PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright NZ ‘Whistleblower/ Anti-Corruption Campaigner’: “Are NZ Judges effectively ‘out of control?'”
19 July 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright NZ ‘Whistleblower/ Anti-Corruption Campaigner’:
“Are NZ Judges effectively ‘out of control?'”
New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark and Singapore), according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index’.
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010
Therefore – shouldn’t New Zealand arguably be the most ‘transparent’ country in the world?
So – how come in New Zealand, our Judges don’t have:
An enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’?
A ‘Register of Pecuniary Interests’?
A mandatory requirement to record all court proceedings?
(How can ‘justice be done or be seen to be done’ – if there is no court record of what was done? How can a ‘court of record – not keep a record? )
On top of this – some New Zealand Judges – at the highest levels – apparently don’t think that the ‘Rule of Law’ applies to them.
How can it be lawful, for some New Zealand Judges to make ‘court orders’ based on ‘judicial discretion’ – not the ‘Rule of Law’?
How can it be lawful, for some New Zealand Judges to just ‘make it up’?
I, Penny Bright, publicly-acknowledged ‘anti-corruption campaigner’, have been trying for days to file in the Auckland High Court, an ‘Application for Order’ to get a Judge’s ‘suppression order’ lifted.
This was a ‘suppression order’ – which suppressed the JUDGMENT itself and the REASONS for that judgement.
Under New Zealand law – s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 – there is no lawful right for a New Zealand Judge to do this.
s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
[Bold and emphasis added]
The ‘suppression order ‘ to which I am referring, is that of Judge Winkelmann, New Zealand’s Chief High Court Judge, made in December 2010, where she not only denied the 18 defendants in the ‘Operation 8’ (NZ’s first so-called ‘terrorist’ case) – their statutory right to trial by jury, but then ordered the Court staff to suppress the judgment.
After all the ‘MAN ON THE MOON’ headlines from 15 October 2001 which burst across world headlines – the continued proceedings have now become ‘top secret’? Not only were the public not allowed to know that the ‘Operation 8 ‘ defendants had been denied their right to trial by jury – but the public were not allowed to know that they had been denied their right to trial by jury?
How can this be right?
Vince Siemer,(in my considered opinion New Zealand’s leading ‘whistleblower’ exposing the lack of judicial transparency, accountability and judicial ‘conflicts of interest’), didn’t think this was right, and did something about it.
Vince Siemer defended the public’s right to know Judge Winkelmann’s decision and her reasons for it – by publishing her judgment on his website, along with his story ‘Judge or be Judged’ 10 December 2010 http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845331
(For a more detailed story by Vince Siemer about the ‘Operation 8’ case – “A Public protest away from tyranny”
A PUBLIC PROTEST AWAY FROM TYRANNY
THE OPERATION 8 SAGA
______________________________
(A documentary has been made, called ‘Operation 8’, now playing in NZ cinemas, which examines the ‘anti-terror’ raids of October 2007.
http://www.flicks.co.nz/movie/operation-8/ )
______________________________________________________________
Contempt proceeding against Vince Siemer were then initiated by the ‘second highest lawyer in the land’ – the Solicitor-General of New Zealand David Collins QC, who has effectively ‘backed up’ the arguably unlawful decision of Judge Winkelmann to suppress her judgement and the reasons for it.
Vince Siemer has been found guilty of ‘contempt of court’ and now faces imprisonment for so doing, as ruled in the following decision of the High Court, Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer CIV-2010-404-8559 MacKenzie and Simon JJ 4 July 2011.
Interestingly, THIS judgment has not been suppressed, yet it makes reference to Judge Winkelmann’s Judgment – which was.
Which arguably helps to show how patently ridiculous it was to suppress this original judgement in the first place?
I have not just published press releases about this matter on my blog (https://waterpressure.wordpress.com) , I have actively and vigorously disseminated this information to all New Zealand MPs; NZ media, all NZ Councils, all NZ Unions, a wide range of social justice and human rights activists.
Surely, if we are ‘all equal before the law’ – I too, should be facing contempt proceedings?
Or has New Zealand’s second highest lawyer in the land – the Solicitor-General David Collins QC – arguably maliciously and vindictively abused his power and authority, in order to continue his on-going persecution of Vince Siemer?
If I too, am not going to equally face ‘contempt of court’ proceedings for arguably doing worse than Vince Siemer – then it must be obvious that Vince Siemer is being ‘picked on’ and unjustifiably victimised.
In my considered opinion, Judge Winkelman’s arguably unlawful suppression order must be lifted forthwith.
Once Judge Winkelman’s arguably unlawful suppression order is lifted, then, in my considered opinion, all proceedings against Vince Siemer in this matter, must be dropped, including his upcoming sentencing for ‘contempt of court’.
In my considered opinion, what then needs to happen is an inquiry into the actions of the Solicitor-General against Vince Siemer; whether he has abused his power and authority; including possible ‘Contempt of the House’, through his involvement in the decision of the former Justice and Electoral Select Committee in arriving at a decision not to ‘conduct an inquiry into the committal for imprisonment of Mr Vincent Siemer for contempt of court’ on the basis that the matter was ‘subjudice’ – at a time it was not.
I take full personal responsibility for my actions, as a ‘whistleblower’ in this matter, and am prepared to face whatever consequences may be forthcoming.
However – I equally expect the Solicitor-General to do the same.
The first step in this process is to get the (unlawful) ‘suppression order’ of Judge Winkelmann removed.
The path for so doing was outlined in the above-mentioned decision of Judges MacKenzie and France, where they stated:
“[41] … It is open to persons including Mr Siemer to apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal, but until that is successfully done the order is binding.”
However – this ‘path’ has not been a clear one to follow, given that this is effectively trying to ‘undo’ a ‘court order’ which has not itself been based upon the clear, open, written, ‘Rule of Law’.
Arbitrary decisions by Judges, based upon ‘judicial discretion’ ie: ‘rules’ which only exist inside their heads, are arguably neither open, transparent nor accountable.
Isn’t that why we have the ‘Rule of Law’?
Wouldn’t you think that if there was anyone who should be expected to follow the ‘Rule of Law’ – it would be the Chief High Court Judge – not to mention the second- highest lawyer in the land – the Solicitor-General of New Zealand?
Today, Tuesday 19 July 2011, I will again attempt to file in the Auckland High Court, an ‘Application for Order’ to get Judge Winkelmann’s suppression order ‘removed’.
May ‘justice be done and be seen to be done’ and the ‘Rule of Law’ upheld.
Penny Bright
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
Anti-corruption campaigner’
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) 2009 (Brisbane, Australia)
Attendee: Transparency International 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010 (Bangkok, Thailand)
Auckland Mayoral candidate 2010
Botany by-election candidate 2011
Howick Ward (Auckland Council) by-election candidate 2011
Ph 00 64 09 846 9825
_______________________________________________________________
WHAT I WILL BE ATTEMPTING TO FILE TODAY IN THE AUCKLAND HIGH COURT:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2011-404-
BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT
Applicant
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent
ORIGINATING APPLICATION FOR ORDER
Filed by Penelope M. Bright
86 A School Road
Kingsland, Auckland
Phone/Facsimile:(09) 846 9825
To The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, and
To Crown Law on behalf of the respondent.
This document notifies you that –
Under The Judicature Act 1908 Schedule 2 High Court Rule
19.5Court may permit proceeding to be commenced by originating application
(1) The court may, in the interests of justice, permit any proceeding not mentioned in rules 19.2 to 19.4 to be commenced by originating application.
(2) The court’s permission may be sought without notice.
(3) The proposed originating application must be filed with an application for permission under this rule.
1. The applicant, Penelope Mary Bright, will on __________________ 2011 apply to the court for orders:
1.1 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world
at large, from knowing about Her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in
18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.
1.2 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in – the New Zealand public or word at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1
This application relies on the decision of the High Court in Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer CIV-2010-404-8559 MacKenzie and Simon France JJ, 4 July 2011:
“[41] … It is open to persons including Mr Siemer to apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal, but until that is successfully done the order is binding.”
1.
ON THE GROUNDS:
2. It has not been established in the body of the judgment that the Judge had, in fact, made such a suppression order. The suppression wording was apparently added later by a member of the court staff.
3. There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
_____________________________________________
1 Refer to paragraph [1] of the Judgment of Winkelmann J dated 9 December 2010, “Operation 8 prosecutions”
4. s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
[Bold and emphasis added]
5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.
6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.
7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.
2.
8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.
9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.
10. A court “Minute” is an administrative direction of the court which is not publicly reported and can only affect actual parties to the litigation. In law, it cannot be used to contravene the legal right of the public’s right to know, let alone be used to imprison NZ citizens. Such Minutes are not disseminated to the public at large. This underscores the patent injustice of such a judicial tool.If anyone should have been obliged to follow ‘lawful due process’, in order to prevent a real risk to the administration of justice, then it should have been the Judge herself. The Judge herself has a duty/ lawful obligation/ to follow ‘lawful due process’ in order to prevent a real risk to the administration of justice
11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2
12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.
13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.
____________________________________________________________________
2 Solicitor-General v Vince Siemer CIV2010 404 8559
3.
14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
This application is made in reliance upon the Criminal Justice Act 1985, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, fundamental principles of natural justice; Company v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4, Couch v Attorney-General (No 2), Transport Accident Investigation Commission v Wellington District Court [2008] NZAR 595, the Laws of New Zealand “Criminal Procedure” citation 103, Lewis v Wilson and Horton [2000] 3 NZLR 546(CA), Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions 163 JP 789 [1999], Crim LR 998, 7 BHRC 375 [2000] HRLR 249; the legally balancing exercise engaged in Duff v Communicado [1996] 2 NZLR 89, Shaylor [2002] UKHL 11, [2003] 1 AC 247, The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Nov 1996, Application 22954/93: Ahmed v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 1, ECtHR, at para 7, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, Lester and Pannick- Human Rights Law and Practice (3rd edition 2009) Para 4.10.30, R v Togia HC Wellington, Clifford J, CRI-2007-485-37, Brooks v DPP [1994] 1 AC 568, 528G, T v Regional Intellectual Care Agency [2007] NZAR 643, [1996] 3 S.C.R 480; equity and good conscience and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to maintain the rule of law and protect its processes.
