Vince Siemer
June 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am by David FarrarI am glad I am not the only one annoyed by the media treatment of Vince Siemer, which has him and his wife trying to make themselves victims when in fact Seimer is running a campaign of harrasment and is the bully not the victim in my opinion. Not that I am a fan of his victim either – but that doesn’t mean Michael Stiassny doesn’t have rights.
Siemer is comparing himself to a Jew being persecuted by the Nazis:
Siemer, who is defending himself, said in his submissions that by denying him freedom of speech the courts were heading onto a slippery slope towards denial of other rights.
“Today it is freedom of speech, tomorrow it’s much worse,” Siemer said.
He said courts in Nazi Germany had denied Jews their legal rights under due process, and that no courts should use process to deny justice.
Now shouldn’t someone like me be supporting the rights of someone to say what they want on their website? Well no. Let us turn to Steven Price for some useful facts on the case:
I’m afraid I find it difficult to get too worked up about Vince’s plight. He’d like to pitch his troubles as a freedom of expression battle against a corrupt businessman (his nemesis, Michael Stiassny), and corrupt lawyers (including his own), and corrupt judges (pretty much anyone who’s ruled against him, in a couple of dozen court hearings). But what it’s really about is his ongoing and flagrant refusal to comply with court orders.
Just because you do not like a court order is not grounds to rfuse to obey them. You appeal if you do not like them – but he has lost pretty much every case in his two dozen hearings.
Steven notes:
Note that the injunction is an interim one. It’s in place pending the final determination of the defamation case. If Siemer can prove that his allegations are true, he will be able to reinstate the banned content. The courts generally do not grant this sort of injunction in defamation cases. They only did so here because two High Court judges were convinced that there was no basis for Siemer’s allegations:
Justice France: Having assessed the evidence, I conclude this is one of those exceptional cases where the Court can say that there is no reasonable possibility of a defence of truth succeeding in relation to any allegations of criminal or unethical conduct or as to improper personal enrichment.
Steven also usefully points out:
He objects that he was tried “in absentia” – he was overseas at the time of the second trial. Which might be outrageous, except for the fact that he’d known about the hearing date, hadn’t filed any documents, hadn’t engaged legal counsel, and had simply emailed the court to say he wouldn’t be making it. They said he needed to formally apply for a different date. He didn’t.
I do wish the traditional media would provide context like this. Those who do not read blogs would have a very different impression.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Well said, it has been an appalling campaign and it is concerning that many might be suckered into it (even if they bring in sound bites to “balance” it up). He keeps going on about not having a trial and so forth but an injunction has been made and he has not challenged it. He is deliberately and flagrantly breaching the law and by running a media campaign is only compounding his contempt. The guy is a turkey and the media should not use him to run some sort of mythical campaign against the justice system.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 9:35 am
He is deliberately and flagrantly breaching the law and by running a media campaign is only compounding his contempt.
For which the appropriate punishment is an endless prison sentence with no chance of parole.
Whatever one’s thoughts, if he goes to prison, and stands by his (however misguided) principles, at what point does the punishment cease to fit the crime?
[DPF: Why should his victim not have his rights protected by the courts?]
[DPF2: And the no chance of parole line is bullshit. To gain parole you (in theory) need to convince a parole board you will not reoffend. Siemer doesn't even have to do that to get released. He just has to actually comply with the court order and he gets released]
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Shameful then that Siemer is trotting out the “I’m being persecuted like Jews” argument when his victim of harrasment is Jewish.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Interesting question!
>
>>if he goes to prison, and stands by his (however misguided) principles, at what point does the punishment cease to fit the crime
>
My view would be that that point is reached when he agrees to respect and abide by the law. If he subsequently breeches that agreement the punishment can be resumed.
The law is full of offences involving intent, for instance “assault with intent to maim” was a case in court last week, so until he specifically denies any intent he is, I guess, eligable for punishment.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Having followed the case as far as one is able I am still very uncomfortable about the Robert Fardell link given his apparent suicide that was very inconclusive.
It may be just a bit to easy to dismiss Siemer as a fruit loop. IMHO it may also be that Mr Stiassny doeth protest too much.
I am sure there are a number of matters that certain parties would hope do not see the light of day in open Court.
If there is nothing in it then lets see the evidence from both sides and let the citizens judge for themselves.
Disclosure and transpernancy That what we need.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I keep on waiting for him to bring up the constitution
Vote:Jeeez, why is it that so many yank immigrants believe they
need a bloody flagpole in front of the house ?
We need to get them to read the Passionless people.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I’m sorry. I have no idea who these people are and furthermore, they interest me no one iota.
Now, the EFA… THERE’s a subject..! I hope this geyser doesn’t reflect a similar kind of neurosis that underpins the anti EFA movement, because if he does, then we are all in trouble!
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Wasnt there a touch of the Nick Smith about all this.
Vote:The idea that he can say what he likes , that parliament is the highest court in the land ( as an MP he can what he likes) and that the solicitor general was corrupt in taking him to court to recieve his just punishment for his flagrent abuse of the court process, dressed up as acting for his constituents.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
That judge is such a fool. Locking that schmuck away for longer than rappists and peddophiles.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 10:37 am
He-man Yes The phrase Breaking a butterfly on the whee came to mind.
Another reason my antenna is twitching. It seems an extreme measure unless one considers the protagntist and whether they are exercising undue influence over the process.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Graeme – I assume you are being slightly tounge in cheek re the parole matter. As Bill Hodge(s?) noted, in this case he has the key in his own pocket. He can simply stop doing what he was told not to do. Contempt is an inherent power of the Court and although it can be used to put someone in prison it is not, in my view, a sentence per se. In this context it is coercive rather than retrospectively denouncing conduct. I do not have a great problem with some who ignores all other avenues available under the law and then refuses to comply with a lawful decision being binned until they do. As was noted on One News (I think by Hodge again) if people refuse to follow court orders society falls apart.
On a related note do you know if the Setencing and/or Parole Acts apply. I was having a conversation on Saturday night about how long a discrete period of imprisonment for contempt lasts (yes, I am quite the social conversationalist). I had always thought it lasted for however long the Judge said – ie: 14 days = 14 days with no early release provisions.
And to those who are talking about locking him away for longer than rapists etc you are missing the point. HE CAN GET HIMSELF OUT ANY TIME HE WANTS. He simply has to stop doing what he was told not to. If he wants to lawfully carry on with his attack on Stiassny then he has to challenge the Injunction through the Court. Some sort of extra-judicial campaign is totally unacceptable.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am
GPT – the Sentencing Act doesn’t apply, the Parole Act does: though bear in mind that this is a very rudimentary analysis.
Section 9 of the Parole Act seems pretty clear:
As does section 4 of the Sentencing Act:
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I have absolutely no idea who’s in the right in terms of the substantive case because I have not been following it closely enough and couldn’t care less.
However, the precedent worries me. If you write something and publish it on a website under your control, there’s any number of ways it can get picked up and redistributed – by these spam sites that simply “mine” content to give them some hits in search engines, and by Google’s own cache amongst others. Once this process has occurred there is no way you still have control over that material. So even if Siemer complied, the effect of that compliance may well be moot.
On a broader theme, however, there are many laws that are unjust (the EFA, for example) and many people who have suffered under the law because they are unevenly matched in terms of resources (and who isn’t unevenly matched against the Police and/or the Crown Law Office).
I’m not saying Siemer deserves to win his case because, as I said, I simply don’t know. But I would make the point that in general, an “extra judicial campaign”, as GPT1 puts it, isn’t always unjustified.
“There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all… One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly…I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.” – Martin Luther King, “Letter from the Birmingham Jail”.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
IMHO there are certain matters in this case that deserve the light of day and that the legal system is being misused as anjust defence to prevent this happening.
As the maxim says let he who comes to Court do so with clean hands. Im not convinced that is the case as regards the SC.
there is something we are not being told that Slippery Collins knows and wants to keep from the citizens
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Rex
If you were in Michael Stiassny’s shoes you would be pretty fed up with the treatment that Vince is dishing out to Mike and you would expect the law to step in and protect your human right to ‘get on with life’ and protect your right to earn a living.
All that is expected of Vince is that he should pull his horns in with respect to Mike until Mike’s defamation case against Vince is heard. If Vince publically recants the alleged defamtory statements and pays Mike some costs, Mike would probably heave a sigh of relief and drop the whole thing.
But as long as Vince keeps jabbing at Mike, Mike’s reputation in the eyes of the public is at serious risk, and Mike must defend his reputation or it will adversely affect his ability to earn a living. By comparison, very little is being asked of Vince. This is precisely why the Court issued an interim injunction to shut him up.
Mke is an insolvency specialist and as far as I remember Vince or his interests were on the receiving end of unpleasant but necessary actions that Mike as part of his job had to do. So Vince decided to make life hell for Mike and is persisting with this until the present.
I see that Vince is an American. If he has not gained citizenship and is not prepared to abide by NZ law, the Immigration Minister should throw him out on his ear.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Rex your point is valid in so far as it goes but I think Vince is a long way away from being Dr King. HE HAS REMEDIES and he has CHOOSEN to ignore them in favour of an extra judicial campaign through the media. Like you I cannot comment with any great knowledge on the substantive issue but I have little time for people who bleat about not being given a fair trial when they do not turn up, do not appeal and do not (in this case) continue the litigation against the injunction.
I see the spam/google issue as a read herring. As I understand it he is quite clearly running the website.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I might start naming and shaming corrupt lawyers, psychologists and judges involved in my travesty of injustice on my blog.
Vote:Stuff the rotten pricks – Go Vince !
June 18th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
oh dad – is it still a conspiracy, if EVERYONE around you is in on it?
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
What a stupid comment you nitwit , didn’t you know that lawyers and judges can’t lie straight in bed as they’re like politicians, that is bent as bananas on hyperbolic socialist syrup. .
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Vince Siemer deserves the suppoprt of all Kiwis for taking on the establishment. Rember the Solicitor General is taking this action in respect of an interin injunction which has morphed into a permanent gagging order. Stiasny has not filed defamation proceedings in three years. Perhaps thats because what Vince is saying is true.
Vote:June 18th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
GPT1 – point taken. When I read that he didn’t show up and didn’t send a lawyer in his stead I must admit that this particular guy sounds like a time waster who isn’t serious about having the issue settled.
However I thought I might just step in and make the point that not every person motivated to step outside the legal system for whatever reason deserves what is effectively an indefinite sentence.
Only yesterday I turned up at a court (in Australia, admittedly) ready to resume an adjourned case and was told by a very embarrassed Associate that the Magistrate hadn’t shown up that morning and no one knew where he was. Now we can all have a domestic crisis or a health emergency or what have you, but considering that he still hadn’t shown by lunch (when I appeared before another Magistrate and got yet another adjournment) and that this is the second time he was a no show in this case alone I was tempted to suggest to the poor girl I was assisting that she seek an extra-judicial remedy of her own, out in the carpark. But I don’t think she could have taken the Police prosecutor, even in a best-out-of-three match
When judges earn respect, they can expect to receive it. Too many of them do not, however, and expect the mere fact that they’re good mates with the Attorney General and thus managed to land a well-paid sinecure to be enough to have us bowing and scraping.
But I see both you and I have negative karma for our comments. Oh well, I’ll try the bog standard response that seems to work for the politicians then:
Yes, lock him up and throw away the key! Give him bread and water and thrash him soundly till he gives up!!
That better?
Vote:June 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Rex said: But I see both you and I have negative karma for our comments.
Vote:I guess that’s what happens when you try and have a rational conversation!
June 19th, 2008 at 10:51 am
What gets up my nose is all the people calling this man a wacko instead of dealing with the issue
Vote:June 19th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Low tide – are you talking about the guy facing contempt? The issue is simple. He is not following a Court order. He has a forum to challenge that instead he is flagrantly flouting the Court order and running a half-assed campaign through the media. Need more evidence to convict of wacko but there is certainly a prima facie case established.
Vote:June 19th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
You would know GPT1 as you are learned with wackos. Justice is a delusion in New Zealand !!
Vote:June 20th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Ball not the man d4j…
Vote:June 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
For those to care how it works in practice: Pre-WWII Germans were as law-abiding as any people. So much so they equated ‘judicial orders’ with ‘law’. Unlawful Court orders started out innocuously enough with an order Jews wear identification in public. Because it was not a huge unlawful infringement, most complied. Those who didn’t were publicly labelled ‘lawbreakers’. As Jews were ordered to give up their businesses and the press were ordered to print propaganda, public resistance grew. Courts countered this by show trials where 2,3, even 10 judges decided the issue. Germans naturally thought they did not know the full story and that 2,3 and 10 judges could not have all gotten it wrong. Don’t forget, three NZ judges ruled contrary to the facts in the Mt Erebus disaster. Two judges are deciding my fate.
Vote:June 20th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
GPT1 Its not that simple in my opinion, we all have a duty to resist orders of the Court that are obtained without due process. Its taken 14 years for the Berryman’s to get a whiff of justice and transparency, injustice breeds resistance and in my view we all have a duty to disobey orders made without due process or lawful right. In Nazi Germany, the Judiciary were the first to cede authority to the organs of the state and some truly appalling decisions of the Courts here indicate that we are heading in the same direction.
Vote:June 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
The Solicitor General probably has a personal stake in seeing Vince jailed given his office is descibed as a cesspool of corruption on Kiwisfirst.com. It seems to me there is more to it than weve heard form the media.
Vote:June 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 am
I was fortunate to attend the beginning and the end of the proceedings. In the first instance I consider the substantive issue to be secondary to the allegations Mr Siemer is placing before the Crown. I did not see that his comments in reference to World War II were a comparison to his own circumstances. Mr Siemer was advancing the question of obedience and should there be a lack there of if orders such as in his circumstances, an injunction, should be proved to be unlawful.
The Crown did not deny that the injunction may be illegal yet emphasised that even if it should be so such was not adequates grounds to disobey the injunction. A previous writr has reflected this and it seems that this point has some support. Mr Siemer’s point countered the Crown submission. If a jailor thought that the jailor was obeying an unlawful order should the jailor be prosecutable? The Crown clearly submitted that the answer was no. Judge Chisholm, however, clearly versed in the law agreed with Mr. Siemer, yet countered that those laws were unlawful. I thought Mr. Siemer’s comments were more profound. The legal status of the injunction remains untested. The points Mr. Siemer wishes to pursue may hold some depth. Mr Siemer stated in the proceedings that Judge Judith Potter was open to serious charges. As he stated these allegations they were highly compelling.
What seems to be missing from justice is that Mr. Siemer is complaining that he is being charged twice for the same crime under which he has already been punished. This is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the law of double jeopardy. Many will recognise most interestingly that this law is presently being rushed before government to be ammended and that one of the ammendments could be seen to be encompassing Mr. Siemers’ circumstances. Given that putting someone in prison for an undetermined period in itself is as far as I am aware an unprecedented act in New Zealand and that this is being furnished with a rapid revamp of fundamental Westminster legislation, and additionally that it is being done seeking a confession and guilt from Mr. Siemer which is directly inconsistent with the Crimes of Torture Act, surely there is enough information before the public for the public to become suspicious that something very serious may have been exposed?
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Political Busker – the High Court jailed the mother of that kid that was kidnapped indefinately last year. Jayden Headley? It is not unprecedented. Hell, the state jails criminals indefinately on a reasonably regular basis – Periodic Detention anyone (this is not to compare Siemer’s case to criminalson PD just to make the point that it is not “unprecedented).
Low Tide – perhaps in terms of unlawful Court orders but I think you find that most people on the wrong end of a Court order think they are unlawful. Where is the line to be drawn? I would suggest that it is some where AFTER appeals and reviews are exhausted at the very least.
Simer – instead of trying to compare your plight to that of Jews in Nazi Germany (hyperbole always makes one suspicious) could you explain why you did not attend the hearing for the injunction and whether you have or have not appealed it, advanced the substantive case or asked for the Judgment to be recalled for oral argument?
And anyone – on the double jeopardy argument. How is it double jeopardy to be “punished” for doing an unlawful act and then be “punished” again for continuing to do an unlawful act? If I burgle someone’s house, get caught and locked up I can’t burgle the same house on my release and claim double jeopardy.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
GPT – Vince is is prohibited by court order from advancing a defence to the substantive claim.
Vote:June 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 pm
GPT1-Being on the wrong end of a Court order as you say is ok if you’re Bob Jones but for the rest of us its a pain in the butt, when the the Judges don’t play by the rules. Should the Berrymans have had to wait 14 years for a whiff of fair play?
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 2:19 am
I must concur, until someone would offer grounds that putting a prisoner into prison for an undetermined period may not be unprecedented. It is a most interesting point
However, the Court on behalf of the Solicitor General would be looking for an admission of guilt from Mr Siemer. This is using imprisonment to extract a confession. It is consistent behaviour with the principal interpretation of the Crimes of Torture Act. The do this in family law only they use orders to hold the child away from the respondent instead and worse they make the men (in most cases the man) attend a behaviour modification course as well if they refuse to comply with such a barbarous action of abducting children on the grounds of allegation alone. I digress.
In most ways, this is as you point out the same as in the Jayden Hedley case, however; in that case a child had been abducted. In Mr Siemer’s case he is making statements that he wishes to back with fact and he is being instructed that his core proposal which is directly consistent with the Bill of Rights shall not be heard: It is then supposedly an irrelevancy. This is inconsistent with the basic principles of natural justice. The first principle is that you should be able to expect to present evidence and as well have the evidence presented against you. Mr Siemer claims ‘corruption’ from within the judiciary and substantiates his claim with significant evidence that the Court about whom he complaining reject any chance to be heard: either in the public arena or as admissible evidence. The second principle is that you should not be tried by anyone with a direct interest in the outcome of the proceedings. This in my opinion demands that in some forum the evidence of judicial corruption that is presented by Mr Siemer should be open for a test by an independent tribunal. In his submission Mr Siemer presents evidence that the Judicial Conduct Commissioner (JCC) has furthered no such submission over to the head of bench or had any reason request a panel be formed to investigate such allegations.
On the second point, being that which refers to the JCC I must concur that there remains a facility open to complain about a judges conduct and this mitigates the allegations that allegations tabled against a judge if they have nowhere to go are inconsistent with natural justice. However, Mr Siemer engages an extraordinary point that contains as well two parts. The first part is that the JCC is a reasonably new judicial facility. The commission was established in 2002. Natural Justice on the other side of the argument has been around for quite some time. The behaviour of the judges to presume their outright independence and authority above any criticism has been around for some time. In introducing the second part of this point it is easy to read from Mr Siemer’s comments that old habits die-hard. As stated no complaint on ‘conduct’ or ‘bad behaviour’ has so far been progressed. If this argument ends as sound the injustice, as presumably existing necessitating the JCC in the first instance is really very mature.
On this second part of the argument in regards to fairness within the judicial system I can offer personal experience being the author of a complaint that is presently in consideration by the Commissioner. As it is a live complaint I will decide not to provide any substantive detail but can comfortably progress as already public knowledge what I have further established. The JCC can only look at a complaint from the grounds that it is about conduct. This means that the threshold for having a complaint about a judge’s action/behaviour is very high. If the actions are open for an appeal then an appeal is the method to disengage any complaint about a judge no matter the inexperienced view about what the judge’s actions may have adversely affected. The ground for the JCC to explore is whether the complaint may be frivolous or vexatious.
My complaint in this is with the Family Court. The Family Court is bound to a practice that must be consistent with the purpose. The purpose limits the Court to determine justice in regard to cost and expediency acknowledging that natural justice and (to quote Judge Boshier) that it must be seen to be done. If, however a practice is inconsistent with the rules then it leaves a hole open in the role of the JCC. Practice can include the actions of corruption. The facility in the Family Court Rules 2002, to disengage corruption is rule 13 through to 17. I submit that if the practice to the degree of a corruption is in breach then the law is ambiguous and the Court can escape any criticism. While I have not researched the rules of any other Court at this stage I would believe that a consistency with the practice of the rules would be a natural if it proves not to be a justiciable demand. I should think that the passion of many complaints would be in this realm. If these complaints are made faulting practice in the Courts and they are in any way consistent in fact, then there must be a component for the unrestricted capacity of the bench to be acting as it will under any adversity that is consistent with a corruption. I think this is Mr Siemer’s point. I think it is reasonable. I believe that corruption is most definitely an issue of very, very bad behaviour.
Finally, the argument on double jeopardy is not as simplistic as re-burglarising houses after you have been sentenced. There are tow points to the argument. The first is that the substantive allegations as made by Mr Siemer remain unheard. As they are not heard they have not been disproved. The commentary I have made in regards to Court practice and methods of remedy have not been given the air to breath. Mr Siemer can neither appeal what has not been heard nor complain about the practice of not hearing his submissions where they are a circumstance of practice and not conduct. The second point is more interesting and again I can reiterate that I do not know if there is any precedent. Mr Siemer replies to the view that he is in breach of the injunction that he has removed what he believed to be the offending material of the order and left the remaining material on line. He is stating that he has complied with the order. In regard to the claim that the bulk material itself is in contempt is a new charge yet that has not been made; the old charge has simply been reignited. His argument to this point, however, even where the prior point has not been concluded is that like a paper once it is published it is published. It cannot be unpublished. I can get an apology from a radio or television broadcaster for a statement or broadcast but it cannot be undone. The paper is not subject to removing all copies from its archives, so what is the fairness to remove the document (that is contested as not being in breach of the injunction) from the Internet?
In your second point on this Low Tide I do not believe your argument is consistent with your first. You accept in my view injustice on the grounds that it should not be able to be efficiently tested unless you have an incredible amount of money and simply do not have to care. That is not a recipe consistent with justice and that is effectively the exact argument that we are debating: which is to say that you eventually will be compelled for your experience and knowledge to agree with Mr Siemer.
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hey PB The only thing consistent about me is my inconsistency……. I dunno what gave you the idea that I disagreed with Mr Siemer, I’m just pointing out the obvious, if you can afforda good crooked lawyer ya gonna win 9 times outa ten
Vote:June 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Interestingly your comment has recently been proved inthe case in Feilding I am working on. We all have had public suspicions that the lawyers are corrupt – well they have been! I recently found out that the District Law Societies Complaints Committees are voluntary. The reply that I got from Manawatu was that these lawyers acting on the committeess might not be able to give a complaint their undivided attention because their own private affaris required attention. I couldn’t believe what I read. Inquiries to Annette King and a reply from Winston Peters as well a further reply from the New Zealand Law Society proved that this was the case. This is a Westminster law remember. This has been going on all over the planet! Judges are only lawyers who have moved up through the ranks. If any Judge has a mate who is on one of these mates rates committees then they could buy them a beer (or whatever) and expect to get off. The reason I found it is because I allege that is exactly what happened. What’s more the complaint I was making was and remains as I allege an imprisonable offence. The complaint has now gone through to the Lay Observer.
However, this substantive complaint has already been countered with the new lawyers and conveyancers act that comes in in August 1st. So the door of corruption is now seemingly closed. The problem now, even though I still haven’t read fully through the new legislation is ‘what about the past’?
A small group of us had a protest organised outside the Manawatu District Law Society offices in Palmerston Norht this Friday but after gettign the reply from Annette King and meeting with Simon Power yesterday we have decided to postpone that protest, thining it is a better stratergy to plan a bigger protest if such action again becomes necessary.
In honour of Vince Siemer it was dubbed “The Whistleblower’s Protest”. Whistles cost $2 at the $2 shop: so it won’t cost much to make a bit of noise. We just need a few more bods on the street. Maybe when the tides are consistent we could all do it on a full moon?
Vote:July 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
He cannot defend the substantive proceedings because his defence has been struck out. You must state clearly your grounds for defence and he did this. HOWEVER they must have an actual, legally supported defence. Vince clearly did not, and so it was struck out. usually a Judge assumes everything at this stage is deemed to be factuallly accurate and will strike out IF even IF everything were factually true, is there an actual legal cause of action… or a legal defence
While some folks are expressing sympathy for Vince spare a thought for those people who folk like Vince willfully defame. You only get one reputation. Vince and a few like him get a conspiracy in their heads, believe there’s a cover up and end up chasing shadows. All the while proliferating their erroneous judgment of he people they spread their lies about. Using the Internet and word of mouth they can completely trash people with no evidence. Of course it follows that the judiciary must be corrupt or part of the coverup because they seem to always be ruling in favour of the ones Vince and others hound. Of course they do, because the law requires evidence not a gut feeling or even an honestly held belief. I have seen two judges bend over backwards to accomodate a person representing themselves, even telling the lawyer for a plaintiff to sit on his hands, that is, taking away the plaintiff’s right to object so that the person representing themselves can speak freely and often.
Vote:July 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Of course there are bad lawyers and bad judges but they are not, in my experience, nearly as widespread as some here are making out.
Vote:July 9th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Mr Stiassny filed his defamation suit around three years ago, claiming $1.25M…
and Mr Siemer is extremely keen to defend himself in open Court.
Why then is Mr Vector in absolutely no hurry to persuade any of his judge friends
to bring the case to trial? Could it be that he’s petrified that Vince’s alleged defamation
might be proven in Court to be completely true?
That explains why he couldn’t risk ending up in front of one of the remaining judges
with old-school principles that are now so very rare in legally-isolated
post-Privy Council New Zealand.
Risking the truth is too much for him…better to leave the case rot in an
injudicial in-tray, and let his J-mates incarcerate the truthsayer.
Curious? Google the names…the truth is obvious, the judicial system is a closed
Vote:shop with no checks and balances, too tiny for straight dealing in this small society.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Anybody seeking justice in this country could find their back to the wall,
and it would be as well for us all to take notice of the express warnings,
as well as the fact that we no longer have the Lords to appeal to.
We are on our own.
An Open Letter to J Potter was typed by a person with painfully frustrating experience in
an ongoing attempt to obtain justice in NZ by fair means.
This excerpt seems especially relevant here:
“For potential criminals it therefore makes good sense to attack those who seek to expose them.
The preferred tactic is to take legal action for defamation or Harassment and keep the matter in court
with the intent of financially crippling the person exposing the facts….
“The fines and costs for speaking the truth are grossly disproportionate to the fines imposed on those
convicted of criminal offending. The penalties to the honest are so extreme that it effectively protects
white collar criminals, especially those who have rubbed shoulders with the higher echelon in our society.
“The police don’t investigate Fraud, The serious Fraud office are very selective in what they do take on ,
the police wont investigate Perjury- but some of us wont sit back and condone crime –
Vince is one of them . His case is typical of what is happening in New Zealand today.
He is a victim of the lack of policing; he is the victim of the justice system and a victim of the misuse
of the courts to conceal crime. He is being punished for being honest and wanting accountability from
those who should be accountable.
“To punish Vince for his frustrations of getting the truth out there and dealt with, will encourage the
corrupt to be more corrupt and the honest to fall silent. He should be congratulated and be given the
resources to help prove his allegations. Whilst there is no support in proving crime, the successful
white collar criminal will always have the money to protect themselves.- ironically the more successful
they are the less likely they will be exposed.
“Unless the police and the courts support the Honest, Crime will grow. Our freedom of speech is all we have
Vote:-when that is taken all will be gone. To suppress the freedom of speech will see more honest people in Jail
whilst criminals walk the street. Money should not be able to buy Justice…”
January 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
And I see he has, today, been pinged for a million odd for defamation.
Vote:January 30th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
“I do wish the traditional media would provide context like this.”
That’s the whole key to the modern media – What is their context??
Brilliant David.
Vote:March 25th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The Siemer case is an outrage. The Court is beneath contempt.
There is no argument here.
Vince was ripped off by a renown corporate thug
with a huge track record,
has volumes of hard evidence to prove it ,
and he has realized that using NZ court only to appeal about the series of outrageous subsequent cases that went against him, simply gives a rancid court credibility.
Here are the hard facts.
http://indymedia.org.nz/usermedia/application/13/vince_siemer_close_up.p…
It could happen to anybody.
Sometimes there is just no choice but to fight.
Heres a good read on why our Solicitor -General must go down for perjury:
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/76986/index.php
Vote:March 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Get so sick of links not working but bhere is one that shoulsd work:
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MEHMSa9N1zPAnlGavs4OazWLaH9NlLHOdysr3ta8XMI_xFkk9H3YXBxLQ7f_6_B0zDNZHqGBjaIe8r_4fA076ztagaY/Vince%20Siemer%20Close%20Up%20UPDATED.pdf
WHO ELSE MIGHT IT BE HAPPENING TO?
HOW MANY DOZENS OF OTHERS?
Just black and white Tory deceit.
To join the expose campaign that has had a gutful of NZ courts,
Vote:email tom5nz@yahoo.co.nz