VINCE SIEMER UPDATE: BREAKING NEWS! LOCKWOOD SMITH IS CONTACTING CROWN LAW!

16 July 2010

BREAKING NEWS!
LOCKWOOD SMITH IS CONTACTING CROWN LAW!

10.30AM Jane Siemer just contacted me – Lockwood Smith (Speaker of the House, and Vince Siemer’s constituent MP) rang to tell her he was contacting Crown Law.

So! What will happen?

In my considered opinion, the building political pressure, as more and more people, within NZ and internationally understand Vince’s human rights violations, is becoming enormous.

If Vince (albeit under duress) has had removed from kiwisfirst ‘offending’ passages that Crown Law have identified, then why is he locked up?

WHY WAS HE LOCKED UP IN THE FIRST PLACE?

WHY AREN’T THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL; THE FORMER CLERK OF THE HOUSE (NOW AN OMBUDSMAN) ; THE FORMER DEPUTY SOLICITOR-GENERAL/FORMER CEO OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE ALL LOCKED UP FOR ‘ABUSE OF PROCESS’ BY MISLEADING PARLIAMENT INTO DECLARING PETITION 2005/142 ‘SUBJUDICE’ AT A TIME IT CLEARLY WAS NOT???

Can’t see Vince being incarcerated for too much longer!

____________________________________________________

www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/rodney-times/3910393/Mayoral-hopefuls-stand-for-locked-up-freedom-fighter

Mayoral hopeful’s stand for locked-up ‘freedom fighter’
STACEY OLIVER – Rodney Times
Last updated 05:00 13/07/2010

PUBLIC PROTEST: Supercity mayoral candidate Penny Bright outside the office of Rodney MP Lockwood Smith. She says Whangaparaoa resident Vince Siemer is in jail for contempt although she believes he has not broken any law.

Auckland activist and supercity mayoral candidate Penny Bright held a public protest outside Rodney MP Lockwood Smith’s Orewa office last Friday.

“I’m very proud to be here to defend Vince Siemer,” she says.

“We want to know what Lockwood Smith is doing to help him.”

Ms Bright set up protest banners on the street outside the MP’s Orewa office.

“Lockwood Smith is the constituent MP for Vince Siemer, a Whangaparaoa resident who is currently locked up in Mt Eden jail,” she says.

“It is an absolute disgrace.”

According to Wikipedia, Mr Siemer is a New Zealand legal rights freedom of expression advocate as well as publisher of the controversial legal news website www.kiwisfirst.co.nz.

Mr Siemer was sentenced to serve time in Mt Eden Prison in July 2007, in July 2009 and on May 17 when his latest contempt sentence was cut from six months to three months.

– Stacey Oliver is a Wintec journalism student.
_____________________________________________________

VISITED VINCE YESTERDAY – HE’S FINE.

I visited Vince yesterday in ‘the Rock’.
He is no longer on a hunger strike (finished on Friday 9 July), and looks well, and is in good spirits.

I understand that all material to date that Crown Law have claimed breaches the ‘gagging injunction’, (that Vince was denied from proving was ‘defamatory’ – because he was debarred from defending himself) has been removed from the website.

Vince’s habeas corpus appeal is currently before the Supreme Court.

Politically – I have sent to over 300 Transparency International email addresses all over the world, and 70 anti-corruption contacts I met at the Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference in Brisbane last year, my email to Jan Fulstow, Media Advisor /Assistant to the Solicitor-General David Collins QC:
____________________________________________________

Subject: Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright, fights for justice for jailed anti-corruption ‘Judicial Public Watchdog’ Vince Siemer.

14 July 2010

Jan Fulstow
Assistant to Solicitor-General David Collins QC
Media Advisor

Dear Jan,

I don’t appear to have yet received an acknowledgment of receipt of this correspondence.

At your earliest convenience would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

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

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Penny Bright
Date: Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Subject: Auckland Mayoral candidate Penny Bright, fights for justice for jailed anti-corruption ‘Judicial Public Watchdog’ Vince Siemer.
To: jan.fulstow@crownlaw.govt.nz
Cc: 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, c.finlayson@ministers.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, j.collins@ministers.govt.nz, j.key@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, s.power@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

14 July 2010

Jan Fulstow
Assistant to Solicitor-General David Collins QC
Media Advisor

‘Open letter’ to Jan Fulstow, Assistant to Solicitor-General David Collins QC, re: the misleading of Parliament over Petition 2005/142″

RE: MEMORANDUM dated 25 March 2009

SUBJECT: SG v Siemer. Justice and Electoral Select Committee query about what proceedings were before the Court at the time of the correspondence between Crown Law and the Clerk of the House last year.

Dear Jan,

My originating Privacy Act request to Crown Law on 11 February 2009, ‘flushed out’
the above-mentioned ‘Memorandum’, which proves that the matters raised in Petition 2005/142 were NOT ‘subjudice’ and that Parliament was misled, in my considered opinion, by Solicitor-General David Collins QC (‘the highest acting law officer in the land’); the former Clerk of the House David McGee QC (now an Ombudsman) ; and the former Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law) Grant Liddell (who later became the CEO of the NZ Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

In New Zealand – ‘the least corrupt country in the world’!

Vince Siemer is currently locked up in Mt Eden prison, for the THIRD time, (and on the 14th day of a hunger strike) although he has broken no law, and his habeas corpus application has been dismissed by both the High Court and Court of Appeal, as an ‘abuse of process’.

How is the ‘misleading of Parliament’ by helping to get a matter before a Select Committee declared ‘subjudice’ at a time it was NOT, not an ‘abuse of process’ at the highest levels of the New Zealand judiciary and the NZ House of Parliament?

How can the public have confidence in the NZ judiciary and Parliament, when such ‘abuses of process’ are initiated and apparently sanctioned by those at the highest levels of the New Zealand judiciary and the NZ House of Parliament?

Where is the ‘honesty, transparency and accountability’ in the case of Vince Siemer?

How can it be unlawful to tell the truth?

What happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?

Why has Vince Siemer been denied his lawful and basic human rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial?

In my considered opinion, Vince Siemer must be released forthwith, and a full inquiry must be held into his imprisonment, his human rights violations and the judicial and Parliamentary corrupt practices which have led to this happening.
____________________________________________________________

As you know, Vince Siemer was debarred from defending himself in the defamation hearing brought by Michael Stiassny, which resulted in the highest ever award against a defendant.

http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=205

Lawyer Steven Price blogs about media law and ethics in New Zealand
Judge awards highest ever defamation damages

By Steven | January 29, 2009

“Cooper J awarded Michael Stiassny and his firm $920,000 damages against Vince Siemer for his long-running attacks on Stiassny, including $900,000 for defamation. (To recap: those are the attacks that led to the injunction that led to the contempt of court cases that led to Siemer being fined and jailed for breaching the injunction and then let out of jail to argue that he should have been given a jury trial. Judgment’s still pending on that last one).

Those contempt cases also led to a huge award of costs – more than $180,000 – against Siemer (joining many other costs awards against Siemer). He didn’t pay them. So Potter J debarred him from defending Staissny’s defamation case.

So it can’t have been much of a defamation trial. You had the country’s most famous media lawyer, Julian Miles QC, arguing one side, and on the other…. nothing. There’s a huge hole in the judgment where the discussion of defences would usually come. Were the attacks true? Were they simply honest opinion? Were they protected by qualified privilege? The judge didn’t have to decide.

At one point Cooper J said: “there is no substance in the allegations that Mr Siemer makes”. The judge really had no place saying that. Siemer has insisted all along that his criticisms are true. He’d been prevented from putting forward evidence to prove them. The judge didn’t know what that evidence might have been.

And that’s surely got to give anyone pause for thought. Nearly a million dollars in damages awarded against someone who was denied the right to present evidence in his own defence. That’s in addition to being sent to jail for contempt for saying things he continues to insist are true, and which have never been disproved, in breach of an injunction he believes was wrongly imposed.

……………………………………”

____________________________________________________________

FURTHER PARTICULARS REQUIRED FROM CROWN LAW:

Following our telephone discussion yesterday, 13 July 2010:

A) Relating to the following ‘Memorandum’ dated 25 March 2009 ( your reference 707325 _I):
(Copy attached)
Vince Siemer Memorandum confirming Petition 2008 142 NOT subjudice 1.15.pdf (application/pdf) 390K

Please provide the following further particulars:

1) To whom this ‘Memorandum’ was sent. (ALL parties.)

2) Who ‘signed’ or ‘authorised’ this ‘Memorandum’.

______________________________________________________________________

“MEMORANDUM
25 March 2008

SUBJECT: SG v Siemer:. Justice and Electoral Select Committee query about what
proceedings were before the Court at the time of the correspondence
between Crown Law and the Clerk of the House last year

1. On or about 8 August 2007 Penny Bright, a supporter of Mr Siemer’s and the
spokeswoman for an Auckland group known as “The Water Pressure Group”, wrote
to Michael Cullen as Attorney-General attaching an “open letter” to all political
parties. The letter requested an inquiry in to Potter J ‘s committal of Mr Siemer to
prison for contempt in mid last year. A copy of Ms Bright’s documents was sent to
the Solicitor-General.

2. Ms Bright says in her letter that the Petition Reference is 142, and was presented to
the Select Committee by Rodney Hide on 24 July 2007.

3. As a result of receiving the documents from Ms Bright, on to August 2007 the
Acting Deputy Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell, wrote to the Clerk of the House. A
copy of the letter is attached. The letter explains that:

3.1 Mr Siemer as at the date o f Mr Liddell’s letter (and indeed, as at today’s
date) commits an on-going contempt of court by publishing material on a
website in breach of an earlier High Court in junction;

3.2 As a result of breaching the injunction Mr Siemer, in proceedings Ferrier
Hodgson v Siemer I, had been held to be in contempt of Court in mid 2007
and was committed to prison for a time ;

3.3 Because Mr Siemer’s, breach of the injunction is on -going, the Solicitor General
had determined (by the date of Mr Liddell’s letter) that he would
bring his own proceedings fo r contempt against Mr Siemer for contempt.

4. As for the Solicitor-General ‘s proceedings, they are for contempt of court for
breaching the High Court injunction. The proceedings were filed in the High Court
at Auckland on 29 January 2008. The application is to be heard on 16 June 2008.

5. Note, the contempt proceedings brought by the defamation plaintiff, Mr Stiassny,
referred to in paragraph 3.2 above were a discrete application to the High Court,
brought by way of interlocutory application, in the context of:

5.1 A proceeding at that time still before the Court for final determination of
the plaintiffs defamation claim;

5.2 Conduct constituting an on-going contempt of Court by Mr Siemer for
breaching the High Court’s extant injunction forbidding Mr Siemer from
publishing defamatory material about Mr Stiassny.
_____________________________________________________________________
These are primarily defamation proceedings, flied prior to 2007, brought by Mr Stiassny and his company Ferrier Hodgson against Mr Siemer. As we understand it, these proceedings are currently before the High Court waiting a final hearing, and were certainly before the High Court all of last year. ”
____________________________________________________________

FYI – FURTHER DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THIS EMAIL:

“3. As a result of receiving the documents from Ms Bright, on to August 2007 the
Acting Deputy Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell, wrote to the Clerk of the House. A
copy of the letter is attached. ”
(A copy of that letter is attached to this email:
Vince Siemer Parliamentary CoverUp Grant Liddell letter to Clerk of the House David McGee QC 10 August 2007 1.5(2).pdf (application/pdf) 140K

A copy of the letter from former Clerk of the House David McGee QC to the
Acting Deputy Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell, date 13 August 2007, is attached to this email:
Vince Siemer Parliamentary Cover Up Letter from Clerk of the HouseDavid McGee QC to Grant Liddell 13 August 2007 1.6.htm (text/html) 29KAttach another file
“Speech to farewell David McGee CNZM QC, Clerk of the House of Representatives
Grand Hall, Parliament House
5pm, Thursday 25 October 2007

We have gathered, after the unusual early rising of the House to say our farewells to Dave McGee, the Clerk of the House, Queen’s Counsel and Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit and to acknowledge his contribution to Parliament.

Dave has given service to Parliament for almost 34 years, 22 of them as Clerk of the House. He has made a tremendous contribution to Parliament for which we are all grateful. He is truly Parliament’s man and it is difficult to envisage the institution without him.

We are fortunate that Dave’s talents will continue to be put to good use as he is leaving to become the third ombudsman. The qualities he demonstrated as Clerk of the House – those of independence, credibility, impeccable integrity and a sense of the importance of tradition and constitutional institutions will serve well in his new role……. ”

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/Speaker/Speeches/e/6/e/00SpeakSpeech251020071-Speech-to-farewell-David-McGee-CNZM-

(So – wouldn’t you think that David McGee QC, with his knowledge and background as Clerk of the House, would know what ‘subjudice’ meant?

Same with the Solicitor-General David Collins QC?)
________________________________________________________________________

B) Your email to the former Clerk of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Meipara Poata, dated 26 March 2009, which stated:

“..Further to our telephone discussions last week, please find a note attached setting out the proceedings in relation to Mr Siemer. If you have any further queries or I can help in any way, please let me know.”

Vince Siemer Parliamentary Cover Up Email from Jan Fulstow to Meipara Poata re telephone conversations dated 26 March 2009 1.15 Pg 3 of 3.htm (text/html) 32K

Please provide the following further particulars:

1) ALL notes / diary entries or the like pertaining to these above-mentioned ‘telephone discussions’, and ‘further queries’ (if any).

BACKGROUND:
________________________

The decision of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on
Petition 2005/142 (for which I was the initiating petitioner), which
stated on 20 August 2007:

“The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has considered the
Petition 2005/142 of Penelope Bright and 30 others, requesting that
Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of
Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.

Standing Orders provide rules against committees considering matters
that are subjudice (awaiting adjudication in a court of record), and
this means that we are unable to consider this petition further.

We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House.”
___________________________________________________________________
11 February 2009

OPEN LETTER/PRIVACY ACT REQUEST:

ATTN SOLICITOR-GENERAL DAVID COLLINS QC:

Dear Solicitor-General,

I have been advised by Jan Fulstow from your Office, that the proper
process to follow in making a request for information under the
Privacy Act, is to address the request to yourself.

My full name is Penelope Mary Bright, also known as Penny Bright,
of 86A School Rd, Kingsland, Auckland.

A) I am hereby requesting ALL information held by, or including:

1) Yourself, as Solicitor-General,
2) The previously ‘Acting’ Solicitor-General, Grant Liddell,
3) The Office of the Solicitor-General,
4) The Crown Law Office,

Relating, in any way, shape or form, to my involvement in matters
concerning Vincent Ross Siemer, particularly pertaining to the
decision of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on
Petition 2005/142 (for which I was the initiating petitioner), which
stated on 20 August 2007:

“The Justice and Electoral Select Committee has considered the
Petition 2005/142 of Penelope Bright and 30 others, requesting that
Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of
Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.

Standing Orders provide rules against committees considering matters
that are subjudice (awaiting adjudication in a court of record), and
this means that we are unable to consider this petition further.

We have no matters to bring to the attention of the House.”

Parliamentary Standing Orders 111 and 112
state quite clearly when a matter is ‘subjudice’.

“111 Matters awaiting judicial decision

Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the
right of the House to legislate on any matter, matter awaiting or
under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to –

(a) in any motion, or
(b) in any debate, or
(c) in any question, including a supplementary question, –
if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real
and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the
case.

112 Application of prohibition of reference to matters awaiting
or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to –

(a) in any motion, or
(b) in any debate, or
(c) in any question, including a supplementary question, –
if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real
and substantial
danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.

112 Application of prohibition of reference to matters awaiting
judicial decision

(1) Standing Order 111 has effect, –
(a) in relation to a criminal case, from the moment the
law is set in motion by a charge being made:
(b) in relation to cases other than criminal, from the
time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the
appropriate document in the registry or office of the court.

(2) Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the
verdict and sentence have been announced or judgment given. …”
______________________________

_____

(Vince Siemer had been sentenced and was in jail when this petition
was initiated. The ‘subjudice’ rule simply did not therefore apply.)

__________________________________________

B) This Privacy Act request for information held, includes, but is not
limited to:

1) Emails
2) Diary notes
3) Notes made of telephone conversations
4) Reports
5) Meeting minutes or records of discussions

C) In a nutshell, I wish for confirmation (or not), from information
accessible through the Privacy Act, that the advice upon which the
Justice and Electoral Select Committee was relying regarding this
petition being ‘subjudice’ at a time it clearly was not, came from
either, or including:

1) Yourself, as Solicitor-General,
2) Grant Liddell, in his previous capacity as ‘Acting’ Solicitor-General,
3) Any staff member, or any person acting in any capacity from the
Office of the Solicitor-General,
4) Any staff member or any person acting in any capacity from the
Crown Law Office.

D) Please be reminded of an email sent by Jan Fulstow, Assistant to
Solicitor-General /Media, dated 6 November 2007, confirming that the
Solicitor-General had NOT YET filed (further contempt) proceedings:

“Subject: Contempt proceedings

In reply to your voicemail message I advise that the proceedings have
not yet been filed but will be filed shortly. The situation is as was
set out in paragraph 9 of Grant Liddell’s letter to you dated 22
August 2007.”

This is hard evidence which confirms that prior to the decision
reached by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee on 20 August
2007, this matter was not ‘subjudice’.

May I respectfully remind you of the statutory duties which pertain to
your Office, under the Public Records Act 2005

“3 Purposes of Act
The purposes of this Act are—

(a) to provide for the continuation of the repository of public
archives called the National Archives with the name Archives New
Zealand (Te Rua Mahara o to Kawanatanga); and
determinations on the disposal of public records and certain local
authority archives; and

(c) to enable the Government to be held accountable by—

(i) ensuring that full and accurate records of the affairs of central
and local government are created and maintained; and

(ii) providing for the preservation of, and public access to, records
of long-term value; and

(d) to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public records
and local authority records; and

(e) to provide an appropriate framework within which public offices
and local authorities create and maintain public records and local
authority records, as the case may be; and

(f) through the systematic creation and preservation of public
archives and local authority archives, to enhance the accessibility of
records that are relevant to the historical and cultural heritage of
New Zealand and to New Zealanders’ sense of their national identity;
and

(g) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by
the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), as provided for by
section 7; and

(h) to support the safekeeping of private records.”

________________________________________________________

The postal or courier address to which this documentation can be forwarded is:

86A School Rd
Kingsland
Auckland

I look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bright

Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127

__________________________________________________________________

FREE VINCE SIEMER FACEBOOK PAGE”

ttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=130619460308073

Yours sincerely,

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