___________________________________
Penelope Mary Bright
(aka Penny Bright)
Cc: Rodney Harrison QC, on behalf of the Operation 8 defendants
Mr Ross Burns, Meredith Connell, prosecutor in the Operation 8 trial
________________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2011-404-
BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT
Applicant
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Respondent
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AN
ORIGINATING APPLICATION FOR ORDER
Filed by Penelope M. Bright
86 A School Road
Kingsland, Auckland
Phone/Facsimile:(09) 846 9825
To The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, and
To Crown Law on behalf of the respondent.
Under The Judicature Act 1908 Schedule 2 High Court Rule
19.5Court may permit proceeding to be commenced by originating application
(1) The court may, in the interests of justice, permit any proceeding not mentioned in rules 19.2 to 19.4 to be commenced by originating application.
(2) The court’s permission may be sought without notice.
(3) The proposed originating application must be filed with an application for permission under this rule.
May it Please the Court,
It is not clear, how exactly to commence an ‘Originating Application’ for an ‘Order’ of this type.
However, having been assisted by the Registrar’s direction to the above-mentioned High Court Rule 19.6 of The Judicature Act 1908 Schedule 2, I, The Applicant, Penelope Mary Bright, hereby seek permission, without notice, on ___________________________ 2011 to file the attached
‘Originating Application for Order’.
___________________________________
Penelope Mary Bright
(aka Penny Bright)
PUBLIC WATCHDOG Penny Bright will file the Application for Orders: ‘Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J’ in the Auckland High Court Wednesday 13 July 2011.
12 July 2011
From: John Richardson <John.Richardson@justice.govt.nz>
Date: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM
Subject: URGENT – OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court)
RE: Filing of an Application for Orders: ‘Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J’
To: Penny Bright <waterpressure@gmail.com>
John Richardson.
URGENT – OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court):RE: Filing of an Application for Orders: ‘Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J’
12 July 2011
OPEN LETTER John Richardson (Criminal Manager Auckland High Court)
I, Penelope Mary Bright, (aka Penny Bright) give notice that I will (again), on Wednesday 13 July 2011,before 5pm, apply at the Auckland High Court for orders:
“1.1 Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in 18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.
1.2 Revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in- the New Zealand public or world at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1
(1 Refer to paragraph [1] of the Judgment of Winkelmann J dated 9 December 2010, “Operation 9 prosecutions”) ”
The ‘legislative basis’ upon which I am relying, in order to file this application, lies in CIV 2010 – 404 – 8559 Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer , Judgment of MacKenzie and Simon France JJ, 4 July 2011.
[41] ……..
It is open to persons including Mr Siemer to apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal, but until that is successfully done the order is binding.
_______________________________________________________________________________
I have already attempted to ‘to apply to the Court’ for the ‘suppression order’ of Winkelmann J to be removed.
As you know, I attempted to file this ‘Application’ with yourself, on Thursday 7 July 2011, at the Auckland High Court.
I first attempted to file this ‘Application’ under the ‘Civil’ jurisdiction, but was told that ‘Civil’ jurisdiction – didn’t have the jurisdiction, and to take it to the ‘Criminal’ jurisdiction.
My ‘Application’ was passed over to you as ‘Manager’ but you refused to accept this document for filing, claiming that there was no ‘legislative basis’ for myself as a ‘non-party’ to apply for such an order.
(I do understand that on Thursday 7 July 2011, at the time you refused to accept my ‘Application’ for filing,you were probably unaware of this above-mentioned Judgment, and the part of this ruling [41] which is directly pertinent to this matter.)
However, you did accept a copy of my ‘Application’, for the Registrar of the Auckland High Court (Tony Mortimer) to ‘review’ – so you do already have a copy.
On Friday 8 July 2011, after reading carefully the above-mentioned judgment, which makes clear provision for ‘non-parties’ such as myself to ‘apply to the Court for a variation of the order, or for its removal’, I rang and left messages on both your ‘land line’ and mobile phone, in order to bring this very important information to your urgent attention.
I stated that there must be some basis in law for a non-party such as myself to apply for the removal of this suppression order – or these Judges wouldn’t have said that it could be done?
I put it to you, that once you have seen for yourself this Judgment CIV 2010 – 404 – 8559
Solicitor-General of New Zealand v Vincent Ross Siemer , Judgment of MacKenzie and Simon France JJ 4 July 2011, you can no longer claim any lawful basis for continuing to refuse to accept the filing of my ‘APPLICATION FOR ORDER’ .
What is also arguably patently ridiculous in this situation is that this latest judgment, which is not ‘suppressed’, contains details of the judgment of Winkelmann J which was suppressed.
Vince Siemer is now facing imprisonment for ‘contempt’ for ‘disseminating details of Judge Winkelmann’s decision – which I have too have disseminated. I too am upholding the public’s lawful right to know Judge’s decisions and their reasons for those decisions.
Am I too going to face imprisonment for ‘contempt’ of court?
What ‘LAW’ have I, or Vince Siemer ever broken?
If there is anyone whom you would expect to follow the the ‘Law’ – it it is surely the Judge?
Following are what I believe to be key grounds supporting this ‘Application’ for orders ‘revoking, lifting or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in 18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342) known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions” ‘.
“[4] There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
4. s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.
6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.
7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.
8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.
9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.
11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2
12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.
13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.
14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
I look forward to your assistance in ‘facilitating access to justice’ and accepting for filing the ‘Application’ which you have already received.
Please confirm that the ‘Civil’ jurisdiction of the Auckland High Court is the proper body with which to file this ‘Application’. It would greatly assist me, if this could be done before 12 noon Wednesday 13 July 2011, in order to assist in the facilitation of access to justice in this arguably very significant matter of public interest.
I am attempting to ‘do things in a proper way’, and respectfully look forward to your guidance and assistance in expediting the initiating of these proceedings.
Yours sincerely,
Penelope Mary Bright
(Penny Bright)
Media Spokesperson
Water Pressure Group
Judicially recognised ‘Public Watchdog’ on Metrowater, water and Auckland regional governance matters.
Anti-corruption campaigner’
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference (APSACC) 2009 (Brisbane, Australia)
Attendee: Transparency International 14th Anti-Corruption Conference 2010 (Bangkok, Thailand)
Auckland Mayoral candidate 2010
Botany by-election candidate 2011
Howick Ward (Auckland Council) by-election candidate 2011
Ph 00 64 09 846 9825
___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
WORDING OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ‘APPLICATION FOR ORDER’ WHICH HAS NOT (YET) BEEN ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
_________________________________________________________________________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2011-404-
BETWEEN PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT
Applicant
AND THE QUEEN
Respondent
APPLICATION FOR ORDER
To The Registrar of the High Court at Auckland, and
To Crown Law on behalf of the respondent.
This document notifies you that –
1.The applicant, Penelope Mary Bright, will on ________________ 2011 apply to the court for orders:
1.1 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the alleged suppression order of Winkelmann J, which purports to prevent the New Zealand public, and the world at large, from knowing about Her Honour’s Judgment granted that same day in18 criminal prosecutions (CRI2007-085-7842, CRI2007-085-7843, CRI2007-085-7840, CRI2008-004-9108, CRI2008-004-20747, CRI2007-004-23065, CRI2008-004-20022, CRI2007-004-23068, CRI2007-004-23069, CRI2008-004-20748, CRI2007-004-23066, CRI2008-004-20045, CRI2007-063-4445, CRI2007-063-4441, CRI2007-054-4999, CRI2007-063-4472, CRI2008-070-1415, CRI2008-404-342), known collectively as “the Operation 8 prosecutions”.
1.2 Revoking, lifting, or ruling as legally invalid, the Minute of Winkelmann J dated 21 December 2010; to the extent that “Minute” intends to – or results in – the New Zealand public or word at large from knowing relevant facts in the prosecution or reasons for suppressing all of Her Honour’s 9 December 2010 Judgment in the Operation 8 prosecution, including such basic and important information as the fact of their indictment on charges.1
ON THE GROUNDS:
2. It has not been established in the body of the judgment that the Judge had, in fact, made such a suppression order. The suppression wording was apparently added later by a member of the court staff.
3. There is no basis in law to suppress a court judgment resulting from a criminal prosecution. Such judicial powers are limited to the evidence adduced, the submissions made, publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses under s 138 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1985.
_____________________________________
1 Refer to paragraph [1] of the Judgment of Winkelmann J dated 9 December 2010, “Operation 8 prosecutions”
_____________________________________
4. s 138 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 states:
138 Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings
…….
(5) The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
[Bold and emphasis added]
5. It is a violation of natural justice to attempt to enforce a suppression order, with criminal penalties, against the public at large (i.e. not parties to the proceeding) for commenting on, or disseminating, a judgment, without the right to be heard, in a free and democratic society.
6. Similarly, it is an unreasonable restriction on the statutory right of freedom of expression guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for New Zealand citizens to face prosecution and be threatened with loss of their liberty simply for disseminating or commenting on any court judgment – particularly cases pertaining to the ongoing “Operation 8 prosecutions”, which have already been the subject of significant public interest.
7. The order is in direct conflict with the principles of open and transparent justice which have been the hallmark of an honourable and just court system in every egalitarian society, because
it effectively makes the judgment secret and unavailable to public scrutiny.
8. The subject suppression order violates a broader interest – that of significant public interest – and the conflict of Justice Winkelmann’s alleged suppression order against this broader public interest has been confirmed in correspondence between the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Burns, in the Operation 8 prosecutions and the High Court in which the alleged suppression order originates.
9. It is relevant to the grounds of this application that Justice Winkelmann gave no reasons for the alleged suppression order, if indeed it was Her Honour’s order, for concealing the public court judgment from the New Zealand public and the world at large. Justice cannot ‘be done or be seen to be done’, if the judgment of ‘what was done’, and ‘why it was done’ is deliberately hidden from the public.
10. A court “Minute” is an administrative direction of the court which is not publicly reported and can only affect actual parties to the litigation. In law, it cannot be used to contravene the legal right of the public’s right to know, let alone be used to imprison NZ citizens. Such Minutes are not disseminated to the public at large. This underscores the patent injustice of such a judicial tool.
If anyone should have been obliged to follow ‘lawful due process’, in order to prevent a real risk to the administration of justice, then it should have been the Judge herself.
11. The risk to personal liberty against citizens of New Zealand is unacceptable, if the alleged suppression order is allowed to stand. The threat to personal liberty is evident by the recent prosecution of the legal news website publisher Vince Siemer, who is currently facing imprisonment as a sole and direct result of publishing this public court judgment. 2
12. As the applicant has disseminated details regarding this 9 December 2010 judgment to the public, as well as engaged in commentary regarding it, she faces potential prosecution by the State unless the court suppression order – if it is determined by this Honourable Court to be an actual order – is allowed to stand.
13. If Justice Winkelmann’s court ‘order’ has not been based upon the ‘rule of law’, then the public cannot be expected to respect it. If Judges don’t themselves follow the ‘rule of law,’ by basing their decisions upon the ‘rule of law’ – then they are not ‘setting an example’ to citizens which either safeguards the administration of justice, or enhances public confidence in the New Zealand judiciary.
14. The Applicant holds that the real risk to the administration of justice stems from this court ‘order’ which has not been based on the ‘rule of law’ – but has been ‘made up’ by Justice Winkelmann, then enforced by the Solicitor-General David Collins QC, in such an discriminatory and arbitrary way as to constitute an abuse of power which cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.
This application is made in reliance upon the Criminal Justice Act 1985, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, fundamental principles of natural justice; Company v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4, Couch v Attorney-General (No 2), Transport Accident Investigation Commission v Wellington District Court [2008] NZAR 595, the Laws of New Zealand “Criminal Procedure” citation 103, Lewis v Wilson and Horton [2000] 3 NZLR 546(CA), Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions 163 JP 789 [1999], Crim LR 998, 7 BHRC 375 [2000] HRLR 249; the legally balancing exercise engaged in Duff v Communicado [1996] 2 NZLR 89, Shaylor [2002] UKHL 11, [2003] 1 AC 247, The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Nov 1996, Application 22954/93: Ahmed v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 1, ECtHR, at para 7, Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534, Lester and Pannick- Human Rights Law and Practice (3rd edition 2009) Para 4.10.30, R v Togia HC Wellington, Clifford J, CRI-2007-485-37, Brooks v DPP [1994] 1 AC 568, 528G, T v Regional Intellectual Care Agency [2007] NZAR 643, [1996] 3 S.C.R 480; equity and good conscience and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to maintain the rule of law and protect its processes.
______________________________________________
2 Solicitor-General v Vince Siemer CIV2010 404 8559
PRESS RELEASE: SUE HENRY SPOKESPERSON HOUSING LOBBY :“The Housing Lobby supports the Labour Party’s proposed Capital Gains Tax”.
PRESS RELEASE: SUE HENRY SPOKESPERSON HOUSING LOBBY
“The Housing Lobby supports the Labour Party’s proposed Capital Gains Tax”.
6 July 2011
“ I believe that there is massive public support for Labour’s proposed Capital Gains Tax,” says Sue Henry, Spokesperson for the Housing Lobby.
“The speculative market has falsely over-inflated property values for years shifting out house buyers and pushing up rents.”
“There is no benefit to New Zealand when the taxpayer subsidised capital gain on multiple properties goes off shore, in most cases, with foreign overseas investors.”
“It was disturbing to see advertisements in newspapers from a variety of Asian countries promoting New Zealand as a ‘gold mine’ from which to make a quick, tax-free profit, with NO stamp duty, NO capital gains, and NO limits on foreign property investment.”
“It’s about time the party was over for these greedy property speculators.”
It’s long overdue for the ‘taboo’ to be lifted on this issue.
“The Housing Lobby fully supports the introduction of a capital gains tax with an exemption on the family home,” concluded Ms Henry.
Sue Henry
Spokesperson
Housing Lobby
Ph (09) 575 6344
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright:IAN WISHART IS TRYING TO ‘BREAK THE SILENCE’ ON THE KAHUI CASE – SO WHY, AND WHICH PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SILENCE HIM?
30 June 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Penny Bright:
IAN WISHART IS TRYING TO ‘BREAK THE SILENCE’ ON THE KAHUI CASE – SO WHY, AND WHICH PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SILENCE HIM?
“As a New Zealander who passionately believes in freedom of expression, I am appalled and disgusted at this campaign to ‘silence’ author and publisher Ian Wishart who would be ‘Breaking the Silence’ on child abuse and the Kahui case – if people were not having their rights restricted to purchase his book’, says Penny Bright.
“It disgusts me that ‘Chris’ – who set up the facebook page –
www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ – has blatantly LIED to the public, by stating:
“Macsyna is about to release a book that will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.”
This is NOT true”.
In a Press Release yesterday, Ian Wishart confirmed,
“The Facebook page on Macsyna King is dishonest.
They have known all along that Macsyna has neither sought nor been offered any money or compensation for the book Breaking Silence by Ian Wishart.”
“This ‘Chris’ who set up the ‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ facebook page, is also LYING about the purpose of the ‘boycott’,” continued Ms Bright.
“Read for yourself what ‘Chris’ himself has stated as the purpose of the boycott:
‘Description
Macsyna King, the mother (and I use that in a purely biological sense and not a maternal one) of the Chris and Kru Kahui is about to release a tell all (and by all, I mean the bits she remembers which won’t incriminate her further) book about the tragic murder of her three month old twin babies.
I am trying to organize a boycott of this book and until such time as it is pulled from the shelves, all other Ian Wishart books and all other books by the publisher. Somebody like this should not be allowed to profit from preaching her perverted view of the horrific events which led to the deaths of the only two children who hadn’t already been taken from her by CYF’s.’
“How does ‘Chris’ or ANYONE know what exactly Macsyna King has said, without having read the book for themselves?
There has been a court case – resulting in no conviction over the deaths of the Kahui baby boys. There was effectively a ‘wall of silence’ – which Macsyna King is now trying to break, with the assistance of Ian Wishart. How is this anything but a ‘good’ thing? Did the Police not ask the right questions during the court case? Did Macsyna King take actions to help her boys – that the public don’t know about? According to Ian Wishart – YES.”
Here are some pivotal questions relating to Macsyna King that were asked yesterday on ‘Kiwiblog’, and Ian Wishart’s replies:
www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/06/macsyna_king_and_that_book.html#comment-847295
IAN WISHART DEFENDS HIMSELF ON ‘KIWIBLOG’
Ian Wishart (45) Says: June 29th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
1.If Macsyna was so concerned about the environment she was introducing her twins to she could have adopted them out to a family that could have ensured a safer and healthier environment.
(Ian Wishart) Macsyna didn’t realise someone had injured the twins.
2.If Macsyna suspected abuse or neglect from herself or others within her household she could have spoken up for her babies… yes, she could have spoken anonymously or otherwise to CYFS, the Police, a Not-for-profit, Plunket, and others. Her previous children are cared for by others, why not these babies?
She did not suspect abuse – she was as surprised as everyone else to discover it. She then spoke to Police to help gain a conviction
3.She could have kept her eyes open. Macsyna either never noticed or didn’t care about injuries caused to the twins in previous “attacks” or incidents.
The injuries had to be picked up by scans. Babies are incredibly fragile. She didn’t notice anything unusual
4.After the hospitalisation of her babies, Macsyna could have spoken to the Police fully about what she did know.
She did speak to police fully about what she knew
5.Macsyna could have encouraged others in her family to speak to the Police.
She turned her own brother in to police
6.Macsyna could have told her story to the court throughout the trial. Indeed she did do this, but why not the whole story (as suggested by Wishart)?
Macsyna answered the questions she was asked.
I asked some different questions. Ditto
8.Macsyna has even had multiple opportunities to talk to mainstream, sensitive interviewers where she could have told her story in a non-confrontational way.
Bollocks
As for compensation. I purchased a Domino’s pizza for lunch during one of the interviews, does that count?
What a bunch of armchair experts firing off half-cocked.
For an audio grab from the interviews, visit
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Why are there so many thousands of people who are now treating Ian Wishart as if he is the main enemy? It is NOT Ian Wishart who killed the Kahui twins,” Ms Bright continued.
“I don’t begrudge Ian Wishart making money from writing and publishing this book.That’s what he does for a living, and he has a family to look after.
Isn’t that what people want? The ‘silence’ about child abuse to be ‘broken’? Especially in this Kahui case?
If Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’, which he has taken the time to research and write, helps to reopen the Police inquiry into the killing of the Kahui baby boys, and results in a conviction, following LAWFUL DUE PROCESS – then that will surely be the outcome most people want?”
“I look forward to exercising my lawful right to buy and read ‘Breaking the Silence’, and hope thousands of other decent, thinking New Zealanders do likewise.”
“In my considered opinion, Paper Plus and The Warehouse should reconsider their decision not to stock Ian Wishart’s book – ‘Breaking the Silence’, particularly if the reasons upon which the threatened ‘boycott’ is based are false and the public have been seriously misled by ‘Chris’ who set up the ‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ face book site.”
“Ian Wishart is effectively under seige in defending our right to ‘freedom of expression’.
I strongly recommend all those who support our basic human right to freedom of expression to join Ian Wishart’s facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Break-the-Kahui-code-of-silence-support-the-new-book/184638478257810 ”
You can pre-order ‘BREAKING THE SILENCE” from here
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/newshop/enter.html
Penny Bright
https://waterpressure.wordpress.com
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
IAN WISHART IS TRYING TO ‘BREAK THE SILENCE’ ON THE KAHUI CASE – SO WHY ARE PEOPLE TRYING TO SILENCE HIM?
www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/06/macsyna_king_and_that_book.html#comment-847295
IAN WISHART DEFENDS HIMSELF ON ‘KIWIBLOG’
Ian Wishart (45) Says: June 29th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
1.If Macsyna was so concerned about the environment she was introducing her twins to she could have adopted them out to a family that could have ensured a safer and healthier environment.
(Ian Wishart) Macsyna didn’t realise someone had injured the twins.
2.If Macsyna suspected abuse or neglect from herself or others within her household she could have spoken up for her babies… yes, she could have spoken anonymously or otherwise to CYFS, the Police, a Not-for-profit, Plunket, and others. Her previous children are cared for by others, why not these babies?
She did not suspect abuse – she was as surprised as everyone else to discover it. She then spoke to Police to help gain a conviction
3.She could have kept her eyes open. Macsyna either never noticed or didn’t care about injuries caused to the twins in previous “attacks” or incidents.
The injuries had to be picked up by scans. Babies are incredibly fragile. She didn’t notice anything unusual
4.After the hospitalisation of her babies, Macsyna could have spoken to the Police fully about what she did know.
She did speak to police fully about what she knew
5.Macsyna could have encouraged others in her family to speak to the Police.
She turned her own brother in to police
6.Macsyna could have told her story to the court throughout the trial. Indeed she did do this, but why not the whole story (as suggested by Wishart)?
Macsyna answered the questions she was asked.
I asked some different questions. Ditto
8.Macsyna has even had multiple opportunities to talk to mainstream, sensitive interviewers where she could have told her story in a non-confrontational way.
Bollocks
As for compensation. I purchased a Domino’s pizza for lunch during one of the interviews, does that count?
What a bunch of armchair experts firing off half-cocked.
For an audio grab from the interviews, visit
___________________________________________________________________________________
I DEFEND IAN WISHART ON KIWIBLOG:
publicwatchdog (752) Says: June 29th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
“That means we can boycott the book, and any other books by this publisher – Howling at the Moon. Wishart could have redeemed himself. If he had published this book with the intention to bring justice in this matter or to hand over the guilty killer. Sadly, Ian Wishart has positioned himself as sensationalist, and undermined any previous reputation he had for investigative reporting.” __________________________________________________________________________________________________
Really? How about getting the FACTS – from Ian Wishart directly? __________________________________________________________________________________________________
News release on Ian Wishart’s Kahui case book, Breaking Silence
NEWS RELEASE FROM IAN WISHART
The Facebook page on Macsyna King is dishonest.
They have known all along that Macsyna has neither sought nor been offered any money or compensation for the book Breaking Silence by Ian Wishart.
Still, the anonymous woman behind the Boycott Macsyna site continues to peddle her claim, knowing it to be untrue. ______________________________________________________________________________________________
EVIDENCE THAT THE ‘BOYCOTT MACSYNA’ FACEBOOK SITE IS BASED ON LIES – THAT
“Macsyna is about to release a book that will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.”
www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-the-Macsyna-King-Book/140832719326817?sk=info
Boycott the Macsyna King Book
About
Macsyna King is about to release a book which will allow her to profit from her attrocious deeds.
Description
Macsyna King, the mother (and I use that in a purely biological sense and not a maternal one) of the Chris and Kru Kahui is about to release a tell all (and by all, I mean the bits she remembers which won’t incriminate her further) book about the tragic murder of her three month old twin babies.
I am trying to organize a boycott of this book and until such time as it is pulled from the shelves, all other Ian Wishart books and all other books by the publisher. Somebody like this should not be allowed to profit from preaching her perverted view of the horrific events which led to the deaths of the only two children who hadn’t already been taken from her by CYF’s.
Website tvnz.co.nz/national-news/inquest-… ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
IAN WISHART CONFIRMS: ‘Ms King was not getting any money out of the book’
www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10735205
Anti-Kahui book group is a ‘lynch mob’
Mr Wishart has spoken out against the angry Facebook posts on the ‘Boycott the Macsyna King Book’ page in an interview with TVNZ. Many of the posts accuse Ms King of profiting from the death of her sons and call for violence against her. ………….
Ms King was not getting any money out of the book, Mr Wishart said.
He said he would be collecting profits from sales, but most would go to book stores and he would be left with a “wage on the table”. _________________________________________________________________________________________________
Who from the ‘Kiwiblog LYNCH MOB’ would like to have a go at me – because you don’t like the FACTS and HONEST OPINION that I am putting forward?
Fill your boots.
I support Ian Wishart 100% on this one. Good on him.
If Ian Wishart’s book ‘Breaking the Silence’, which he has taken the time to research and write, helps to reopen the Police inquiry into the killing of the Kahui baby boys, and results in a conviction, following LAWFUL DUE PROCESS – then that will surely be the outcome most people want?
I don’t begrudge Ian Wishart making money from writing and publishing this book.
That’s what he does for a living, and he has a family to look after.
Isn’t that what people want? The ‘silence’ about child abuse to be ‘broken’?
Especially in this Kahui case? Full credit to Ian Wishart.
I look forward to exercising my lawful right to buy and read ‘Breaking the Silence’, and hope thousands of other decent, thinking New Zealanders do likewise.
Penny Bright
BREAKING NEWS! BBC ‘Greek government survives confidence vote’
21 June 2011 Last updated at 22:01 GMT
Greek government survives confidence vote
Outside parliament, thousands of protesters chanted slogans against austerity measuresThe Greek government has won a critical vote of confidence in parliament as it struggles to win support for extra austerity measures and avoid a default.
Prime Minister George Papandreou’s new cabinet was approved by 155 votes to 143, with two abstentions.
MPs will now be asked to approve 28bn euros (£25bn) of cuts, tax rises, fiscal reforms and privatisation plans.
Eurozone ministers say the legislation must be passed to receive a 12bn-euro loan Greece needs to pay its debts.
Earlier, thousands of people gathered outside the parliament building in Athens to protest against both the austerity measures and politicians in general.
Mr Papandreou reshuffled his cabinet and replaced his finance minister last week after weeks of demonstrations against his handling of the crisis.
‘Moment of truth’
Just before Tuesday’s confidence motion, the prime minister told MPs that the last thing their country wanted now was an election.
“We all have to agree that we will put an end to deficits,” he said.
Continue reading the main story
What went wrong in Greece?
- Greece’s economic reforms, which led to it abandoning the drachma as its currency in favour of the euro in 2002, made it easier for the country to borrow money.
“We want to make a leaner, healthier state, because otherwise our country cannot take the burden.”
Mr Papandreou’s government must now persuade parliament to approve a five-year package of 28bn euros of tax increases and spending cuts by 28 June.
It must then push through laws implementing the reforms in time for an extraordinary meeting of eurozone finance ministers on 3 July.
The eurozone ministers on Sunday announced that they would withhold the payment of the latest tranche of the European Union and International Monetary Fund’s 110-bn euro bail-out package until the laws were in place.
Greece needs the loan to be able to keep up with payments to the creditors of its 340bn euros of debts, which amounts to 30,000 euros per person.
European Commission President Manuel Barroso warned that Greece faced a “moment of truth” and needed to show it was genuinely committed to the reforms needed to avoid a sovereign default.
Acting IMF chief John Lipsky echoed the comments, saying Greece’s fiscal system was broken but could be fixed with the right political will.
The eurozone finance ministers also agreed on Sunday to put together a second bailout package worth 120bn euros. The new aid package, to be outlined by early July, will include loans from other eurozone countries.
It will also feature a voluntary contribution from private investors, who will be invited to buy up new Greek bonds as old ones mature.
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT: ‘Protests continue as Greek parliament prepares to hold vote on Prime Minister and austerity legislation’
Protests continue as Greek parliament prepares to hold vote on Prime Minister and austerity legislationJane Burgermeister | June 21, 2011 at 1:53 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/puNtl-1jm
|
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT: ‘Atmosphere Above Japan Heated Rapidly Before Earthquake, new NASA research points to Haarp’
Atmosphere Above Japan Heated Rapidly Before Earthquake, new NASA research points to HaarpJane Burgermeister | June 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/puNtl-1ji
|
Read more at:
JANE BURGERMEISTER REPORT: ‘Study shows Unicef vaccination programmes cause more deaths, yet UK to pledge £814 million’
Study shows Unicef vaccination programmes cause more deaths, yet UK to pledge £814 million
In spite of a study by John Hopkins University showing that more children survived in those parts of Africa where there was NO Unicef vaccination programme, billions are to be spent on a new vaccination programme by Bill Gates with the UK government pledging £814 million.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8455444.stm
David Cameron pledged £814 million to GAVI (the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunisation) linked to Bilderberg Bill Gates in addition to the existing funds of £680 million between 2011 and 2015 to prevent diarrhoea and pneumonia in the poorest countries.
-
Archives
- July 2011 (5)
- June 2011 (108)
- May 2011 (107)
- April 2011 (110)
- March 2011 (53)
- February 2011 (25)
- January 2011 (7)
- December 2010 (4)
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (13)
- September 2010 (12)
- August 2010 (24)
-
Categories
- 9/11 TRUTH
- Anti-GE
- Auckland Mayoral campaign
- Botany By-election 2011
- Centre for Public Integrity
- CLG REPORT:
- Fighting corruption in NZ
- Fighting corruption internationally
- Fighting water privatisation in NZ
- Howick by-election campaign
- Human rights
- i watch news (Centre for Public Integrity)
- Internationally significant information
- Jane Burgermeister Report
- Metrowater
- Stop the $uper City
- Transparency in Govt spending
- TRUTHOUT
- Uncategorized
- VINCE SIEMER REPORT
- WORLD WATER WARRIORS
- YOU TUBE: John Clarke and Bryan Dawe
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
The Watchdog 