Bank of Montreal now aware All Federal Reserve Banks are now IN CONTEMPT of the AUTOMATIC STAY expressly authorized by 11 U.S.C. 362

Updating.. re-visit shortly

Bank of Montreal now aware All Federal Reserve Banks are now IN CONTEMPT of the AUTOMATIC STAY expressly au...

Refs:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2013/12/public-legal-notice-by-united-states-ex-rel-all-federal-reserve-banks-are-now-in-contempt-of-the-aut.html

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2014/02/paul-andrew-mitchell-has-been-bundled-away-by-the-us-government.html

Janet Yellen Is Freaking Out About ‘Audit The Fed’ – Here Are 100 Reasons Why She Should Be
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2015/02/janet-yellen-is-freaking-out-about-audit-the-fed-here-are-100-reasons-why-she-should-be.html

February 26, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Janet Yellen Is Freaking Out About ‘Audit The Fed’ – Here Are 100 Reasons Why She Should Be

http://investmentwatchblog.com/janet-yellen-is-freaking-out-about-audit-the-fed-here-are-100-reasons-why-she-should-be/

Janet Yellen is very alarmed that some members of Congress want to conduct a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve for the first time since it was created. 

If the Fed is doing everything correctly, why should Yellen be alarmed? 

What does she have to hide? 

During testimony before Congress on Tuesday, she made “central bank independence” sound like it was the holy grail. 

Even though every other government function is debated politically in this country, Yellen insists that what the Federal Reserve does is “too important” to be influenced by the American people. 

Does any other government agency ever dare to make that claim? 

But of course the Federal Reserve is not a government agency. 

It is a private banking cartel that has far more power over our money and our economy than anyone else does. 

And later on in this article I am going to share with you dozens of reasons why Congress should shut it down.

[end excerpt]


More here:

--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

February 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

[ronpaul-48] FW: Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the 'Greediest Generation'

 

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA via meetup.com 

11:51 PM (10 hours ago)
 
to ronpaul-48
 
 
If you think that anyone in DC is protecting Social Security, think again because they have been reducing it by pretending that inflation is less than half of what it really is since the 1980s.  

Plus, the puppets in DC actually work for the banksters, and in 1913, the puppets in DC unconstitutionally delegated the U.S. Government's Constitutional power to print notes to the banksters who got obscenely rich and then used that power to impoverish the American people.

See the letter to Senator Alan Simpson below and pass this on.  


From: debracaso@hotmail.com
Subject: Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the 'Greediest Generation'
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 23:40:01 -0500

Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the  'Greediest Generation' as he compared "Social Security" to a Milk Cow with 310 million teats.

Here's a response in a letter from   PATTY MYERS in Montana ... I think she is a little ticked off! She also tells it like it is!

...........................................................................................

"Hey, Alan, let's get a few things straight!!!!!

1. As a career politician,

you have been on the public dole (teat) for FIFTY YEARS.

 

2. I have been paying Social Security taxes for 48 YEARS (since I was 15 y ears old. I am now 63).

 

3. My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in 'an interest bearing account' for decades until you political pukes decided to raid the account and give OUR money to a bunch of losers in return for votes , thus bankrupting the system and turning Social Security into a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

 

4. Recently, just like Lucy and Charlie Brown, you and "your ilk" pulled the proverbial football away from millions of American seniors nearing retirement and moved the goalposts for full retirement from age 65 to age, 67. NOW, you and your"shill commission"  are proposing to move the goalposts YET AGAIN .

 

5. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying into Medicare from day one, and now"you" propose to change the rules of the game. Why? Because "you" mismanaged other parts of the economy to such an extent that you need to steal our money from Medicare to pay the bills.

 

6. I, and millions of other Americans, have been paying income taxes our entire lives, and now you propose to increase our taxes yet again. Why? Because you "incompetents" spent our money so profligately that you just kept on spending even after you ran out of money. Now, you come to the American taxpayers and say you need more to pay off   YOUR debt.

 

7. To add insult to injury, you label us "greedy" for calling "bullshit"  to your incompetence . Well, Captain Bullshit , I have a few questions for YOU:

       1. How much money have you earned from the American taxpayers during your pathetic 50-year political career?

       2. At what age did you retire from your pathetic political career, and how much are you receiving in annual retirement benefits from the American taxpayers?

       3. How much do you pay for YOUR government provided health insurance?

       4. What cuts in YOUR retirement and healthcare benefits are you proposing in your disgusting deficit reduction proposal, or as usual, have you exempted yourself and your political cronies?

 

It is you, Captain Bullshit , and your political co-conspirators called Congress who are the "greedy" ones. It is you and your fellow thieves who have bankrupted America and stolen the American dream from millions of loyal, patriotic taxpayers. And for what? Votes, your job and retirement security at our expense,you leech.

 

That's right, sir. You and yours have bankrupted America for the sole purpose of advancing your political careers. You know it, we know it, and you know that we know it.

And you can take that to the bank you miserable son of a bitch .

 

NO, I did not stutter.

 

P.S. And stop calling Social Security benefits "entitlements".   WHAT AN INSULT!!!!

I have been paying in to the SS system for 4 8 years.   It's my money-give it back to me the way the system was designed and stop patting yourself on the back like you are being generous by doling out these monthly checks.

 

EVERYONE!!!

If you like the way things are in America delete this.

 

If you agree with what a Montana citizen, Patty Myers, says, please PASS IT  ON!!

___
 

Hey Deb, 

Re: "
My Social Security payments, and those of millions of other Americans, were safely tucked away in 'an interest bearing account' for decades..."   

Its a bullshit lie Deb. For the truth see: 
  http://informationjunkie.com/tbloa/The%20Biggest%20Loophole%20of%20All%20(2001).pdf
Read pages 113 through 134.  
(
also see page 107 starting with the last two paragraphs and read through page 112)
so you can start spreading the truth about Social Security, Medicare, etc instead of re-circulating 
the bullshit lies that are constantly regurgitated on the internet.

You can't make good assessments or good decisions based on false information. The Freedom 
movement is awash in garbage like the (below) post you forwarded.....probably spread by the government
itself in order to keep the population running in circles instead of hanging politicians. It is dishonest
and we do our fellow citizens (co-owners of the Republic) a huge disservice by not correcting this crap when
it comes our way.

'nuff said,

 

Jake

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes."    

                                                                           ~~~ Mark Twain

 ___

 

Better yet, go here:

 

WWW.CurrencyAlert.US

 

and get the most important three little books in America today......

 

 

 

and order one of these:  http://www.amazon.com/The-Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal/dp/0912986212

so that you will actually know what you are talking about  ...... instead of taking someone else's word for it.

 

 

 

Jake

 

 

 

"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."   ~~~ George Bernard Shaw

___

Drew:

Okay, , i understand that the FED was created in 1913,  it's not a federal govt bank, it is a private bank , there was that secret meeting at the time on jeckell island in GA,,etc etc,,,i wikipediad the thing
 
Can someone tell me who(the real names) the Current private shareholders of this Bank are?? .....if its banksters, then who? Jamie Dimon? Lloyd Blankfein?  that Rothschild dude?......anyone know the actual names of current beneficiaries of this FED Bank?
 
And the way these shareholders get paid is thru all the billions in interest of the US bonds/treasuries the FED has bought?

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA:

Almost everything that everyone believes is bullshit.  For instance, most people don't realize that the U.S. government has the Constitutional power to issue notes and coins, that it gave away that power to some crooked banksters in 1913, that they have been issuing notes which are not redeemable for anything from the government for decades, and therefore, that the whole debt could be eliminated by simply taking back the power to issue notes which was unconstitutionally and illegally given to banksters 100 years ago.

___

Drew:

Forgive me for asking , but could someone give me like three actual real names of these banksters?......so often i here this stuff about the Fed & 1913, but i cant give any real names of the beneficiaries/shareholders from back the in 1913 or now in 2015....

___

RD:

THE BOOK "THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND" WRITTEN BY ED GRIFFIN GIVES ALL THE NAMES THAT ATTENDED THAT MEETING IN 1913.

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA:

Maybe Jake has that info.  It is hard to find, but FDR's family was one of the original FED bankster families, and he stole our rights to enforce the law by passing the Federal Rules of Procedure which eliminated our right to petition for a redress of grievances by presenting evidence to grand juries and asking for an indictment and our right to trials by juries in civil actions by allowing a judge to grand summary judgment if he thinks that there are material no facts in dispute and one side should win without bothering with that quaint old jury trial.  

Fore more info, see http://tiny.cc/3uvn3wSee and see what George Carlin had to say about our rights at  http://tiny.cc/5fqlox

Mark

___

Drew:

Thank you....and how about simply one name for today's times?

___

Mark A. Adams, JD/MBA:

As I said earlier, it is hard to find that info.  FDR's family was one of the original FED banksters as were the Rockefeller and Morgan families.  I expect that Griffin's book or his web site may have some good info about who was involved, but I've never bothered to check into that as the FED's abuses are due to the theft of our rights by FDR to secure justice.  If those rights were restored, then the FED wouldn't be able to abuse its power.  Of course, the FED should also not be allowed to control issuance of U.S. notes, but I think that is far less important than the theft of our rights to petition for redress and to jury trials. 

___

Drew,

 

Full names & relationships are given in this video which I sent out to all of you on Feb 1, 2015:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM   

under the subject line "Now You Know  -  JFK"

 

I don't recall the names. (For some reason, personal names don't stick with me very well unless I make a substantial effort to plant them in memory)  Most were unfamiliar to me, with the exception of the surname "Rothchild".  When you watch the video......write them down......and you'll be able to relay them to the rest of us.

 

Jake

___

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
to: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
cc: Juan Schoch <jvschoch@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM
subject: Re: [ronpaul-48] FW: Alan Simpson, the Senator from Wyoming , calls senior citizens the 'Greediest Generation'
Maybe both U.S. Senators need to know that
Nancy Dell Freudenthal, L. Robert Murray and
Stephan Harris have been formally charged
with kidnapping and attempted murder,

because ALL THREE WORK IN THAT SAME BUILDING:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/hill/civil/vcc6/

 
You can send a "Courtesy Copy" to Alan K. Simpson

if you can find his "retirement" address:

February 25, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Move Over, Jihadists — "Sovereign Citizens" Seen as America’s Top Terrorist Threat

But ... BUT ... hasn't the U.S. Supreme Court already identified the American People
as "sovereigns without subjects"?

I'm confused:

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chaptr11.htm


The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing.  They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives.  They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty.

 

[Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1856)]

[emphasis added]

 

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law;  but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.  And the law is the definition and limitation of power.  It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision;  and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgement, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage.  But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth "may be a government of laws and not of men."  For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.

 

[Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

[emphasis added]

 

In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution.  [cites omitted]  The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains.  The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.

 

[Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)]

[emphasis added]

 

No discussion of sovereignty would be complete, therefore, without considering the sovereignty that resides in "US", the People.  The Supreme Court has often identified the People as the source of sovereignty in our republican form of government.  Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to every State in the Union a "Republican Form" of government, in so many words:

 

      Section 4The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ....

 

[Constitution for the United States of America]

[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]

 

What exactly is a "Republican Form" of government?  It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People and exercised by the People.  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of "government":

 

      Republican government.  One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.  In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;  Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.

 

The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation of governments in Europe, and government in these United States*** of America, as follows:

 

      In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State;  and generally includes legislative and judicial authority. ... Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact.  In America, however, the case is widely different.  Our government is founded upon compact.  Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.

 

[Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)]

[emphasis added]

 

I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad;  but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States.  They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government.  Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens.  They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management.  If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented.  Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.

 

[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870)]

[emphasis added]

 

The people of the United States***, as sovereign owners of the national territories, have supreme power over them and their inhabitants. ... The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty, which restrain all the agencies of government, state and national;  their political rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of the congress of the United States**.  This doctrine was fully and forcibly declared by the chief justice, delivering the opinion of the court in National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129.

 

[Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885)]

[italics in original, emphasis added]

 

All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States* not included in any State must, necessarily, be governed by or under the authority of Congress.  The Territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States**.  They bear much the same relation to the General Government that counties do to the States, and Congress may legislate for them as States do for their respective municipal organizations.  The organic law of a Territory takes the place of a constitution, as the fundamental law of the local government.  It is obligatory on and binds the territorial authorities;  but Congress is supreme and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the People of the United States***, except such as have been expressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the Constitution.

 

[First National Bank v. Yankton, 101 U.S. 129 (1880)]

[emphasis added]

 


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

February 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: Thomas Joseph Brown, Defendant-in-Error; Crown ref CIV 2013-088-003345

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: "Thomas J. Brown" <thomas@thomasbrown.org>
cc: "Hensen, Adell" <adell.hensen@justice.govt.nz>,
Huriwaka & Dawn Harris <huri42@hotmail.com>,
Marcellus & Anahera <marcdnz@hotmail.com>,
SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:32 PM
subject: Re: Thomas Joseph Brown, Defendant-in-Error; Crown ref CIV 2013-088-003345
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
 
Ladies and Gentlemen:

Once again, the information now available to my Office
calls for the conclusion that Article 14, Section 7
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

has been violated, at a minimum, in the matter of Thomas Joseph Brown:

http://supremelaw.org/ref/treaty/covenant.htm


Article 14
7.   No one  shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an
offence for  which he  has  already  been  finally  convicted  or
acquitted in  accordance with the law and penal procedure of each
country.

Conclusion:  Mr. Brown has already been acquitted by a jury of his peers and,
for that reason he is not liable to be tried again for any offense for which
he has already been acquitted.
 
Thank you for your continuing professional consideration.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

 


On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Thomas J. Brown <thomas@thomasbrown.org> wrote:
February 23, 2015 A.D.

To: Adell Hensen, Case Manager
 
Greetings Adell,
 
With All Rights Reserved I offer my sincere apologies for not being able to make Whangarei District Court this 23rd day of February 2015, I am simply too ill to attend, as confirmed by a Medical Doctor.
 
Therefore, my appearance (special) by way of documents is attached as follows:
 
1.  Deed of Power of Attorney to Marcellus-Rex de Pavelly to speak on my behalf in this matter (Marcellus will present the original Deed in Court)
 
2. Actual and Constructive Notice of Requirement of Due Process to Judge KB de Ridder presenting my Agreement with the Commissioner and a further letter from Dr Twentyman on my medical condition.
 
3. Actual and Constructive Notice of Agreement of the Parties Between Naomi Fergusson, Commissioner of Inland Revenue and Thomas Joseph Brown February 18, 2015
 
4. Medical letter of February 18, 2015 from Dr Twentymann which in conjunction with the previously presented medical letter of January 22, 2015 further evidences medical reason for my physical absence.
 
5. Suicide over Tax article, The Truth January 22, 2009; for notice of the Court of non-statutory IRD "dirty tricks" contributing to my late wife's suicide and their subsequent ongoing unlawful harrassment of myself, which has contributed significantly to my present ill state of health.

Thank you.

Honourably,
/s/ Thomas
Thomas Joseph Brown
Defendant-in-Error

February 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: Warning to International Investors: New Zealand's Railroad to Injustice

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: wshinfo@mfat.govt.nz
cc: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>,
"Thomas J. Brown" <thomas@thomasbrown.org>
date: Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 7:20 PM
subject: Re: Warning to International Investors: New Zealand's Railroad to Injustice
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
 
Greetings Thomas Joseph Brown:
 
Your associates and other contacts in the USA and New Zealand must also recognize that
the banks which received stock originally issued when the Federal Reserve system
was established, include several of the same banks which now maintain offices in The City
of London.  Because the United States has now declared formally its insolvency as to all
obligations allegedly owed to all regional Federal Reserve Banks, those same banks
are now IN CONTEMPT of the AUTOMATIC STAY expressly authorized by the
U.S. bankruptcy law at 11 U.S.C. 362:

http://supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm  (see PROOF OF SERVICE)
http://supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm


I trust that this information will satisfy as ACTUAL NOTICE to all
whom it may concern.


Cc:  Honorable Ambassador, New Zealand Embassy, Washington, D.C.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


 
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Thomas J. Brown <thomas@thomasbrown.org> wrote:
My experiences as written in 2012: 

https://newzealandjustice.com/entry.php?15-Warning-to-International-Investors-New-Zealand-s-Railroad-to-Injustice

Warning to International Investors: New Zealand's Railroad to Injustice

February 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Warning to International Investors: New Zealand's Railroad to Injustice

from: Thomas J. Brown <thomas@thomasbrown.org>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: "supremelaw@googlegroups.com" <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 6:17 PM
subject: Warning to International Investors: New Zealand's Railroad to Injustice
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com

My experiences as written in 2012: 

https://newzealandjustice.com/entry.php?15-Warning-to-International-Investors-New-Zealand-s-Railroad-to-Injustice

Warning to International Investors: New Zealand's Railroad to Injustice  

New Zealand likes to portray itself as a modern business-friendly location for wealthy investors looking to immigrate. This portrayal is certainly a dangerous illusion which can lead to disaster if one puts all their 'eggs' in this 'one basket.'

Writing as a long-time immigrant here, thanks to marriage to a local, I have experienced first hand the behind the scenes corruption the NZ government will dish out to anyone who has the temerity to stand up for their rights.

In my case a private trust made a minor investment in an offshore scheme which fell over when the government shut it down, claiming it as a Ponzi scheme. As the operator dropped dead the day before he was going to 'prove the Crown wrong' in court, we will probably never know the truth. However, it appears to have been a questionable investment where principal was returned and therefore there was no income.

Hundreds of trusts who had invested were viciously attacked by the IRD. Old folks lost their homes, men of 75 had to return to menial work to survive. The trust I was involved with filed proper IR6 returns which the IRD ignored. An initial 'default assessment' of $1500 or so which by operation of NZ legislation should have been put to rest by the filing of the IR6s has now many years later ballooned to almost a million dollars.

In the process my late wife committed suicide (2007) in large part due to fear of the IRD making up outrageous amounts in 'trying to steal our farm', and when I complained to the Commissioner and the Minister of Revenue I was met with extreme evasiveness, lies and stonewalling. Official Information Act requests were sometimes partially responded to, always late. At one point I asked under the OIA what exact law was the alleged debt being claimed under, as no proper assessments were ever disclosed by the IRD. The ever-evasive Office of the Commissioner (in a different building than the Commissioner's actual office!?) replied that they had twenty days to decide whether or not they would provide an answer. About 30 days later they referred to a letter of years earlier which didn't answer the question. A tail chasing exercise, which from the logical point of view confirms that there never was any proper tax claim against the trust.

It was also discovered that the IRD was sending certain correspondence to a very old personal address, from years before the trust was even settled while concurrently they were corresponding directly at a current address. This was to make it look like we weren't responding. I filed a OIA request to find out who came up with that strategy and was met with more direct lies.

One thing is for sure, the Office of the Commissioner is incapable of providing direct answers or telling the truth. The Minister, Peter Dunne, avoided everything, even when I asked him directly to handle matters in his office since the Commissioner was being so evasive. Mr Dunne merely forwarded that letter to the Commissioner. And they have the nerve to call these people "Honourable"!!!

The IRD racket is, that if you fall out of someone's favour, they have an 'investigator' make up false numbers to scare you into some sort of action. My accountant at the time, a former IRD agent, told me that she was offered a job in investigations, but after starting in that department she quit in horror and disgust at what she termed "sociopathic behaviour". The 'investigators' would seek out easy victims and then make up large assessments (her experience was in the 1990s) usually forcing some sort of settlement as the dispute process is convoluted and intentionally difficult to navigate. I asked if they received commissions on receipts, she said that no, they weren't allowed commissions by law, so they got 'salary enhancement packages' on the loot they garnered through their unethical behaviour.

So you get a made up assessment, plucked from thin air with not one person anywhere who actually signed a piece of paper and did a proper calculation. Then the IRD takes you to the District Court, where the judge is not allowed to query the 'assessment' (section 109 of the Tax Administration Act), so you lose before you get in, a rigged game.

Then if you can't pay, which in my case the amount was near $900,000 at the time (outrageously out of proportion to anything I ever earned), you are taken to the High Court in bankruptcy proceedings.

Now this is an interesting experience which I hope nobody reading this ever has to deal with. In my case I did a part 5 voluntary insolvency, all done properly. The IRD never responded to being served to produce proof of debt. When I went to court to have the insolvency sealed the IRD was there and Associate Judge Christiansen ignored the facts before him and let the IRD get their way, even though it was clearly against court rules and statute. I was shocked at his mean temperament and avoidance of proper procedure, he was certainly out to get me regardless of fact, law and procedure.

I filed several motions trying to get more info out of the IRD, the matter ended up before Associate Judge Bell who declared the bankruptcy with open unheard motions before the court. He tried to convince me that they had been heard, but the fact remains that there is no evidence anywhere in the High Court records that the filed motions were heard. If I was wrong and overruled I can accept that, but to dodge around them and get lies from the bench, that is another, and should be of concern to any intelligent honest man or woman.

The bankruptcy action was against me "as trustee" of a trust. But when Bell declared the bankruptcy a notice that I was personally bankrupt was sent to the Official Assignee. I went to the High Court registrar's office and pointed out the error. The registrar apologised for the error and sent a corrected notice to the OA.

The Official Assignee refuses to acknowledge that it was a trust made bankrupt and has persistently attempted to force me into acting as though the bankruptcy was personal. Even though it was clear that I was railroaded by corruption I told the OA that I would comply if I was properly noticed as per the alleged adjudication "as trustee". I was never served properly in any capacity.

Then I was charged with the horrendous CRIME of not filling out a Statement of Affairs "without reasonable excuse". It appears that reliance on NZ Statute is definitely not a "reasonable excuse" for not obeying aberrant and ignorant govt officials. Currently facing up to 12 months in jail for this sordid offence!

Here is an edited paste from the Declaration I submitted with a Statement of Affairs to avoid prosecution:     

I have against my free will, been compelled to sign the attached “Statement of Affairs” (Exhibit “A”) from the Ministry of Economic Development outside the capacity of the bankruptcy adjudication of JOE BLOGGS AS TRUSTEE IN THE XYZ TRUST, therefore said “Statement of Affairs” Exhibit “A” is signed affirmed and protested under duress per minas.
 
It is my sincere belief that the Registrar of the High Court at Auckland and the Ministry of Economic Development via the Official Assignee have made numerous material errors of fact and form and as a consequence of these errors there is no basis in law for the demands against me or this Summons by Information (Attached as Exhibit “B”) initiated by an Informant unknown to me.
 
The multiple errors are:
 
1. As I understand due process, the High Court Rules require that judgments be signed, sealed and served before they can be acted upon. High Court Rule 11.13(1) states that “A step may be taken on a judgment before it is sealed only with the leave of a Judge.” There is no record nor is it claimed that a Judge has given such leave.
 
2. Never was a signed and sealed judgment been served upon me in any legal capacity. There has been no suggestion that the judgment was ever signed and sealed. The Informant’s unsigned Summary of Facts filed with the Summons Exhibit “B” does not claim service of a sealed judgment, nor a sealed order.
 
3. Without a signed, sealed and served Order of Adjudication of Bankruptcy in Form B16 no steps can be taken by the Official Assignee. In pursuing this matter in present form the Official Assignee is acting improperly, perhaps mistakenly, but certainly ultra vires of its statutory powers and obligations rather than correctly or properly adhering to either the spirit or the letter of the law as required.
 
4. There being no service of an original Form B16 sealed order as required, the Official Assignee appears to be acting in error by relying upon a notice from the Registrar of the High Court pursuant to Section 58 of the Insolvency Act as being equivalent to a signed, sealed and served Form B16 order.
 
5. In my case the Official Assignee received the Section 58 Notice in the name adjudicated “BLOGGS Joseph as Trustee in the XYZ Trust”. (Attached as exhibit “C”.) In error the Official Assignee has failed to abide by the terms of said Section 58 Notice “C” from the High Court, and it has not addressed any notices, correspondence or requests to the capacity of the legal person subject to adjudication.
 
6. I took advice at the time from a retired Crown prosecutor, who spoke as a friend and wishes to remain anonymous, that the Official Assignee is bound to address the exact legal person as is stated in an Order of Adjudication (which I have not seen in this matter) as notified by the Registrar of the High Court as being subject to bankruptcy. The Official Assignee must act in accordance with the authority granted in statute and is restrained by it. The Official Assignee’s Office is not free and loose to “conjure up names” of alleged bankrupts nor arbitrarily extend its own jurisdiction but rather must precisely conform and operate within the limits of its statutory obligations due to it only being a creation of statute and not a real person.
 
7. Said counsel also explained to me how a trust should properly be bankrupted, his explanation conforming to logic and law: The trust is named as the debtor, and then the trustees are added as respondents. The trust should then be wound up similar to a company and if the trustee is not indemnified by the deed to the limits of the realisable value of the trust corpus, then he or she then becomes responsible for excess debt remaining after trust assets are liquidated. To style it so bluntly as the IRD did in process provides that only trust assets are potentially at risk with nothing personal to the trustee, yet the Official Assignee mistakenly treats this matter solely as a personal bankruptcy.
 
8. No approaches, requests or demands have ever been made from the Official Assignee nor any agent deputised by the Official Assignee to the legal person adjudicated bankrupt. That is “BLOGGS Joseph as Trustee in the XYZ Trust”.
 
9. Indeed, Summons “B” is addressed to a third legal name, “Joseph William Bloggs”, in respect of which the Official Assignee has never received any Section 58 Notification,
 
10. The Official Assignee has never served on me a notice in any legal capacity that complies with Section 68(1)(b) Form 1 of the Insolvency (Personal Insolvency) Regulations 2007. Nor has the Official Assignee ever claimed to have served such notice on the legal person subject to bankruptcy.
 
11. I stated from the inception of the Official Assignee’s deputy or agent Marc Graham contact with me that I would fill out the form if and when I was properly noticed in the adjudicated capacity, which seems entirely reasonable if law is to have true value. Mr Graham responded that it doesn’t make any difference, without him providing any statutory reference or grounds whatsoever for such an imprecise claim.
 
It is my experience that some officials appear ignorant of their responsibilities and fail to administer the law according to the proper terms and provisions contained within their authorising statutes. The Official Assignee has clearly not acted within its statutory powers in this matter, correct procedure according to the statutory rules has not been followed.
 
I understand that by virtue of section 67(8) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 the burden of proof is reversed with the informant having to prove absolutely nothing while I on the other hand would be burdened with the impossible task of proving the negative. I am also aware from other matters and counsel that my election for trial by jury which is guaranteed in statute is likely to be denied me.
 
Having lost confidence in the integrity of the judicial process and under direct threat of imprisonment I have filled out the Statement “A” to the best of my knowledge and ability according to the apparent tenor of the adjudication despite knowing that the alleged bankruptcy does not exist at law and that I have simply been coerced per minas into agreeing to a voluntary bankruptcy. 
 
 
And of course the OA has decided to continue to pursue the failure to file "without reasonable excuse" prosecution. When I spoke with the Ministry of Economic Development 'investigator' following my forced filing of the Statement, he said that the prosecution had to continue because that was what "Crown Law" ordered. Yet when I first went to court and spoke with the lawyer from Crown Law and asked that the matter be rescinded, I was told that they couldn't because they were under orders from the same investigator. So somebody is lying, which at this point shouldn't be a very big surprise to the reader.

So what is the point of the prosecution? Good question that nobody seems able to answer. My take is that it is punishment for expecting government officials to act properly and follow statute precisely. Please don't laugh too hard! This mess started in 2005, now it is 2012. My health has seriously deteriorated, any and all business and productivity has been ruined. What does one do after years in court with corrupt officials who act with clinically defined sociopathic behaviour? Nobody has ever shown that I have actually violated any statute, and nobody in government has ever responded directly to my queries and filings regarding the exact application of the laws. They probably can't afford to, it would expose their racket.

And that's what the New Zealand government appears to be, a racket. For example if you are taken to the High Court and it appears you get a "Judgment", what you actually get is a letter from the Registrar which states that here is a Judgment of High Court Justice William Soandso under High Court Rule 11.5; yet if you examine the alleged judgment, not only is it not signed by a High Court Judge or Justice (it will be signed "SOANDSO J"), it definitely does not conform to rule 11.5. If you don't believe me then check for yourself, I have a few of them. I've written the registrar on this and have not had the courtesy of response. In common vernacular one would term this "racketeering" instead of "justice."

As this is all still in motion I will continue to update this. I have naturally left a lot of the story out for brevity, as I want to get the main message out. If you are thinking of investing or immigrating to New Zealand, please think twice. The common people here are awesome, it is a lovely country. But there is no justice in the courts, and if you fall foul of some petty bureaucrat you will spend years of wasted time and certainly be left wondering at how so many people in government can act so dishonestly. Are they brainwashed or rather in some secret club where the rewards for destroying the fabric of society are unknown and unfathomable to the average man or woman?

The World Justice Project somehow mistakenly rates New Zealand as one of the least corrupt jurisdictions: http://worldjusticeproject.org/?q=ru...untry_Profiles ... it's obvious that their level of investigation is either incompetent or they are simply part of the global coverup, as NZ is certainly not the only country where these problems of judicial corruption exist.

So all things considered, don't put all your eggs in this basket!

UPDATE: I was convicted of failure to sign a form that I signed and received 70 hours of "community service" which involved washing vans used to transport other "community service" convicts to work projects.

Just further confirmation that fact, law and procedure have no standing in New Zealand courts if one is a targeted individual.

February 22, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

“A Trojan Horse Attacks Article VI,” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., Private Attorney General (18 U.S.C. 1964)

“A Trojan Horse Attacks Article VI”

 

by

 

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

 

All Rights Reserved

 

 

     I was born in 1948, at high noon on the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere, in close proximity to the intellectual origins of the American Revolution -- Worcester in the Commonwealth Massachusetts.

     Mom said I was late, and hungry too.  Her doctor gave me 72 hours to live, so your reading this is some kind of small miracle.  Many others would follow.

     At UCLA in the 1960s, I was graced with 2 classes taught by political science Prof. Richard Longaker, twice voted undergraduate professor of the year campus-wide.

     His first class in constitutional law was always hilarious:  the Fire Marshal was always waiting at the podium, to expel overflow from the aisles and window sills.  Longaker would beam, every time.

     It wasn’t until my early 40s before my love for Law began to flourish.  I found great delight reading the U.S. Constitution backwards, beginning with the Bill of Rights.

     In this way, it wasn’t long before I encountered the Oath of Office Clause in Article VI.

     The intervening years also guided me to conduct what we now call the credential investigation -- a nationwide effort to compile OATHs required of all Federal Judicial officers.

     Little did we know, when this investigation began, how controversial the findings would become.

     In short, roughly one-third to one-half of all Federal judges, magistrates, clerks and deputy clerks have turned up withOUT one or more of the credentials required of them by applicable Federal laws.

     Some have flatly refused to produce any.  Of the credentials that were produced, serious even fatal flaws were confirmed in many of those documents.

     Notably, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) has published counterfeit Standard Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVITS at their Internet website.  Nobody knows just how many Federal employees have executed this “bootleg” form.  The number could be a million, or more, since August 2002.

     Federal Judges must have four (4) credentials, in proper order:  Senate Confirmation, Presidential Commission, Appointment Affidavits and Oath of Office for U.S. Judges.

     Without a valid Senate Confirmation, none of the other three are valid;  without the Presidential Commission, neither Oath is valid either; and, neither Oath is valid if it has been administered by someone lacking authority to do so.

     If you want to have some serious fun, ask the next dozen military veterans you meet if they have ever read Article VI in the U.S. Constitution:  the Oath of Office is mandated by Clause 3, right after the Supremacy Clause at Clause 2.

Try it!  Their answers may surprise you.

     Lately, Federal government attorneys have attempted to defame this writer as suffering from “grandiose and persecutory delusions” for carefully compiling written replies from the U.S. Department of Justice to our numerous requests submitted under the Freedom of Information Act for all four credentials.

     Oddly, Congress refuses to authorize an Internet database of these mandatory credentials, despite lip service to open government, and an Internet that is now wildly popular and maturing fast.

     Why the stonewalling, you may ask?  One research benefactor put it this way:  State and Federal personnel have become a Trojan Horse -- invading public offices all across America, and secretly destroying the foundation principles of our Republic.

     The next time you get stopped by police, while driving, try telling the officer you really don’t need a physical driver’s license;  you have “permission” from the DMV to operate your motor vehicle.

 

     Good luck!  You’re going to need it.

___

Ref. source:


p.s.  handwritten first draft is here:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/trojan.horse/
http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/trojan.horse/page01.gif
http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/trojan.horse/page02.gif
http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/trojan.horse/page03.gif
http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/trojan.horse/page04.gif

February 20, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Russia Ratifies $100 Billion BRICS (Brazil / Russia / India / China / South Africa) Development Bank

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 2:23 PM
subject: HUGE DEAL: Russia Ratifies $100 Billion BRICS Development Bank (Brazil / Russia / India / China / South Africa)
mailing list: supremelaw.googlegroups.com
 
http://rt.com/business/234027-russia-ratifies-brics-bank/

http://21stcenturywire.com/2015/02/20/huge-deal-russia-ratifies-100bn-brics-development-bank/


--
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

February 20, 2015 in Current Affairs | Permalink

Re: R v MEREDITH, A KARL, C KARL, BROWN, CRAIG: CRI-2013-088-003345

from: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S. <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
reply-to: supremelaw@googlegroups.com
to: Thomas Joseph Brown <alchemy2012@gmail.com>
cc: Kevin Patterson <kevinp@mwis.co.nz>,
"andyk@me.com" <andyk@me.com>,
"carolkarl@me.com" <carolkarl@me.com>,
"tim@stemcell2020.com" <tim@stemcell2020.com>,
"Hensen, Adell" <adell.hensen@justice.govt.nz>,
Huriwaka & Dawn Harris <huri42@hotmail.com>,
Ngai Tupoto Admin <admin@ngaitupoto.org>,
SupremeLaw <supremelaw@googlegroups.com>
date: Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 4:24 PM
subject: Re: R v MEREDITH, A KARL, C KARL, BROWN, CRAIG: CRI-2013-088-003345
 
Greetings Ladies and Gentlemen,

Our continuing investigation of Human Rights Treaties has confirmed,
once again, that New Zealand did ratify the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") on or about 28 Dec 1978:

https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-4&lang=en

Therefore, it is a formal obligation imposed by said International Law
that all judicial proceedings in New Zealand must be conducted
by qualified judicial officers in Courts of competent jurisdiction.

Insofar as any such officers are concealing information about
any association, or affiliation, they may have with the Crown of England,
they are committing fraud upon all Proper Parties.

"Fraud" is variously defined as failing to disclose what
should have been disclosed.  Cf.  Black's Law Dictionary,
for example.


If New Zealand were NOT an independent and sovereign nation,
there would have been no need for New Zealand separately
to ratify the ICCPR.


Thank you for your professional consideration in the matter
now affecting our colleague Thomas Joseph Brown.


Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice (cf. U.S. UCC 1-308)




On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Joseph Brown <alchemy2012@gmail.com> wrote:

MB SMITH

CROWN SOLICITOR
MR SMITH,

 

Arrival of your email attempting commercial negotiations via intimidation is acknowledged; thank you for confirming justice has nothing to do with your business, which appears more akin to perverting the course of justice by avoiding due process.

 

You mentioned that you would send along a copy of The Queen v G & O reference (CA250/2013, 9 May 2013) if requested, so would you please send a copy by return email.

 

And along with that you are required to instantly present a copy of your lawful authorisation from Queen Elizabeth II to be proceeding in this matter under your guise of "CROWN SOLICITOR", please ensure that is attached to your return email. You are overdue and grossly negligent, having failed in your DUTY OF CARE in this essential instance.

 

It is noted that so far your paperwork has represented "THE CROWN", "THE QUEEN", and now in this "R" assumed to be "REGINA"; it appears from your legal schizophrenia that you are being intentionally deceptive for pecuniary gain. Who exactly are you representing MR SMITH? Which QUEEN, which CROWN? It appears from your persistent avoidance of answering this simple question that you are running some sort of scheme or artifice to defraud. Who do you represent MR SMITH? Who? 

 

Judge Davis ordered you directly to present FULL DISCLOSURE from the IRD, and this must also include lawful authorisation from Queen Elizabeth II to the Commissioner to enforce involuntary performance and direct taxation upon the tangata whenua of this land as you are attempting to do.

 

Your silence so far in your honourable obligation to instantly provide yours and the COMMISSIONER's lawful authorisation to proceed in this matter is taken as your confirmation that you have no lawful right to be acting as you are, as well as prima facie evidence that you intend to severely harm my being and others of our Hapu through violations of our fundamental human rights and ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE by denying due process. 

 

I offer my humble apologies if I am in error, but so far there has been zero evidence presented that there is any lawful representative of Queen Elizabeth II acting under Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 at any stage in this matter, and I fear gravely for my health and wellbeing because of this apparent evasion and deception on your part. Please correct me now if I am wrong and I shall make a most profound public apology to clear the air.

 

For the record, all the information on this matter has already been forwarded to investigative journalists and others in various countries overseas, and the matter is being closely monitored. The world will know if you are able to front up with the truth of who exactly you represent or not, your call MR SMITH!

In Honour,

 

Thomas

 
 
 
 

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:25 PM, Kevin Patterson <kevinp@mwis.co.nz> wrote:

16 February 2015

 

Mr Thomas Brown

Mr Timothy Meredith

Mrs Carol Karl

Mr Andrew Karl

Mr Craig

 

By EMAIL: 'andyk@me.com'; 'carolkarl@me.com'; 'alchemy2012@gmail.com'; 'tim@stemcell2020.com'

 

 

R v MEREDITH, A KARL, C KARL, BROWN, CRAIG: CRI-2013-088-003345

 

1.      You are each charged with criminal offences committed in breach of sections 143B(1) and (2) of the Tax Administration Act 1994.  You have elected trial by jury.  The trial is set down to commence on Monday, 23 February 2015 in the District Court at Whangarei before Judge de Ridder.  I have been assigned to prosecute this matter for the Crown.  You have each chosen to defend yourselves at trial.

 

2.      Each of the offences with which you are charged is punishable on conviction by a term of imprisonment (not exceeding 5 years) or a fine ($50,000) or both.   These offence provisions under the Tax Administration Act 1994 can be found at www.legislation.govt.nz. In fact all New Zealand legislation can be found on line at that website.

 

3.      Whilst you have every right to defend yourself at trial  and whilst I recognise that you could ultimately be acquitted, you should know that if guilty pleas were entered by you at a relatively early stage the Court can give up to a 25% discount when calculating the end sentence which might otherwise have been imposed.   This discount can be given on top of other discounts (e.g. discount for remorse, personal circumstances etc). The prospect of a 25% discount is important because depending on the charges faced, it can mean the difference between receiving an end sentence of imprisonment or home detention, or home detention and a non-custodial punishment or simply a fine.  The prospect of a 25% discount is lost if a person is convicted after trial. 

 

4.      At this time if the prosecution secure convictions in the present matter it intends seeking a term of imprisonment for each defendant.

 

5.      In terms of the charges faced and what the prosecution must prove to the requisite criminal standard to secure a conviction, there is a rather helpful Court of Appeal decision: The Queen v G & O reference (CA250/2013, 9 May 2013).  You are well advised to read this case.  If you do not already have a copy please let me know and I can arrange to send you a copy. Some relevant cases can also be found on www.nzlii.org.  For example, the tax evasion case The Queen v Brent John Gilchrist & Others [2013] NZHC 643. 

 

6.      The Sentencing Act 2006, amongst other things, also sets out the prospect of a defendant, before trial, receiving a sentence indication from the Judge.  That is, a defendant can ask the judge for an indication of his/her end sentence ‘if’ a plea of guilty was entered.  In general the judge giving the indication is bound by the indication given until the ‘offer’ expires.  Of course the judge can refuse to give a sentence indication.  Important from your perspective is the fact that a jury cannot be told that a sentence indication was sought and received and, as the case may be, declined.  The Sentencing Act can also be found at www.legislation.govt.nz.

 

7.      Other pieces of legislation which are important in any trial are the Evidence Act 2006 and the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  The former controls what evidence may be admitted at trial, the latter the overall procedure at trial.  For example, under sections 40, 43 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006 the prosecution is seeking to have evidence about historic tax evasion by Carol Karl, Andrew Karl and Timothy Meredith admitted in the present trial.  You will have the opportunity at the start of the trial to formally object or consent to the applications made by the prosecution.  If you object the judge will hear argument from the prosecution and each affected defendant.  This is set down to take place on Monday, 23 February 2015.

 

8.      I hope what I have outlined above is helpful to you but, it is important that you note that as the prosecutor I cannot advise you.  You make your own choices. You should seek legal advice from your own lawyer on all matters raised above.

 

 

 

Yours faithfully

MB SMITH

CROWN SOLICITOR

 

 

 

 

 

KEVIN PATTERSON

Senior Solicitor

Email:  crown@mwis.co.nz

February 20, 2015 | Permalink