The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop

Vince Siemer’s ‘Writ of Habeas Corpus’ Application was heard today in the High Court – decision reserved .

30 June 2010

Vince Siemer’s ‘Writ of Habeas Corpus’ application was heard in the Auckland High Court TODAY Wed 30 June at 2.15pm in the Auckland High Court in front of Justice Allan.

Justice Allan reserved his decision – will either be on Friday 2 July or Monday 5 July 2010.
________________________________________________________________________________________
If this ‘Writ of Habeas Corpus’ application is successful – Vince Siemer will be released from prison.

This will be a milestone, historic court case.

For the third time, Vince Siemer has been imprisoned, although he has broken no law.

How is it lawful for Judges to make decisions based on ‘judicial discretion’ which are not based on the ‘rule of law’?

If a Judge made a court order that Jewish people had to wear a ‘Star of David’ – is that a lawful ‘court order’ that should be obeyed?

Vince Siemer’s position, as stated in the following affidavit:

APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT:

“IN THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT
Appeal of CA447/08, of CIV 2008-404-472

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT ROSS SIEMER TO THE NEW
ZEALAND SUPREME COURT

1 April 2009
Submitted by: Vince Siemer,

10. The injunction Stiassny obtained against me was made permanent by order of
Judge Cooper on 23 December 2008, after my valid statement of defence was
struck out, I was denied a jury trial and I was debarred from defending myself.
Though Judge Cooper admitted he did not know what my defence was to the
injunction grounds1, he still permanently injuncted me from speaking truthfully
about Michael Stiassny’s shady business practices – including the specific fact
Stiassny had attempted to wrongly label Paragon insolvent in 2001.

11. Cooper J did not refer to any of the substantial body of evidence which was the
object of the initial injunction. Instead, His Honour contrived a “quote” by taking
and juxtaposing phrases from unrelated articles I published later. His Honour
then claimed his contrived quote about Jews and Hitler was “evidence” of my
“vile, racist abuse” of Mr Staissny. Stiassny is Jewish.

15. I swear under oath and risk of perjury that both the High Court Judgment
and Court of Appeal Judgment are attempting to send me to prison for
publications which either (a) do not exist, or (b) did not violate the
injunction.

17. I have great respect· for the rule of law and authority of the Court. I will bend
over backward to comply with a lawful order of the Court but, as this case
shows, will not yield to an unlawful order of the Court which infringes upon basic
liberties, particularly where I am prevented the right to defend myself. My case
proves that a New Zealand Judge will allow permanent judgments against law abiding
citizens without even requiring named defendants be informed of the
claim, let alone the right to defend it.”

(Full copy of this affidavit is at the end of this post.)

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT:

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments-supreme/judgments-supreme-2010

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 48/2009
[2010] NZSC 54
BETWEEN VINCENT ROSS SIEMER Appellant
AND SOLICITOR-GENERAL Respondent
Hearing: 2 March 2010

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson and Anderson JJ
Counsel: R M Lithgow QC and L A Scott for Appellant M F Laracy and B C L Charmley for Respondent
Judgment: 17 May 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal is quashed. It is replaced by an order committing the appellant to prison for a term of a maximum of three months, subject to the proviso that the term of imprisonment will come to an immediate end if the appellant complies with the injunction issued on 5 May 2005 and made permanent on 23 December 2008 by the High Court at Auckland in the proceeding Korda Mentha v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 23 December 2008 and if he also provides an undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by the High Court that he and Paragon Oil Services Ltd will continue to comply with that injunction for so long as it remains in force.

B Mr Siemer is ordered to surrender to his bail at the High Court in Auckland no later than 4pm on 20 May 2010 unless by then he has complied with the injunction and provided that undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by it. ”

________________________________________________

Have a look at Vince’s Siemer’s website www.kiwisfirst.co.nz .
Can you now see why there is such an attempt to shut up Vince Siemer and shut down his website?

Those citizens who make a stand on principle to the point of imprisonment, are a VERY rare breed.

As a judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters, and someone who has been acknowledged in the media as an “anti-corruption campaigner”,
I salute Vince Siemer as a fellow ‘Public Watchdog’ exposing judicial corruption in New Zealand.

( YOU TUBE COVERAGE OF TODAY’S PROTEST OUTSIDE
MT EDEN PRISO Tuesday 29 June 2010

www.guerillamedia.co.nz/content/corruption-campaigner-arrested-nz-judicial-corruption-blame-mr-news

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

Auckland Mayoral candidate.

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

_____________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Habeas Corpus Act 2001
5 Purposes

The purposes of this Act are—

(a) to reaffirm the historic and constitutional purpose of the writ of habeas corpus as a vital means of safeguarding individual liberty:

(b) to make better provision for restoring the liberty of persons unlawfully detained by establishing an effective procedure for applications to the High Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, and the expeditious determination of those applications:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
1) Habeas Corpus Act 2001 No 31 (as at 01 July 2009), Public Act
1 Title

This Act is the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.

* Contents

3 Interpretation

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

applicant means the plaintiff in an application

application means an application to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus

detention includes every form of restraint of liberty of the person

habeas corpus means habeas corpus ad subjiciendum

High Court Rules has the same meaning as in the Judicature Act 1908

Judge means a Judge of the High Court

Registrar includes a Deputy Registrar

working day has the same meaning as in the High Court Rules.

4 Application of Act to the Crown and Parliament

(1) This Act binds the Crown.

(2) Nothing in this Act limits or affects the power or authority of the House of Representatives to punish for contempt.

5 Purposes

The purposes of this Act are—

(a) to reaffirm the historic and constitutional purpose of the writ of habeas corpus as a vital means of safeguarding individual liberty:

(b) to make better provision for restoring the liberty of persons unlawfully detained by establishing an effective procedure for applications to the High Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, and the expeditious determination of those applications:

(c) to provide certain unsuccessful parties in habeas corpus proceedings with a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal:

(d) to abolish writs of habeas corpus other than the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.

6 Application for writ of habeas corpus to challenge legality of detention

An application to challenge the legality of a person’s detention may be made by an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

7 Manner of application for writ

(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the High Court by originating application in the manner provided by the High Court Rules.

(2) Despite subsection (1), nothing in that subsection excludes the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and to make an order on an oral application at any time in circumstances of unusual urgency.

(3) Despite subsection (1), the provisions of any High Court Rule providing for directions by the court before the hearing, or affecting the hearing, of an originating application or empowering the court to convene a conference of the parties to an originating application do not apply to an application.

(4) No applicant may be disqualified for lack of capacity or standing.

(5) In a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus—

(a) no party to the proceeding is entitled to general or special discovery of the documents of any other party to the proceeding or to an order for security for costs; and

(b) the High Court Rules concerning discovery and inspection of documents and security for costs do not apply.

(6) No fee is payable to the High Court for filing any document in respect of an application.

(7) Section 51E of the Judicature Act 1908 does not apply in respect of the form and manner of any application made under this Act.

11 Interim orders for release from detention

(1) The High Court may make an interim order for the release from detention of the detained person pending final determination of the application, and may attach any conditions to the order that the court thinks appropriate to the circumstances.

(2) In the case of a detained person who is charged with an offence to which the Bail Act 2000 applies, the court must not make an order under this section if the court is of the opinion that bail would not be granted to that person under that Act.

(3) If a person has been released from detention under an interim order, the court may, on the application of the person released or any party to the proceeding or on the court’s own initiative, make an order—
(a) revoking the interim order; or

(b) varying or revoking any condition of the interim order or substituting or imposing any other condition.

(4) If a detained person who is in custody under a conviction is released under an interim order, the time during which the person is released does not count as part of any term of detention under the person’s sentence if on a final determination of the application the writ of habeas corpus is refused.

14 Determination of applications

(1) If the defendant fails to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, the High Court must grant as a matter of right a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person from detention.

(2) A Judge dealing with an application must enquire into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in that enquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors; but this subsection does not entitle a Judge to call into question—

(a) a conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court Martial of New Zealand established under section 8 of the Court Martial Act 2007, or a disciplinary officer acting under Part 5 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971; or

(b) a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(3) A Judge must determine an application by—

(a) refusing the application for the issue of the writ; or

(b) issuing the writ ordering the release from detention of the detained person.

(4) All matters relating to the costs of and incidental to an application are in the discretion of the court and the court may refuse costs to a successful party or order a successful party to pay costs to an unsuccessful party.

(5) A writ of habeas corpus may be in the form set out in the Schedule.

Section 14(2)(a): substituted, on 1 July 2009, by section 87 of the Court Martial Act 2007 (2007 No 101).

15 Finality of determinations

(1) Subject to the rights of appeal conferred by section 16 of this Act and to sections 7 to 10 of the Supreme Court Act 2003, the determination of an application is final and no further application can be made by any person either to the same or to a different Judge on grounds requiring a re-examination by the court of substantially the same questions as those considered by the court when the earlier application was refused.

(2) A person who has been released from detention in accordance with a writ of habeas corpus must not be re-arrested or detained again on substantially the same grounds as those considered by the court when the earlier release was ordered.

(3) Subsection (2) has no application if the ground on which the earlier release was ordered was a jurisdictional or procedural defect that has since been corrected or no longer applies.

Section 15(1): amended, on 1 January 2004, by section 48(1) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 (2003 No 53).

_________________________________________________________________________________________
VINCE SIEMER’S SIDE OF THE STORY:

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT ROSS SIEMER TO SUPREME COURT

IN THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT
Appeal of CA447/08, of CIV 2008-404-472

SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT ROSS SIEMER TO THE NEW ZEALAND SUPREME COURT

1 April 2009
Submitted by: Vince Siemer,

I, Vincent Ross Siemer, bankrupt (according to Faire AJ), of 27 Clansman Terrace,
Gulf Harbour, and the appellant in the case identified above, solemnly swear in
support of aLeave application to appeal my six month prison sentence in a civil case:

1. I wish to instruct counsel for this application to the Supreme Court but have
been unable to date to obtain the accurate transcript of the subject appeal from
the Court of Appeal in order to instruct such counsel, in circumstances where I
was self-represented at the Court of Appeal.

2. Because the Court of Appeal has required this appeal to the Supreme Court be
filed within 20 working days, but has so far refused to provide the accurate
transcript I have repeatedly requested for the last 4 months, I am filing this
application under duress. I intend to amend the application (hopefully by
counsel) once I wrestle this record from the Court of Appeal (attached and
marked with the letter “A” are true copies of the Court of Appeal’s
representation that this record would be provided – and subsequent
prevarication in this regard).

3. This appeal of sentence concerns an unlawful injunction which I proved in the
Court of Appeal on 8 February 2007 was obtained by an abuse of process by
Michael Stiassny. I have been unable to obtain the accurate record from this
hearing as well. Nonetheless, the incorrect written transcript provided shows the
Court of Appeal Judgment summary failed to mention the clear evidence of the
abuse of process which underpinned the two year old interim injunction.

4. On 18 June 2007, I appeared in the Court of Appeal again, where the record
proves I was treated with disrespect by a Court of Appeal Judge who then went
on to refuse evidence on the basis it was not ‘official’ evidence, and then defend
from the bench the unlawful practice of Stiassny’s lawyers padding their
charges. I have been refused this official audio-record as well, which means
I have no evidence of what occurred in the eyes of the New Zealand Court..

5. On 26 June 2008, Court of Appeal Judge Hammond wrote a Minute in which he
claimed the Court of Appeal was not providing these accurate hearing records
because it lacked the technical ability to make CD copies. I know this is untrue,
because I had received a CD copy that very month of hearing CIV2008 404
0472 in the Auckland High Court.

6. In a secret trial conducted in the Auckland High Court in late 2006, Justice
Heath QC – a former lawyer of Michael Stiassny – ordered the Coroner’s public
report into the apparent suicide of another of Stiassny’s lawyers, Robert Fardell
ac, suppressed. Judge Heath ac then permanently sealed the case file.

7. The relevance of this action by a current Judge (and former lawyer of Stiassny)
is huge. In addition to Stiassny’s own documents which proved he falsely
labeled my company Paragon Oil Systems Limited (“Paragon”) insolvent in
2001, Mr Fardell had taken various notes in relation to Stiassny’s dubious
attempt. This evidence was specifically prohibited by Judge France from being
published when her 5 May 2005 injunction declared I had “No defence of truth”
in stating Stiassny had labeled Paragon insolvent. (attached and marked with
the letter liB” are true copies of two separate notes in Fardell’s own
handwriting noting Stiassny (aka Ferriers) ‘insolvent’ claim).

8. Before he died, Mr Fardell offered my wife and me $175,000 to settle our case
against him for his role in Stiassny’s deception (attached and marked with the
letter “C” is a true copy of the settlement offer we received from Mr Fardell
prior to his suicide).

9. Court of Appeal Judge Chambers is a close mate of Alan Garrett, the man who
provided almost all of Stiassny’s affidavits in relation to the injunction. On 13
December 2005, Judge Chambers upheld the injunction against me on ‘contract’
grounds, thereby overruling the High Court ruling which stated this was not
sufficient grounds for the injunction, in circumstances where this ground was not
cross-appealed. Moreover, the Court of Appeal was prior informed Mr Fardell
had had advised me to sign this contract with Stiassny in August 2001 without
disclosing the fact that Stiassny was his client AND ALSO trustee of Fardell’s
family trust. Back in 2002 I formally repudiated this contract after Stiassny
persistently breached it and failed to respond to my formal requests to comply.
Four people, namely John Moncur Forbes, Jane Dinsdale Siemer, Eulalie Jane
McLeod and me, also provided evidence that High Court Justice Patricia
Courtney had assisted Stiassny to conceal Paragon documents in violation of
this contract 10 months after signing (before Ms. Courtney’s appointment to
Queen’s Judge).

10. The injunction Stiassny obtained against me was made permanent by order of
Judge Cooper on 23 December 2008, after my valid statement of defence was
struck out, I was denied a jury trial and I was debarred from defending myself.
Though Judge Cooper admitted he did not know what my defence was to the
injunction grounds1, he still permanently injuncted me from speaking truthfully
about Michael Stiassny’s shady business practices – including the specific fact
Stiassny had attempted to wrongly label Paragon insolvent in 2001.

11. Cooper J did not refer to any of the substantial body of evidence which was the
object of the initial injunction. Instead, His Honour contrived a “quote” by taking
and juxtaposing phrases from unrelated articles I published later. His Honour
then claimed his contrived quote about Jews and Hitler was “evidence” of my
“vile, racist abuse” of Mr Staissny. Stiassny is Jewish.

12. Court of Appeal Justice Hammond appointed Mr. Stiassny receiver of Paragon
in December 2000 and dealt with Stiassny in this capacity for seven months,
until the Judge finally revoked Stiassny’s receivership on my wife and my
application to do so. Hence, Justice Hammond was a material witness to much
of what I had published about Mr. Stiassny. When Justice Hammond sat in
Judgment of my appeal of the High Court Judgment striking out my defence to
1 Para [86], Judgment ofCooper J dated 23 Dec 2008, Stiassny v Siemer CIV2005 404 1808

Stiassny’s action, I formally requested His Honour recuse himself. Judge
Hammond refused – and then dismissed my appeal.
13. When I applied to appeal Judge Hammond’s ruling to the New Zealand
Supreme Court, the highest Court requested areply from Judge Hammond as to
his alleged conflict. In response, Judge Hammond wrote a “Minute” dated 5
November 2008 to the Supreme Court in which His Honour stated his
involvement in the earlier proceedings was “before Mr Stiassny became
involved.”2 This was a materially false statement by Judge Hammond. The
Court’s own records prove what I stated above; that Hammond actually
appointed Stiassny, dealt directly with him over seven months and at least two
reports to the Court, and then revoked his receivership in response to my wife
and my petition he do so. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court refused to hear the
appeal, relying instead on Judge Hammond’s false and misleading claim.

14. I then filed a formal complaint regarding Judge Hammond’s false representation
to the Supreme Court to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Ian Haynes. Mr
Haynes is apracticing lawyer and senior partner in one of New Zealand’s largest
law firms – in addition to his statutory function of investigating judges for
misconduct. Mr Haynes refused to consider the detailed complaint I made
against Judge Hammond despite the Judge’s alleged actions amounting to an
imprisonable offence under section 111 of the Crimes Act 1961. This is not
unusual. Of the 300 plus formal complaints Mr Haynes has received against
specific New Zealand Judges since his office was set up, not one has gone as
far as a panel “investigation” (To appoint panels to investigate the more serious
complaints being the purpose the New Zealand Parliament set up the Office of
the Judicial Conduct Commissioner).

15. I swear under oath and risk of perjury that both the High Court Judgment
and Court of Appeal Judgment are attempting to send me to prison for
publications which either (a) do not exist, or (b) did not violate the
injunction.

For example, Paragraph [64] of the High Court Judgment purports
2 Minute of Hammond J dated 5 November 2008 CA226/07 Siemer v Stiassny
to list violations. The Court of Appeal re-affirmed this clause directly as proof of
“active to list violations. The Court of Appeal re-affirmed this clause directly as proof of
“active breach of the injunction”. Yet, the first excerpt cited in this paragraph has
not existed on http://www.kiwisfirst.com or http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz for a year and ahalf. I
censored it to fully comply with the Solicitor General’s interpretation of the
injunction way back in August 2007. It is patently self-evident that the second
excerpt cited does not violate the injunction. Judges additionally citing an
observation of Stiassny’s perjury – also true – as a seeming violation of an
injunction relating to Stiassny’s misconduct in the Paragon receivership defies
reason, as well as defeats law and justice.

16. Because Cooper J made the injunction permanent after a private audience with
Mr Stiassny, I wish to state for the record that Judge Cooper allowed Mr
Stiassny to file an amended defamation claim and proceed to an ex parte trial
and judgment on that basis – after my statement of defence had been struck out
and my defence debarred by Court orders. I was not even notified by the Court
that the Judge was accepting anew defamation claim for a permanent injunction
and a million dollars in damages against me.

17. I have great respect· for the rule of law and authority of the Court. I will bend
over backward to comply with a lawful order of the Court but, as this case
shows, will not yield to an unlawful order of the Court which infringes upon basic
liberties, particularly where I am prevented the right to defend myself. My case
proves that a New Zealand Judge will allow permanent judgments against lawabiding
citizens without even requiring named defendants be informed of the
claim, let alone the right to defend it.

__________________________________________________________________-

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

Auckland Mayoral candidate.

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

Advertisements

June 30, 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: