Moving On

The Court of Appeal
Judicial Conduct Commissioner: Ian Haynes.
Wellington Anglican Diocese:

I request that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner become immediately familiar with these proceedings as required under Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 S11: Which complaints must be dealt with. (1) (2) and require some immediate variation of the Act’s Rules where those implicated in the corruption are convened as authority and responsible in the aforesaid Act being subjects of the investigation. This information is completed on its separate form and submitted by mail.


Judicial complaint

HONOURABLE MARK O’REGAN

Legislation:

Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004
Summary Proceedings Act S74 Provisions of this part to apply to complaints.
Crimes Act 1960 S81 (2) Sedition.

Tena tatou katoa,

I thank the Court of Appeal for the Facsimile of 18 August 2006.

I write in reply to the stated direction of Justice O’Regan, that: “I am not prepared to grant an adjournment”.

I include the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in this correspondence as the original complaint I have laid has yet to be recognised. I have accused the Court of Appeal Justice, The Honourable Mark O’Regan of a corruption of his responsibilities to duty and to the public and general interest. My complaint implicates and accuses of complicity, Justice Mc Grath now of the Supreme Court and Justice Young now the President of the Court of Appeal to whom the Judiciary Council must report. My complaint follows.

1. I have complained that we have an emergency in New Zealand and that I can prove our Judiciary and Executive have colluded to act in a corrupt manner, failing to protect the welfare and best interests of the country’s families and children.

2. My earlier request for an adjournment to proceedings was made to the acting Governor General and presiding Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias so to expose the injustice, and not to Justice O’Regan as pivotal in the complaint.

3. I require that the Honourable Justice’s most senior employer be informed.

4. I have complained that in earlier proceedings COA Easton v R, March 15th 2004, Justices Mc Grath, Young and O’Regan colluded to interfere with my seeking of Special Leave to Appeal before the Court of Appeal, there then being a requirement to corrupt the process of comity as requiring the tampering of evidence as describes a perversion of Justice.

5. The Justices for their collective actions have dissolved the credibility of the Court of Appeal if not our entire function in commitment to natural justice.

6. The Court of Appeal consequently is not capable to observe a practice in Natural Justice making it completely impossible for me to receive a fair trial.

7. My complaint under the Summary Proceedings Act S74, clearly, was made during the appointment of the Governor General acting and presiding Chief Justice as binding the judiciary and the executive to our Imperial Laws and their truth.

8. The Chief Justice had jurisdiction to receive the complaint identifying corruption under the Judicature Act 1908 S23, Governor General May Appoint Special Sittings & S51(c) Power to Make Rules.

9. The Corruption about which I complain is simple to qualify, identify and prove.

10. My complaint was accusatory of the Honourable Justice Mark O’Regan as issuing a declined application of seeking Special Leave to Appeal before the Court of Appeal, with judgment that impugns comity between the Judiciary and the Executive.

11. Comity, where now breached, is protected by the Westminster Bill of Rights of 1689 Article 9 and its protection protects the Queen’s subjects from a corruption by an authority.

12. Excusing without due process an act of breach to parliamentary privilege as enacted by (a) the Attorney General of 1994 The Right Honourable Paul East on the Domestic Violence Bill 1994, impugning responsibility under S7 ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REPORT of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and S5, OBJECT Domestic Violence Act 1995; (b) The Attorney General of 2003 the Right Honourable Margaret Wilson on the Care of Children Bill 2003 S7 ATTORNEY GENERAL TO REPORT of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and S5, OBJECT Domestic Violence Act 1995; (b) the primary protections of the country’s children so protected from Domestic Violence as interpreted for the Domestic Violence Act 1995 S3 (2) (c) (v).

13. Judge O’Regan with his failure to grant an adjournment provides further opportunity to disguise his and his colleague’s original bullying action in corruption and premeditating that my guilt is a necessary demand of the corruption’s affect.

14. I repeat my request for a further Royal investigation onto my allegations where my guilt for exercising my statutory defence where calling an “Emergency” in the country has to have been guaranteed to protect our most prestigious justices and judges.

15. Failure so to interfere will invariably lead to my unjust imprisonment for contempt of court at the High Court (Court of Appeal) on August 31st 2006.

16. I request that my children are better protected from their child abuse where they are being held and alienated to me as their natural father.

A Standard of Justice

Foreword by The Honourable P. T. Mahon QC. “I know the argument that the government might pack the bench. Especially our Court of Appeal… to ensure it got its way… but in my view it could not happen here.