- Recall application (COA)
- Supreme Court judgment on application for leave to appeal
- Recall application (SC)
This entire proceeding has potential to spiral out of control in a spectacular way and bring nothing but delay, expense, and misery to all its parties.
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand, which was nailed by the Privy Council in Taito v R1 UKPC 15, §§14, 18, 20-22. as a “fundamentally flawed and unlawful system” operating arbitrarily and “certainly… contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice”, has descended to the next, criminal, level.
On 12 September 2016, Helen Winkelmann, Simon France and Mark Woolford delivered judgments  NZCA 4292NR v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND  NZCA 429 [12 September 2016]. and  NZCA 4303NR v MR  NZCA 430 [12 September 2016]., in which they fabricated, attributed to the appellant, and dismissed three (!) entirely fictitious appeals – that’s right, the appeals that the appellant had not brought or pursued.
Simon France, a judge of the High Court, was assigned to the Court of Appeal panel by his wife, Ellen France, who at the time was the President of the Court of Appeal. In the same judgments, Simon France allowed the respondent’s cross-appeal the leave to bring which was previously granted by his wife. Mr France also relied on another judgment made by his wife in the litigation between the parties.
Relevantly, Ellen France was subject to allegations of fraud in relation to the leave to cross-appeal she granted to the respondent. The allegations were made by the appellant in a recall application4APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF  NZCA 426, CA461/2014 and other proceedings, of 12-Sep-2015. which Ms France personally ordered to remove from the court record and to dispose of5MINUTE OF THE COURT, CA461/2014 and other proceedings, of 27-Oct-2015.. Ms France threatened the self-represented appellant with a “firmer response” if he continued to pursue allegations of misconduct on her part.
When the appellant complained to the court and demanded the Registrar, Clare O’Brien, to provide copies of documents proving the existence of the fictitious appeals, Ms O’Brien refused to do so but admitted that she arbitrarily and covertly (without the parties’ knowledge) withheld the appellant’s written submissions from a judicial panel. Ms O’Brien further admitted that she actively impeded the appellant’s attempts to inform the current President of the Court of Appeal Stephen Kós of the matter. Presumably, it was not the first time the Registrar obstructed, prevented, perverted, or defeated the course of justice in New Zealand6Why Clare O’Brien is the ‘darling’ of the judges, Vince Siemer, 30-Jan-2014..
We quote the appellant7APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM AS TO THE COURT’S ADJUDICATION OF THREE FICTITIOUS APPEALS, CA461 & other proceedings, of 20-Sep-2016.:
APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM AS TO THE COURT’S ADJUDICATION OF THREE FICTITIOUS APPEALS
1. I refer to the judgments  NZCA 429 and  NZCA 430 of Winkelmann, Simon France and Woolford JJ, delivered on 12 September 2016. I note that I filed a recall application of the same date in relation to both judgments, on the grounds of (a) bias on the part of all three judges, and (b) a failure of Mr France to disclose a conflict of interest on his part*1.
2. I record that in the same judgments, Winkelmann, Simon France and Woolford JJ purported to adjudicate three (!) fictitious appeals. By fictitious appeal I mean an appeal that never existed; inter alia, for which a notice of appeal was never filed, security for costs was never paid, etc. Specifically, I refer to the appeals listed under letters B (“NR’s appeals concerning the restrainingorder”), E (“NR’s appeal in relation to the District Court costs decision”) and G (“NR’s appeal against the award of costs in the High Court proceeding”) on the first and second pages of judgment NR v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND  NZCA 429 [12 September 2016].
3. The matter is detailed in the appendix to this memorandum*2. The appendix is also to be construed as my submissions on the issues raised in my recall application of 12 September 2016.
4. The matter is obviously criminal. There was no way for the Court of Appeal to adjudicate three fictitious appeals without criminal involvement of the court staff: the judges, the Registrar, the Deputy Registrars, and/or other personnel. In the circumstances, a continuation of my legal participation in any of the Court of Appeal proceedings is impossible without the matter being fully, fairly and promptly investigated by an independent authority.
