The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

OPEN LETTER: RE THE PENDING JAILING OF NZ ‘JUDICIAL PUBLIC WATCHDOG’ VINCE SIEMER – FOR BREAKING WHAT LAW? United Nations Human Rights Complaint

c.finlayson@ministers.govt.nz, s.power@ministers.govt.nz, j.collins@ministers.govt.nz, g.teheuheu@ministers.govt.nz, j.key@ministers.govt.nz, Rosslyn Noonan
Cc: tinz@paradise.net.nz, Transparency International , A.King@parliament.govt.nz, aaron.gilmore@parliament.govt.nz, ahan.young@parliament.govt.nz, allan.peachey@parliament.govt.nz, amy.adams@parliament.govt.nz, anderton.wigram@xtra.co.nz, angela.bray@parliament.govt.nz, ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz, b.english@ministers.govt.nz, bb@brendonburns.co.nz, blueandgold@parliament.govt.nz, brendon.burns@parliament.govt.nz, carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz, cartermp@xtra.co.nz, catherine.delahunty@parliament.govt.nz, charles.chauvel@parliament.govt.nz, chester.borrows@parliament.govt.nz, chester.hawera@xtra.co.nz, chester.wanganui@xtra.co.nz, chris.carter@parliament.govt.nz, chris.hipkins@parliament.govt.nz, chris.tremain@national.org.nz, clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz, clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz, claytoncosgrovekaiapoi@xtra.co.nz, colin.kingmp@xtra.co.nz, craig.foss@parliament.govt.nz, craigfoss@backingthebay.co.nz, d.carter@ministers.govt.nz, darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz, darren.hughes@parliament.govt.nz, david.bennett@parliament.govt.nz, david.cunliffe@parliament.govt.nz, david.garrett@parliament.govt.nz, david.parker@parliament.govt.nz, dcunliffe@xtra.co.nz, elecgor@esi.co.nz, electjville@xtra.co.nz, eric.roy@parliament.govt.nz, genelle@johnkey.mp.net.nz, george.hawkins@parliament.govt.nz, greenmps.auckland@greens.org.nz, greenmps.dunedin@greens.org.nz, h.roy@ministers.govt.nz, heather.henderson@parliament.govt.nz, hekia.parata@parliament.govt.nz, hone.harawira@parliament.govt.nz, hunua.electorate@xtra.co.nz, Iain.leesgalloway@parliament.govt.nz, ikaroa.gis@xtra.co.nz, ikaroa.hstgs@xtra.co.nz, j.carter@ministers.govt.nz, j.coleman@ministers.govt.nz, jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz, jackie.blue@parliament.govt.nz, Jacqui.dean@parliament.govt.nz, janette.granville@xtra.co.nz, jen.toogood@parliament.govt.nz, jim.anderton@parliament.govt.nz, jo.goodhew@parliament.govt.nz, john.boscawen@parliament.govt.nz, k.wilkinson@ministers.govt.nz, kanwaljit.singh.bakshi@parliament.govt.nz, keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz, Kelvin.davis@parliament.govt.nz, kevin.hague@parliament.govt.nz, kilbirnieeo@xtra.co.nz, labourwest@xtra.co.nz, lianne.dalziel@parliament.govt.nz, lindsay.tisch@parliament.govt.nz, loren.bolton@parliament.govt.nz, louise.upston@parliament.govt.nz, lynne.pillaymp@xtra.co.nz, m.mccully@ministers.govt.nz, m.williamson@ministers.govt.nz, mana.electorate@xtra.co.nz, marlene.ditchfield@xtra.co.nz, maryan.street@parliament.govt.nz, melissa.lee@parliament.govt.nz, metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz, michael.clatworthy@xtra.co.nz, Michael.woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz, moana.mackey@labour.org.nz, mp.rodney.warkworth@xtra.co.nz, murray.mccully@xtra.co.nz, n.smith@ministers.govt.nz, nick@nick4nelson.co.nz, nanaia.mahuta@parliament.govt.nz, napier.electorate@airnet.net.nz, natalie.roberts@parliament.govt.nz, nathan.guy@national.org.nz, national.horowhenua@xtra.co.nz, national.kapiti@xtra.co.nz, nicky.wagner@parliament.govt.nz, nikki.kaye@parliament.govt.nz, northlandelectorate@xtra.co.nz, office@grantrobertson.co.nz, office@judithcollins.co.nz, office@labournorth.org.nz, p.dunne@ministers.govt.nz, p.goff@parliament.govt.nz, p.heatley@ministers.govt.nz, p.wong@ministers.govt.nz, pansy.wong@xtra.co.nz, parekura.horomia@parliament.govt.nz, paul.hutchison@parliament.govt.nz, paul.quinn@parliament.govt.nz, peseta.sam.lotuiiga@parliament.govt.nz, pete.hodgson@parliament.govt.nz, pete@petehodgson.co.nz, petone.eo@clear.net.nz, phil@goff.org.nz, Pita.Sharples@parliament.govt.nz, r.hide@ministers.govt.nz, rae.waterhouse@xtra.co.nz, rahui.katene@parliament.govt.nz, rajen.prasad@parliament.govt.nz, Raymond.huo@parliament.govt.nz, rick.barker@parliament.govt.nz, ritchie.wards@parliament.govt.nz, rodney@epsom.org.nz, roger.douglas@parliament.govt.nz, ross.robertson@parliament.govt.nz, russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz, ruth.dyson@xtra.co.nz, s.joyce@ministers.govt.nz, sandra.goudie@national.org.nz, shane.ardern@parliament.govt.nz, shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz, shanejonesmp@xtra.co.nz, simon.bridges@parliament.govt.nz, simonpower.feilding@xtra.co.nz, simonpower.marton@xtra.co.nz, socialjustice@greens.org.nz, steve.chadwick@parliament.govt.nz, stuart.nash@parliament.govt.nz, sue.kedgley@parliament.govt.nz, sue.moroney@parliament.govt.nz, t.ryall@ministers.govt.nz, t.turia@ministers.govt.nz, tainuielectorate@xtra.co.nz, Tari.Turia@xtra.co.nz, tau.henare@parliament.govt.nz, tau.henaremp@xtra.co.nz, terry.ututaonga@parliament.govt.nz, teururoa.flavell@parliament.govt.nz, tim.groser@parliament.govt.nz, tim.macindoe@parliament.govt.nz, todd.mcclay@parliament.govt.nz, tolleygis@xtra.co.nz, tolleywhk@xtra.co.nz, trevor.mallard@parliament.govt.nz, trish.wanden@parliament.govt.nz, w.mapp@ministers.govt.nz, waikatohub.mps@xtra.co.nz, waimakariri@xtra.co.nz, winnie.laban@parliament.govt.nz, WOAoffice@xtra.co.nz, Kennedy Graham , news@radionz.co.nz, news@newstalkzb.co.nz, news@radiolive.co.nz, news@tvnz.co.nz, cosdesk@tv3.co.nz, campbelllive@tv3.co.nz, closeup@tvnz.co.nz, Ian Wishart , ian sinclair , hunter.wells@tvnz.co.nz, audrey.young@nzherald.co.nz, Fran O’Sullivan , john.armstrong@nzherald.co.nz, Steven Price , editor@uncensored.co.nz, tipoff@whaleoil.co.nz

28 June 2010

OPEN LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, THE MINISTER OF POLICE, THE MINISTER OF COURTS, THE PRIME MINISTER, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

(Please be advised that this letter is being copied to hundreds involved worldwide, in ‘Transparency International’; to over 70 contacts I made at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference in Brisbane last year; to New Zealand and international media; to ALL New Zealand MPs; and ALL NZ Councils.)

“I will be arrested upon my arrival into Auckland International Airport tomorrow by NEW order of the Supreme Court during my absence from the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has rejected a recall application filed by my lawyer. The complaint below evidential details what an absolute travesty this has been.”

(Please see Vince Siemer’s post at the end of this email, and attachments)

What has happened to Vince Siemer, whom I regard as the leading ‘Public Watchdog’ fighting judicial corruption in New Zealand, is such a travesty of justice and involves such a litany of human rights violations – that it fills me with shame and disgust – to have New Zealand described as ‘the least corrupt country in the world’.

WHAT LAW HAS VINCE SIEMER EVER BROKEN?

HOW CAN IT BE UNLAWFUL TO TELL THE TRUTH?

ISN’T IT A BASIC PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS ‘TWO SIDES TO THE STORY’, AND BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE HEARD?

SO HOW COME VINCE SIEMER WAS DEBARRED FROM DEFENDING HIMSELF IN THE DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST MICHAEL STIASSNY, WHO, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION – IS A CORPORATE THUG AND BULLY?

IS IT BECAUSE MICHAEL STIASSNY HAS A LOT OF FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES THAT VINCE SIEMER HAS RECEIVED SUCH JUDICIAL (MIS)TREATMENT?

IS IT BECAUSE VINCE SIEMER HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF EXPOSING THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND CORRUPT PRACTICES WITHIN THE NZ JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THAT THESE ATTEMPTS ARE BEING MADE TO CLOSE DOWN HIS WEBSITE: http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz ?

HOW COME, IN SO MANY OF HIS CASES, VINCE SIEMER HAD TO RECORD COURT PROCEEDINGS HIMSELF, BECAUSE
NZ JUDGES, IN ‘THE LEAST CORRUPT COUNTRY IN THE WORLD’ REFUSED TO RECORD THEM?

HOW CAN JUSTICE BE DONE OR BE SEEN TO BE DONE – WHEN THERE IS NO COURT RECORD OF WHAT WAS DONE?

If Vince Siemer goes to jail – I predict that an international spotlight that will shine on New Zealand – and the true lack of judicial transparency will be revealed for the world to see.

About time.

This post should help to start that process.

Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
“Anti-corruption campaigner”

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Vince Siemer
Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM
Subject: United Nations Human Rights Complaint
To: Lockwood Smith

Dear Lockwood,

I will be arrested upon my arrival into Auckland International Airport tomorrow by NEW order of the Supreme Court during my absence from the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has rejected a recall application filed by my lawyer. The complaint below evidential details what an absolute travesty this has been.

As all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted, I hereby appeal to you to raise the issue of legal contraventions in this case to Parliament and the Prime Minister.

The upshot is that I am being sent to prison solely on the basis of an unsworn submission of the S-G’s counsel – after it was proven in court to be materially inaccurate – I will be going on a hunger strike until I am released. The complaint below and attached documents are being filed with the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva.

People who do not believe that law-abiding citizens get sent to prison by the NZ Supreme Court on no evidence should read this evidential complaint.

Best regards,

Vince Siemer, MBA
Editor
Spartan News Limited
on-line NZ news: http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz
27 Clansman Terrace
Gulf Harbour, Auckland
Phone: 027 444 1218 (Intl: 64 27 444 1218)
Facsimile: 64 9 428-2521

COMPLAINT TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Date: 27 June 2010

1. Information concerning the author of the communication

Surname (Family Name)

Siemer

Given Name

Vincent

Nationality

New Zealand

Profession

Business Manager / news publisher

Date of Birth (dd/mm/yyyy)

21/08/1956

Place of Birth

St Louis

Present Address

27 Clansman Terrace
Gulf Harbour

NEW ZEALAND

Address for exchange
of confidential correspondence
(if other than present address)

Please specify how you are submitting this communication:

Electronically and by post.

Victim of the violation(s) (set forth below)

Violation of Article 9.1 of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights. (9.1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

(add\\\\\\\’l) Violation of Article 19.2 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (19.2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

2. Information concerning the alleged victim(s) (if other than the author)

Surname (Family Name)

Given Name

Nationality

Date of Birth (dd/mm/yyyy)

Place of Birth

Present address or whereabouts

3. State concerned

What is the name of the State concerned?

New Zealand

4. Articles violated

Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allegedly violated:

Article 9.1 of the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights. (9.1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

Article 19.2 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (19.2) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

5. Domestic remedies

Steps taken by or on behalf of the alleged victim(s) to exhaust domestic remedies-recourse to the courts or other public authorities, when and with what results.

If possible, enclose copies of all relevant judicial or administrative decisions.

High Court (Auckland, New Zealand) 2008

New Zealand Court of Appeal 2009

New Zealand Supreme Court March 2010

New Zealand Supreme Court (recall application and rejection) June 2010

Document(s) to be attached

Title and description of the document to be attached

Format

Date

“Court verdict of 8 July 2008”
NZ High Court finding Vince Siemer in contempt of court for violating a gag injunction and sentencing him to six months prison
(sgvsiemer8july2008_1.pdf)

Electronic

2008-07-08

“Siemer Memorandum to High Court”
Condemned respondent’s memorandum to the New Zealand High Court ahead of the effective prison sentence
(memo.16.7.08.doc)

Electronic

2008-07-28

NZ Court of Appeal judgment, Solicitor General v Vince Siemer CA447/08 [2009] NZCA 62

Electronic

2009-03-09

New Zealand Supreme Court judgment dated 17 May 2010 SC48/2009 [2010] Siemer v Solicitor General

Electronic

2010-05-17

New Zealand Supreme Court “Minute” dated 11 June 2010 SC48/2009 (unrecorded) Electro. 2010-06-11

Notice of Appeal dated 30 July 2008, New Zealand Court of Appeal CA447/08 Siemer v Solicitor General

If domestic remedies have not been exhausted, explain why:

New Zealand Supreme Court is the final legal option for New Zealanders. In the victim’s case he has gone further in actually applying for recall of judgment

6. Other international procedures

Has the same matter ever been submitted for examination under another procedure of international investigation or settlement (e.g. the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the European Commission on Human Rights)? If so, when and with what results?

The New Zealand Human Rights Commission has been apprised by the victim and others on his behalf but have failed to minimally send a monitor to the secretive court proceedings, even after it was demonstrated to them that the judges were preventing accurate recording of hearings and making up fictional accounts in their official summaries.

7. Facts of the Claim

Detailed description of the facts of the alleged violation or violations (including relevant dates).

Mr Vince Siemer (“the victim”), the publisher of the legal news websites http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz and http://www.kiwisfirst.com (“the websites”) has never broken New Zealand or International law. Yet three times over the last 4 years he has been detained upon returning to New Zealand at Auckland International Airport and sent directly to a maximum security prison. (12 July 2007, 18 October 2008 and 29 June 2010).

The victim is now in a maximum security prison, having exhausted all domestic legal remedies for justice.

On or about 28 January 2008, the New Zealand Solicitor General filed an originating application in the Auckland High Court in which he sought the indefinite imprisonment of the victim for publishing in alleged breach of an interim gag injunction issued 3 years previously in what had been, until then, a civil proceeding between two private parties.

The NZ Solicitor General David Collins personally leveled the allegations and signed the application seeking imprisonment. The victim filed an application to cross-examine his accuser, but two NZ judges ruled the prosecutor could only be called by the victim as his own witness after the Solicitor General opposed this application.[1]

Not insignificantly, the websites the NZ Solicitor General was trying to shut down printed regular stories of corruption by the NZ Solicitor General – the accuracy of which was supported with official court documents and never challenged.

The victim’s home was raided by Police on 21 February 2008. The search warrant was signed by an unidentified “deputy registrar of the district court” and claimed to be looking for the victim’s library card, a Hawaiian print shirt and anything that connected him to the Urewera “terrorist-accuseds or their lawyers”.

The conduct of the New Zealand government in this Urewera domestic “terror” raid is the subject of an unrelated and extensive United Nations complaint by indigenous Maori.

The victim was detained in his pajamas for 5 hours without warrant or arrest and was not allowed a drink until he answered Police questions.[2] His publishing and business equipment were seized, along with personal financial records, in this raid. Much of this property has never been returned. The NZ Independent Police Complaints Authority responded to the victim 18 months later (July 2009) to state he would be required to apply to the Court to get his property back, despite the victim never being charged with any offence. The High Court had earlier denied his application to see a copy of the affidavit used to support the search warrant – this after the Police opposed it. The District Court also refused to provide the identity of the “deputy registrar of the district court” who supposedly authorized the search warrant.

The Solicitor General prosecutor put forth only one witness at the trial in June 2008; a junior lawyer in the Crown prosecutor’s office named Esther Watt. Ms Watt testified she was a new lawyer tasked only with the job of periodically printing off pages from the websites. She insisted she had only ‘skim read’ the injunction. She testified it was not her job to give a legal opinion or even read what she had been directed to print off. She repeatedly testified she was not the one to ask about the injunction or what publications violated it.[3]

Moreover, when the S-G’s only witness Ms Watt was asked under oath to give an example of an injunction breach in an article, Judge Gendall interrupted with:

“Mr Siemer, it’s a matter we’re going to ask (the S-G’s lawyer) to address in submission. You can continue if you wish but whether Ms Watt can point to anything or not is not going to help us in the end. It’s whether (the lawyer) can show to us the publication or publications which breach paragraph 1 of the injunction.”[4] [emphasis added]

Again, Ms Watt was the sole prosecution witness and the sole source of evidence from the prosecution regarding alleged breach. Her evidence proved that the websites were not in active breach of the injunction. The two New Zealand judges at the trial were expressly not interested in the evidence, saying openly that they would rely upon unsworn submissions which were not subject to evidential challenge.

By Judgment dated 8 July 2008, the NZ Judges convicted and sentenced the victim to six months prison. They quoted and relied upon two long-ago censured website passages in Para [64] of their Judgment. It is evident from the prosecutor’s evidence that the judges’ passages were materially different. (attached and marked “A” is a true copy of the 8 July 2008 High Court judgment).

For example, the judges took a snapshot from almost a year earlier in their Para. [64] “quote”. The incontrovertible evidence – in the form of the Crown’s own evidence the day it filed the action in January 2008 (5 months before trial) – showed that the words the Crown objected to – i.e. “likely criminal deceit” had been removed in September 2007 and never republished.[5]

Still, the victim attempted to promote reason, sending a Memorandum dated 28 July 2008 to the two judges in which he noted the passages the judges quoted in Para. [64] had duly been censored per the Solicitor General’s demand (at this date, a year earlier) (Attached and marked with the letter “B” is s true copy of this 28 July 2008 memorandum).

This Memorandum also recorded that the Judges had failed to specify what published words breached what terms of the injunction. The Memorandum finally included an offer by the victim to shut down the websites completely, simply in exchange for a fair trial.

The Judges refused. Instead, In a Minute dated 31 July 2008, Judges Chisholm and Gendall declared:

“The websites are to be unconditionally closed down in terms of our judgment of 8 July 2008, failing which Mr Siemer will be committed to prison for six months on Friday.”[6] [emphasis added]

(attached and marked with the letter “C” is a true copy of this Minute of Gendall and Chisholm JJ)

This judicial demand cogently illustrated there was no legitimate legal issue with the actual injunction or specific words published but, rather, the entire websites – in contravention of freedom of expression laws.

The victim’s accurate portrayal of the Solicitor General’s submissions to the Court as materially inaccurate and outdated, his reference to the complete lack of evidence, and even his generous and conciliatory offer to completely shut down the sites simply in exchange for a fair trial, were all summarily rebuffed. The upshot is the victim was politically persecuted and sent to prison for publishing accurate news stories of a political nature, in contravention of s14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Article 19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

Every judge involved – 2 at the Auckland High Court, 3 at the New Zealand Court of Appeal and 5 at the New Zealand Supreme Court – refused the victim and his counsel’s just request they specify what active publication words breach what injunction terms.

When the NZ Court of Appeal considered the appeal ground that the New Zealand High Court Judges had relied upon non-existent breaches on the websites to send the victim to prison, the Court of Appeal engaged in no independent analysis or fact finding. It relied entirely on the same defective and unsafe judgment in declaring:

“(Mr Siemer’s) arguments are untenable: at [8] the Court set out the relevant passage of the injunction at issue; and at [63] and [64] there are multiple quotations from the appellant’s websites that plainly breach the terms of the injunction.”[7] [Emphasis Added]

(attached and marked “D” is a true copy of the NZ Court of Appeal judgment)

To stress again, not only were these Para. [64] “quotations” non-existent since early August 2007, the Court of Appeal had materially overstated the gag injunction in the very first paragraph of this judgment, (quoting):

“The appellant appeals against a High Court order committing him to prison for a term of six months for contempt of court. The contempt resulted from the appellant’s breach of an interim injunction requiring him not to publish material defamatory of Mr Michael Stiassny and his firm, Korda Mentha.”[8] [emphasis added]

This was not the interim gag injunction. The Court was well-aware that the interim gag injunction was issued without hearing and that defamation had not been proven. Also, the injunction terms were limited to publishing fact and fact-based comments relating to Mr Stiassny’s fee overcharging, financial misrepresentations to the Court and overall misconduct in his receivership of Paragon Oil Systems Ltd in 2001.

The NZ Court of Appeal also rejigged the order to imprison the victim into an “unless” order – then issued a media press release that the victim held the “keys to his prison cell in his own pocket”. This claim was also variously stated 12 times in their judgment. Ironically, this morphing of the judgment by the NZ Court of Appeal prescribed that the victim would be released from prison once he stopped publishing passages that had not existed (by that date) for 2 years on the websites (since Aug. 2007).

The New Zealand Supreme Court accepted to hear the appeal in August 2009 (Supreme Court Memorandum attached as Exhibit “E”) on the acquittal ground that the victim was factually compliant with the injunction. As with the lower NZ courts, evidence was provided to the Supreme Court to show that both New Zealand Crown Law and the New Zealand Domain Name Commissioner had acknowledged the victim’s news websites were legally compliant with the injunction[9].

When this evidence was orally emphasised by the victim’s counsel Robert Lithgow QC to the New Zealand Supreme Court at the hearing on 2 March 2010 (SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General), Justice Noel Anderson responded, “Well presumably Mr Lithgow, if he writes for a website, he understands English..”[10] This statement by the Supreme Court Judge:

a. Reveals the New Zealand Court was refusing its legal obligation to specify for what it was sending the victim to prison, flippantly stating instead that it was up to the victim to figure it out because he understands English.

b. Obscured the bonafide – and accepted – appeal ground that nothing on the websites was in breach of the accurately-stated and correctly-applied injunction.

Such was the disregard not only for freedom of expression, but also the victim’s elementary right to due process, on this, New Zealand’s highest court.

That the Solicitor General prosecutor also understood these publications complied with the injunction at the same time he falsely claimed to the Supreme Court they did not is evident in his blinkered quotation of the actual passage in Para. [21] of his Supreme Court submissions. His quote of the relevant passage omitted the change the victim made to the article in AUGUST 2007 to comply with the Domain Name Commissioner and Crown Law’s interpretation of the injunction. Attached and marked with the letter “F” is a copy of the quoted passage as submitted by the Solicitor General to the Supreme Court (refer para. 21). The material differences are apparent when compared to the actual publication which has continuously existed since August 2007 (refer to the accurate publication as shown in Exhibit C of the Affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court [document “J”] in support of recall dated 21 May 2010).

Again, an accepted ground of the victim’s appeal to the NZ Supreme Court was that nothing on the websites was breaching the injunction. So, it was extremely relevant that the Solicitor General’s submissions were deliberately masking the fact that the publications he was relying upon as an example of an active breach at the Supreme Court had actually been duly censored years earlier.

Ultimately, the New Zealand Supreme Court could not uphold the Court of Appeal judgment against the victim legally. By order dated 17 May 2010, the Supreme Court quashed that Court of Appeal judgment (attached and marked “G” is a true copy of that ruling by the full bench of the Supreme Court).

In this 17 May 2010 judgment of the full bench, the New Zealand Supreme Court replaced the fatally flawed Court of Appeal judgment against the victim with a NEW order sentencing him to 3 months imprisonment.

There was no evidence whatsoever presented to the Supreme Court to support any legitimate finding of the victim’s guilt and imprisonment.

The entire court persecution of the victim was plagued by the Court refusing at virtually every step to release records of the hearings which proved he was innocent, as well as treated disrespectfully by judges. (attached and marked “H” is a true copy of an affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the New Zealand Supreme Court dated 1 April 2009 recording a few of these problems, including inability to obtain a transcript necessary for his appeal and a statement from a Court of Appeal judge that the New Zealand Courts lack the technical ability to make copies of audio-transcripts)

Supreme Court Chief Justice Sian Elias – who the victim had previously formally applied to disqualify herself based upon her and her husband’s close association with the benefactor of the interim gag injunction (Michael Stiassny) – informed the Crown counsel at the hearing that the Court did not want counsel to address this accepted appeal ground (which should have singularly resulted in the victim’s acquittal).

Through Counsel, the victim applied to the NZ Supreme Court on 4 June 2010 for a recall of this new sentencing order on distinct legal and factual grounds. These ranged from new evidence that the unsworn quotation of a publication by the Solicitor General’s counsel had been materially altered, to the legally unsafe ground that the Supreme Court issued a new order imposing maximum prison sentence without hearing from the victim or his counsel on this issue. (attached and marked “I” is a true copy of this recall application by the victim to the NZ Supreme Court)

Document marked “J” is a true copy of the affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court in support of this recall application, dated 21 May 2010.

By “Minute” dated 11 June 2010, the NZ Supreme Court dismissed this recall application, claiming it “raises no matter which has not previously been considered in relation to the appeal”. (attached and marked “K” is a true copy of this Supreme Court Minute)

This is extraordinary, as well as emblematic of the depth and breadth of the persecution by the NZ Courts. It is legally impossible, as one example, for the Supreme Court to have “considered” – as the full bench claimed – that the sole support it relied upon in its 17 May 2010 judgment sentencing the appellant to prison had been materially altered and misrepresented to the Court. This is because the issue had not been raised.

One reason Crown Counsel’s material misrepresentation was never raised was it seemed unfathomable at the time that five judges on the highest court in any law-respecting country would, or could, rely exclusively upon unsworn submissions of the prosecutor to order a man sent to prison – particularly to the exclusion of all the evidence.

Lastly, it is noteworthy that the Supreme Court issued a “Minute” rather than the appropriate judgment in dispensing with the recall application. By issuing a Minute, the Supreme Court kept all the evidence of how it contravened established law in this case off the official record.

Document(s) to be attached

Title and description of the document to be attached

Format

Date

[A] “8 July 2008 judgment of Chisholm and Gendall JJ”
Judgment sentencing Siemer to SIX MONTHS in prison.
(sgvsiemer8july2008_1.pdf)

Electronic

2008-07-28

[B] “Siemer Memorandum to High Court” CIV2008 404 0472 Solicitor General v Vince Siemer
Condemned respondent’s memorandum to the New Zealand High Court ahead of the effective prison sentence

Electronic

2008-07-28

[C] 31 July 2008 Minute of the High Court, Gendall and Chisholm JJ, CIV2008 404 1808 Solicitor General v Vince Siemer

Electronic

2008-07-28

[D] Court of Appeal judgment CA447/08 Siemer v Solicitor General, 9 March 2009

Electronic

2008-07-28

[E] Memorandum of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear appeal of CA447/08 Siemer v Solicitor General on all grounds, dated 7 Aug. 2009

Electronic

[F] Crown prosecution submissions to the Supreme Court for hearing 2 March 2010, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General

Electronic

[G] Judgment of the New Zealand Supreme Court, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General, 17 May 2010

Electronic

[H] Affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court, 1 April 2009, SC48/2009

Electronic

[I] Recall application to the NZ Supreme Court, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General, 4 June 2010

Electronic

[J] Affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court, dated 21 May 2010, in support of judgment recall application (SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General

Electronic

[K]”Minute” of the NZ Supreme Court, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General, 11 June 2010

Electronic

8. Date and signature

Date

27/06/2010

Location

St Louis, Missouri, U.S.A.

Signature

Vince Siemer

9. List of Documents Attached (do not send originals — only copies)

Title and description of the document to be attached

Format

Date

[A] “8 July 2008 judgment of Chisholm and Gendall JJ”
Judgment sentencing Siemer to SIX MONTHS in prison.
(sgvsiemer8july2008_1.pdf)

Electronic

[B] “Siemer Memorandum to High Court” CIV2008 404 0472 Solicitor General v Vince Siemer
Condemned respondent’s memorandum to the New Zealand High Court ahead of the effective prison sentence

Electronic

[C] 31 July 2008 Minute of the High Court, Gendall and Chisholm JJ, CIV2008 404 1808 Solicitor General v Vince Siemer

Electronic

[D] Court of Appeal judgment CA447/08 Siemer v Solicitor General, 9 March 2009

Electronic

[E] Memorandum of the Supreme Court agreeing to hear appeal of CA447/08 Siemer v Solicitor General on all grounds, dated 7 Aug. 2009

Electronic

[F] Crown prosecution submissions to the Supreme Court for hearing 2 March 2010, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General

Electronic

[G] Judgment of the New Zealand Supreme Court, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General, 17 May 2010

Electronic

[H] Affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court, 1 April 2009, SC48/2009

Electronic

[I] Recall application to the NZ Supreme Court, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General, 4 June 2010

Electronic

[J] Affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court, dated 21 May 2010, in support of judgment recall application (SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General

Electronic

[K]”Minute” of the NZ Supreme Court, SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General, 11 June 2010

Electronic

[1] Ruling of Gendall and Chisholm JJ, May 2008 CIV2008 404 0472 Solicitor General v Vince Siemer

[2] Eyewitnesses Grace Haden, Pierre Leducq and Jane Siemer supported a formal unlawful detainment complaint, but the Independent Police Complaints Authority failed to interview any of them before dismissing the complaint in January 2009.

[3] Witness transcript of Esther Watt, CIV2008 404 0472 Solicitor General v Vince Siemer, 15 June 2008

[4] Page 39, line 25 of the witness transcript, Solicitor General v Siemer CIV2008 404 472, 16 June 2008

[5] Refer to page 4 of Exhibit CC in the affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court dated 21 May 2010 [Document “J”]. This shows the prosecutor’s own evidence was materially different than the quote relied upon by the judge and, most significantly, that the words the Crown objected to had long before the trial been removed.

[6] Para. [2], Minute of Chisholm and Gendall JJ, Solicitor General v Siemer CIV2008 404 472

[7] Para. [108] Court of Appeal Judgment, 9 March 2009, CA447/08 Siemer v Solicitor General

[8] Para [1], Judgment of the Court of Appeal, 9 March 2009, Siemer v Solicitor General CA447/2008 [2009] NZCA 62

[9] Refer to Exhibit D of the Affidavit of Vincent Ross Siemer to the Supreme Court in support of judgment recall dated 21 May 2010 [Document “J”]. The remaining link referred to in the email was removed that same day.

[10] Page 56 of the Supreme Court transcripts from hearing SC48/2009 Siemer v Solicitor General, 2 March 2010, included.

Advertisements

June 28, 2010 - Posted by | Fighting corruption in NZ, Human rights

No comments yet.

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

%d bloggers like this: