Humour from the Selwyn Electoral Petition
April 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am by David FarrarI blogged yesterday about the Selwyn Electoral Petition by serial litigant Roger Payne. A witness at court has relayed to me a couple of amusing tidbits.
The first is that it was revealed that Payne has lodged 70 lawsuits in recent years. The three Justices were probably alarmed to find out that three of his 70 lawsuits have been trying to sue individual Judges personally.
The most funny part was about his “malicious bankruptcy”, which he claims was annulled. The court asked who the petitioner was, and it seems Payne could not remember or would not say. So the court ordered the Registrar to find out. And the Registrar reported back that the petitioner was the Crown Law Office 
Related posts:
- Selwyn Electoral Petition outcome at 2 pm
- The Selwyn Electoral Petition
- Selwyn Electoral Petition hearing starts today
- Payne ordered to pay costs to National
April 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I hope you don’t mind if I repeat this post, which I had just put on the earlier Selwyn string just before this new string began… Thank goodness DPF is on the job. The MSM haven’t got their heads around this case.
The Christchurch Press covers the case today (Tuesday, 7th April), beginning this way:
“Failed nominee Roger Payne’s effort to clean up the political candidate selection process has gone before the High Court at Christchurch.”
Though both Selwyn and Payne’s town of Orari fall solidly within the Press distribution area, the newspaper uses an NZPA report to cover the hearing.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 9:28 am
“70 lawsuits” Yeah Farrar all to do with a corrupt Family Court judgement.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Seventy court cases? Well obviously he is someone who could devote a lot of time to Parliament without any external distractions.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Do you have legislation in NZ to permit the Court to declare a person a frivoulous and vexatious litigant? We do in Australia – any person the subject of an order under the Act can’t commence proceedings without the leave of the court. Basically the onus is then on the litigant to show they have an arguable case before they can even file.
If you don’t have similar legislation, this guy is an example of why you should, and if you do, this guy should have been the subject of an order long ago.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Straya, yes there is the power. The solicitor general, from memory, has the power to apply to the high court for an order that an individual be declared to be a vexatious litigant.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 10:11 am
“70 lawsuits” Yeah Farrar all to do with a corrupt Family Court judgement.
So if it does not go your way it is corrupt?
I hope the fathers you claim to “help” are aware of your record D4J, it seems they would be far better off dealing with anybody BUT you.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Orari? That’s in Rangitata
Vote: