PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’:”Is the Solicitor-General maliciously abusing his position, as the second-highest ‘lawyer in the land’ by persecuting/ prosecuting Vince Siemer (AGAIN) for ‘contempt of Court’? “

8 June 2011

PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’:

“Is the Solicitor-General maliciously abusing his position, as the second-highest ‘lawyer in the land’ by persecuting/ prosecuting Vince Siemer (AGAIN) for ‘contempt of Court’? “

Vince Siemer – is facing jail for contempt of court (AGAIN!), through proceedings initiated (AGAIN) by the Solicitor -General for telling the public J Winkelman’s decision that the people arrested in the state terror raids of 15th October 2007 were not only denied a jury trial, but that the public were being denied the right to know that information.

(There will be a protest outside the Wellington High Court
2 Molesworth St (opposite Parliament)

Thursday 9 June 2011 from 9 – 10am, then for those who are able – quiet support inside the court room.

Well-known human rights lawyer Tony Ellis will be defending Vince Siemer).

In my considered opinion, Vince Siemer is NZ’s leading ‘Public Watchdog’ / ‘Whistleblower’ on the lack of transparency and accountability and ‘conflicts of interest’ in the NZ Judiciary.

www.kiwisfirst.co.nz )

Why is the Solicitor-General David Collins QC himself not facing an investigation for ‘contempt of the House’ – given his role – in my considered opinion, of helping to ‘mislead’ the former Justice and Electoral Select Committee, which resulted in the matters raised in Petition 2005/142 being declared ‘subjudice’, at a time they clearly were NOT?

(Petition 2005/142 presented to the House by Mr Hide MP on 24 July 2007 “requesting that Parliament conduct an inquiry into the comittal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court”)

Was the former Justice and Electoral Select Committee ‘misled’ – not only by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC (‘the highest acting law officer in the land’); but also by 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)?

Read the following information for yourself – and you be the judge…….

________________________________________________________________________________________________

This morning, I ‘cold-called’ the former Clerk of the House of Parliament, David McGee, (now an Ombudsman), and requested an urgent meeting.

At short notice, he agreed to meet.

I explained that the reason why I wanted this meeting was because tomorrow, 9 June 2011, Vince Siemer again faced ‘contempt’ proceedings, initiated again by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in the Wellington High Court.

I further explained that in my considered opinion, the Solicitor-General was effectively abusing his power, and there was a history of his effectively malicious persecution of Vince Siemer.

I reminded David McGee QC, that when he was the Clerk of the House, that on 10 August 2007, he had been sent a letter from Grant Liddell (Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law), which stated:

“Dear Mr McGee

Vincent Ross Siemer

Our Ref: SOL115/1823

The Solicitor-General has asked me to write to you as a courtesy to inform you that he will be pursuing an application against

Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court. Mr Siemer’s contempt is constituted by his continuing operation of the website www.stiassny.org and his publication on that site and others of material held by the High court to constitute breach of an injunction the Court issued in the proceedings Ferrier Hodgson v Siemer. The High Court has already held Mr Siemer to be in cotempt for such publication and he has been sentenced to, and has served a term of imprisonment as punishment. Despite that, Mr Siemer continues to operate the website. The Solicitor-General, in his function as Law Officer, is responsible for prosecuting serious contempt of court. Because of the public interest in obtaining compliance with the orders of the court and in order to maintain the court’s authority, he has now determined to proceed against Mr Siemer for contempt.

I am advising you of this course of action on account of a petition having been presented to the House by Mr Hide MP on 24 July 2007 “requesting that Parliament conduct an inquiry into the comittal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court”, which has been referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee.

Yours sincerely,

Grant Liddell

Acting Deputy Solicitor-General (Public Law)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I reminded Mr McGee of his following response”

“13 August 2007

Mr Grant Liddell

Acting

Acting Deputy Solicitor-General

(Public Law)

Crown Law Office

PO Box 2858

WELLINGTON

Dear Mr Liddell

Vincent Ross Siemer

Ref: SOL115/1823

Thank you for your advice that the Solicitor-General will be pursuing an application against Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court.

I will draw your letter to the attention of the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Yours sincerely

DG McGee

Clerk of the House of Representatives

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On 20 August 2011, the Justice and Electoral Committee reported back on the above-mentioned Petition:

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

We are unable to consider this petition further as the matter which it deals with is subjudice (awaiting adjudication in a court of record).

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

Lynne Pillay

Chairperson.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I reminded Mr McGee that Standing Order of the NZ House of Representatives, were very clear on when a matter was ‘subjudice’ and when it was not.

“111 Matters awaiting judicial decision

Subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to theright 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 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.)

I asked Mr McGee on what lawful basis was this matter referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, when at this stage the Solicitor-General had NOT yet initiated proceedings ‘by the filing of the appropriate document in the registry or office of the court’?

(An ‘intention’ by the Solicitor-General TO ‘pursue an application against Mr Vincent Ross Siemer for contempt of court’ – is obviously not the same as having actually filed the documents ‘in the registry or office of the court’.

‘An intention to pursue an application’ was therefore clearly NOT ‘subjudice’ .

(These ‘contempt’ proceedings against Vince Siemer were filed in the High Court at Auckland on 29 January 2008 – over FIVE MONTHS after Petition 2005/142 the on 20 August 2007

There was nothing in the Parliamentary Petition 2005/142 file which indicated how the Justice and Electoral Select Committee arrived at this ‘subjudice’ decision.

The above-mentioned correspondence between Mr Liddell and Mr McGee, was NOT in Parliamentary Petition 2005/142 file, although it was directly pertinent to this petition.

It was only through a Privacy Act request addressed to the Solicitor-General David Collins QC dated 11 February 2009, that this ‘smoking gun’ correspondence was effectively ‘flushed out’.

In my view, the effect of the above-mentioned correspondence between Mr Liddell and Mr McGee, was to help stop an inquiry by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court.

Because this matter was NOT subjudice – in my considered opinion, the Justice and Electorate Select Committee was effectively ‘misled’.

In my considered opinion – this constitutes ‘contempt of the House’….

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/PPNZ/7/4/3/00HOOOCPPNZ_471-Chapter-47-Contempt.htm#_Toc266975052

Misconduct

Deliberate misleading of the House

It is a contempt deliberately to attempt to mislead the House or a committee, whether by way of a statement, in evidence or in a petition. [98] This example of contempt, while always potential, was given explicit recognition in 1963 when, following a political cause célèbre (the Profumo affair), the House of Commons resolved that a former member who had made a personal statement to the House which he subsequently acknowledged to be untrue had committed a contempt of the House. [99] It has been submitted that there is an established constitutional convention that Ministers should always tell the truth to Parliament as far as this is possible without harming national security. [100] Whether this type of contempt embodies a convention or not, regarding lying to the House as a serious transgression of parliamentary etiquette (quite apart from any moral considerations) has been said to be the only way for Parliament to keep a check on the executive. [101]

The contempt can be committed by anyone taking part in parliamentary proceedings. It consists of the conveying of information to the House or a committee that is inaccurate in a material particular and which the person conveying the information knew at the time was inaccurate or at least ought to have known was inaccurate. [102]

As well as a deliberate misleading of the House arising from a remark in the House, it is conceivable that members could mislead the House by their actions: for example, from a deliberate misuse of a voting proxy, by delivering to the Clerk a totally different document from that which the member obtained leave of the House to table, [107] or by misrepresenting their authority to act on behalf of an absent member. [108]

Witnesses and petitioners deliberately misleading

Witnesses giving evidence to committees are under an obligation to be truthful, whether they are under oath or not. As with members, for a contempt to arise there must be some strong indication that there is an intention to mislead the committee. This can arise out of the nature of the evidence, if it can be presumed to be within the personal knowledge of the witness, or by the circumstances of its delivery, for example, if an answer is deferred and delivered in writing on a later occasion when it can be presumed to be a more considered reply than an immediate response. [109]

It is a contempt to present forged, falsified or fabricated documents to the House or a committee. The main form which such a contempt has taken in the United Kingdom is the affixing of forged or fictitious signatures to petitions. Any conspiracy to deceive the House or a committee in this regard will be held to be a contempt. There are no examples of these having occurred in New Zealand.

Correcting inaccurate information

It is not a contempt to make a genuine mistake and thereby give the House or a committee incorrect information. But it is incumbent on a member or any other person who has given misleading information on a parliamentary occasion to clear the matter up as soon as the error is appreciated. This applies even though the full correct information may not be available at the time that it is realised that an error has been made. Action to alert the House or committee should still be taken at that point with a full correction to follow later. [110]

Legal significance of contempt

The power to punish for a contempt of the House is a power that inheres in the House. The power is exercisable only by the House itself. The courts do not punish for contempt of the House, nor do they enforce punishments meted out by the House. The fact that a contempt may have been or may be about to be committed does not give rise to a cause of action for which relief can be obtained from a court. [160] Contempt is an extra-judicial proceeding, though, as it is a power possessed by the House pursuant to law, its lawful exercise by the House will be recognised and, if need be, vindicated by the courts (for example, as a defence against legal liability that would otherwise arise).

_________________________________________________________________________________________

(The full copy of my ‘Privacy Act request dated 11 February 2009, is APPENDIX “A” at the end of this post.)

However, Parliamentary ‘Standing Orders’ are very clear

Why hasn’t the Solicitor-General yet faced ‘contempt of the House’ for arguably helping to stymy the former Justice and Electoral Select Committee Petition 2005/142 ‘Requesting that Parliament conduct an inquiry into the committal of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court?

In my considered opinion, it is time for the charges against Vince Siemer (and the Urewera 18) to be dropped forthwith.

Penny Bright

Media Spokesperson

Water Pressure Group

Judiciall-recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.

‘Anti-Corruption campaigner’

Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009

Attendee: Transparency International 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010

https://waterpressure.wordpress.com

021 211 4 127

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX “A”

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.

(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

(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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FURTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Reply to ‘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

18 August 2010

Dear Ms Bright
In response to your question about who the memorandum was sent to, it was sent to the Clerk of the Justice and Electoral Select Committee, Meipara Poata. It was a one page memorandum dated 25 March 2008 and was not signed (a copy of the document as sent was attached to the email you sent me). The memorandum was authorised by the Solicitor-General.

Yours faithfully
Jan Fulstow

Jan Fulstow
Assistant to Solicitor-General/
Media Adviser
Crown Law Te Tari Ture o te Karauna
DDI: +64 4 494 5552
Mobile: 0274 497 407
Fax: +64 4 499 5804

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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:

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,

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, –

document in the registry or office of the court.

(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

“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—

(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

(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

About

Hi!

I am Penny Bright Media Spokesperson for the Water Pressure Group.

Through my involvement with this group I have become a Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater and Auckland regional governance matters.

I have also been publicly acknowledged as an “Anti-corruption campaigner”.
I have started my blog so that those who are not on the email can access the information .

I was an Auckland Mayoral candidate – standing to help STOP THE $UPERCITY – the corporate takeover of the Auckland region, which has been forced upon the public majority without our lawful consent through a ‘binding poll’.

‘PUBLIC WATCHDOG – NOT CORPORATE LAPDOG’:
www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

My email address is: waterpressure@gmail.com

I stood in the Botany by-election as an independent candidate, on an anti-corruption / pro-transparency, anti-privatisation/asset sale platform.

I believe that is is high time that NZ got our ‘House’ in order, and established the legislative framework to prevent and fight corruption, and ensure genuine transparency and accountability in local and central government and within the judiciary.

I am currently standing in the Auckland Council Howick Ward by-election on the following ‘platform’:

NO RATE$ INCREASES!

CUT OUT THE CONSULTANTS AND THE PRIVATE CONTRACTORS!

OPEN THE BOOKS!

GIVE US THE NAMES OF THE CONTRACTORS; SCOPE, TERM AND VALUE OF THE CONTRACTS!

BRING BACK COUNCIL WORKS DEPARTMENTS!

PROVIDE COUNCIL SERVICES ‘IN-HOUSE’ AND CUT OUT ALL THOSE PRIVATE ‘PIGGIES -IN -THE -MIDDLE’!

If private sector provision is SO ‘efficient’ – then how come over the last 20 years rates have gone up – not down?)

________________________________________________________________________________________

If you support the ‘self-funded’ work I am doing – your donations are welcome and appreciated.

Kiwibank

Account Name: P M Bright
Account Number: 38-9010-0725719-00

Thanks! 🙂

The Watchdog

Keeping citizens in the loop