5. My yesterday’s attempt to inform the President of the Court of Appeal of the fact that his court adjudicated three fictitious appeals was impeded by Ms O’Brien, the Registrar of the Court, who refused to pass on the information to Mr Kós. I record that in her response Ms O’Brien expressed neither surprise nor concern, which suggests that she had already been aware of the matter. The inference to be made is that Ms O’Brien is criminally involved. I attach to this memorandum my communication to Ms O’Brien, of 19 September 2016.
6. The adjudication of fictitious appeals by the court would have been highly problematic if only the court personnel was involved. Given the fact that counsel for Ms M who appeared at the hearing on 5 May 2016, Messrs Hollyman and Holmes, and their instructing solicitor, Mr Browne, have expressed neither surprise nor concern upon the receipt of the judgments, the trio appear to be criminally involved, too. This is unsurprising, given that the lawyers acted in conflict of interest in CA461/2014.
7. I hereby demand the Court to immediately notify the Police of the matter, given the apparent criminal involvement of the court personnel, and given the apparent applicability of one or more of the following sections of the Crimes Act 1961: s 113 (Fabricating evidence), s 116 (Conspiring to defeat justice), s 117 (Corrupting juries and witnesses), s 256 (Forgery), s 257 (Using forged documents), s 258 (Altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing documents with intent to deceive), s 259 (Using altered or reproduced document with intent to deceive), s 261 (Counterfeiting public seals).
20 September 2016
*1 In relation to (i) Mr France’s reliance on judgments of his wife Ms Ellen France, and (ii) Mr France’s adjudication (or more precisely, cover up) of the matters that bore on allegations of Ms France’s misconduct.
*2 APPENDIX. ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, on 17 pages including the table of contents.
We will be publishing all the relevant documents on this page as the farce unfolds.
Recall application (COA)
A wife of noble character is her husband’s crown, but a disgraceful wife is like decay in his bones.
On 12 September 2016, a few hours after the judgments were released, the appellant filed a recall application. He then waited for the respondents’ opposition (which hadn’t followed) before filing his submissions on 20 September (refer to the documents below). The appellant wrote (emphasis preserved):
I note that pursuant to binding Man O’War Station Limited v Auckland City Council (No 1)  NZPC 68Man O’War Station Limited v Auckland City Council (No 1)  NZPC 6, §3, 4. none of the judges whose bias is alleged can sit hearing this recall application.
Helen Winkelmann, Simon France and Mark Woolford turned a blind eye to the binding precedent, and on 17 October 2016 delivered their judgment on the recall application (see below). Seasoned fraudster Winkelmann wrote the reasons for the judgment. Surely, she completely omitted the issues of the fabricated fictitious appeals and the allegations of her being “mentally incapable” and committing actual or constructive fraud. In relation to the matrimonial issue, she wrote:
In the infamous Saxmere case, Bill Wilson was effectively kicked out of the Supreme Court for failing to disclose his business relationship with counsel. Here, we have Mr Simon France who presumably regularly fucks his wife Ellen France, and vice versa. Presumably, the pair also conducts various business together – whatever such noble people do these days. According to Winkelmann, the pair fucks and does other business to each other purely mechanically, unbiased so to speak, without any feelings or other partiality involved. Perhaps it is so, but we doubt that a fair-minded lay observer would have come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, it is hard to expect from mentally incapable Winkelmann and the other two retards to know about the legal test for apparent bias.
Supreme Court judgment on application for leave to appeal
We quote Supreme Court judges Terence Arnold, Susan Glazebrook, and Mark O’Regan:
 …Nothing raised suggests that the decisions of the Court of Appeal were erroneous.
In other words, the trio found that the claim that the Court of Appeal in its decisions fabricated, attributed to the applicant and dismissed three entirely fictitious appeals does not suggest that the decisions of the Court of Appeal were erroneous. We think it’s fraud on the part of the Supreme Court judges rather than senility. The readers are invited to judge for themselves.
Recall application (SC)
We quote the appellant9APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF JUDGMENT  NZSC 160, SC116/2016, of 8-Dec-2016.:
APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF JUDGMENT  NZSC 160
1. This is an application for recall of judgment NR v MR  NZSC 160, under the third category of recalls*1, on the grounds of, inter alia, the court overlooking matters or failing to determine issues that were properly put to it*2, the court being apparently biased*3, and the court breaching my fundamental human right to a fair hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal*4.
Failure to determine the issues pertaining to recusal
2. In my application for recusal of Ms Glazebrook and Mr OʼRegan, based on the uncontroverted affidavit, I alleged that*5, inter alia:
(a) In her judgment N v M  NZSC 15, Ms Glazebrook falsified the 1st respondent’s appearance to create a façade of a defended hearing, in order to mislead the public by concealing the unlawful role the judge played as the respondents’ advocate;
(b) In their subsequent judgment N v M  NZSC 185, Ms Glazebrook and Mr O’Regan covered up Ms Glazebrook’s gross misconduct mentioned in subparagraph (a) above, by completely omitting and evading the falsification issue which was squarely put to them.
3. In their freshly concocted judgment  NZSC 160, Ms Glazebrook, Mr OʼRegan and Mr Arnold completely omitted and evaded the above issues, with the former pair doing that for the second (!) time, thus aggravating the apprehension of their acting in bad faith.
4. My allegations concerning Mr Arnold’s fraudulent conduct in knowingly or recklessly making false statements in  NZSC 37 were completely omitted and evaded in a similar way. The judges completely omitted the facts that would be known to a fair-minded informed lay observer, and failed to apply the proper test for apparent bias to those facts.
5. Insofar as the judges “impliedly” rejected the allegations levelled against them, they improperly acted in their own cause and thus were not independent.
Failure to make findings pertaining to the only ground of the proposed appeal
6. In their judgment  NZSC 160, Ms Glazebrook, Mr OʼRegan and Mr Arnold failed to make findings on “[t]he only specific ground of the proposed appeal [which] is denial of natural justice, including, without limitation, apparent bias and procedural ultra vires”*6. For that matter, the judgment fails to even mention such terms as “natural justice”, “bias”, “ultra vires” or “jurisdiction”.
7. Instead, the judges proceeded to determine the merits my allegations of misconduct on the part of lower courts and counsel, as if it was a hearing of an actual appeal, not an application for leave to appeal. All the findings made by the Supreme Court on the merits of my allegations of misconduct are thus null and void from their inception, being made ultra vires.
Other grounds for recall
8. It thus follows that Ms Glazebrook, Mr OʼRegan and Mr Arnold were neither competent nor independent. A fair-minded informed lay observer might also reasonably apprehend that the judges might not have brought an impartial mind to the resolution of issues before them.
Determination of this application
9. Pursuant to Man O’War Station Limited v Auckland City Council (No 1)  NZPC 6 and SAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED  NZSC 122 none of the judges whose bias is alleged can sit hearing this recall application.
8 December 2016
*1 Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2)  NZLR 632 (SC).
*2 BELL v BDO SPICERS MANAWATU LIMITED  NZHC 1287 at .
*3 SAXMERE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS V WOOL BOARD DISESTABLISHMENT COMPANY LIMITED  NZSC 122.
*4 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 14 § 1; New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27.
*5 Inter alia, APPELLANT’S (1) SUBMISSIONS ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL; AND (2) APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL of 7 November 2016, §3 and Appendix D; AFFIDAVIT OF [the applicant] IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING CIVIL APPEAL of 3 November 2016, §§21-24.
*6 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING CIVIL APPEAL of 6 October 2016.
|12-Sep-16||Appellant||APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF JUDGMENTS  NZCA 429 AND  NZCA 430, CA461 & other proceedings.
Refer also to the appellant’s submissions on the application, in the memorandum of 20-Sep-2016, below.
|19-Sep-16||Appellant||Letter to Mr Kós, the President of the Court of Appeal
APPENDIX. ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
|Letter in which Clare O’Brien, the Registrar, informs the appellant that she would not pass his correspondence to the President of the Court of Appeal|
|19-Sep-16||Appellant||Letter to Clare O’Brien, in which the appellant requests the Registrar to explain how to the Court of Appeal managed to adjudicate three fictitious appeals.
Note: Ms O’Brien failed to respond to the appellant’s letter. On a subsequent request for the Registrar to respond, Mr Chris Abraham, the Deputy Registrar, replied (17-Oct-2016): “Clare O’Brien will not be responding to your letter due it’s nature and content. It is not appropriate to make unfounded accusations of court staff or the judiciary.”
|20-Sep-16||Appellant||APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM AS TO THE COURT’S ADJUDICATION OF THREE FICTITIOUS APPEALS, CA461 & other proceedings. The memorandum was also tendered as the appellant’s submissions on the recall application.
APPENDIX. ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Note: On 18-Oct-2016, the Registrar, Clare O’Brien, admitted that she and/or her staff arbitrarily and covertly withheld the documents from judges: “As per your [the appellant’s] other request: Your document entitled “appellants memorandum as to the Court’s Adjudication of Three Fictitious Appeals” and the attached appendix were not referred to the Judges of this Court. You have been told on numerous occasions that the court will not accept or consider any documents from you that are deemed scandalous. This falls into that category.”
|6-Oct-16||Appellant||Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme court
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING CIVIL APPEAL, SC116/2016
|17-Oct-16||COA||NR V DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND  NZCA 505 [17 October 2016] [on a recall application], CA461 & other proceedings|
|21-Oct-16||Appellant||Letter to Mr Christopher Patrick Browne, the respondent’s solicitor, in which the appellant requests the lawyer to explain the latter’s conduct.
Note: Mr Browne failed to respond.
|3-Nov-16||Appellant||Affidavit in support of the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
AFFIDAVIT OF [THE APPELLANT] IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO BRING CIVIL APPEAL
Note: The respondents have not challenged the appellant’s evidence and thus constructively admitted all the statements of fact contained in the affidavit.
|4-Nov-16||Appellant||TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AND IN AUCKLAND AND WELLINGTON HIGH COURTS [Email]
Note: No responses were received by the appellant.
|7-Nov-16||Appellant||Submissions on the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
APPELLANT’S (1) SUBMISSIONS ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL; AND (2) APPLICATION FOR RECUSAL
|8-Nov-16||2nd respondent||Abidance memorandum of Jackson Russell
MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT
|14-Nov-16||3rd respondent||Abidance memorandum of the District Court at Auckland
MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT
|28-Nov-16||1st respondent||MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL FOR FIRST RESPONDENT [as to name suppression]|
|28-Nov-16||1st respondent||FIRST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS IN REPLY|
|29-Nov-16||Appellant||APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM IN RELATION TO COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S ACTING IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST|
SC Registry Officer
|An email from the Supreme Court, purporting to convey an anonymous court direction to the parties
[Refer to the email thread of 2–6-Dec-16 below]
|1-Dec-16||3rd respondent||Abidance memorandum of the District Court at Auckland
MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT
|1-Dec-16||1st respondent||MEMORANDUM OF COUNSEL FOR FIRST RESPONDENT|
|1-Dec-16||Appellant||APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM IN PROTEST TO COUNSEL FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S ACTING IN CONFLICT OF INTEREST|
|2–6-Dec-16||Emails exchanged between the appellant and the Supreme Court Registry as to the anonymous court direction of 29-Nov-16. The Registrar, Mr Kieron McCarron, refuses to provide a true copy of the court direction or to identify the judge(s) who issued it, falsely claiming that it was “internal communications between the Judges and Registry”.|
|6-Dec-16||Supreme Court||Judgment of Glazebrook, Arnold and OʼRegan JJ
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT  NZSC 160
|8-Dec-16||Appellant||Application for recall
APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF JUDGMENT  NZSC 160
References [ + ]
|1.||↑|| UKPC 15, §§14, 18, 20-22.|
|2.||↑||NR v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND  NZCA 429 [12 September 2016].|
|3.||↑||NR v MR  NZCA 430 [12 September 2016].|
|4.||↑||APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF  NZCA 426, CA461/2014 and other proceedings, of 12-Sep-2015.|
|5.||↑||MINUTE OF THE COURT, CA461/2014 and other proceedings, of 27-Oct-2015.|
|6.||↑||Why Clare O’Brien is the ‘darling’ of the judges, Vince Siemer, 30-Jan-2014.|
|7.||↑||APPELLANT’S MEMORANDUM AS TO THE COURT’S ADJUDICATION OF THREE FICTITIOUS APPEALS, CA461 & other proceedings, of 20-Sep-2016.|
|8.||↑||Man O’War Station Limited v Auckland City Council (No 1)  NZPC 6, §3, 4.|
|9.||↑||APPELLANT’S APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF JUDGMENT  NZSC 160, SC116/2016, of 8-Dec-2016.|