and bought a Lotto and appreciates how lucky he was not to die too.
Quotegoldnkiwi (607 ) 3:56 pm, Fri 10 Sep #26554
Basically Racheal, try hiring a brain. The reason daddy fiddler couldn't get to the firearm to 'kill them all' as you put it, was because the rifle was stored in David's room. Even someone as thick as you should be able to work out that David was unlikely to be willing for dear daddy to be borrowing and loading David's rifle in the small hours so that he could go about his mission of killing the family. Why not give up, you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you've been indoctrinated with lies by hate-siters like Stockdale, Curran, OBrien, who, like yourself, share the ambition to support a depressed and fractured man who is consigned to history as someone who killed his family then himself after his concern at being outed for incest. Face reality and smell a rose or something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)