Guide To What My Blogs Are About

The Matakana Island Litigation

Executive Summary

This was a case where judicial activism meant me as a non Maori had no legal rights. This document provides a condensed overview of a complex civil litigation case in New Zealand concerning the ownership of Matakana Island. Once I commenced the litigation the fate of the island's 10,000 acres rested in the hands of judges who, unfortunately, operate with zero accountability when it comes to their pet versions of judicial activism. While judges wield the authority to scrutinise government decisions, the government is barred from reciprocating such oversight over judicial actions.

Throughout this ordeal, it became apparent that rules, oaths of office, and established standards hold little weight when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. My grievance was straightforward: certain judges' rulings contradicted concrete evidence acknowledged by their peers and they ignored the law. This case exemplified how judicial activism effectively stripped away my legal rights as a non-Maori individual.

Following my initiation of civil litigation, certain judges determined that the Matakana land should be "returned" to Maori ownership. In this instance, they facilitated the transfer of the "sacred" land to a company named Te Kotukutuku Corporation, a private entity controlled by the leaders of Ngai Te Rangi iwi, leaving the iwi members with nothing. Shortly after the final ruling by the Privy Council, authored by a New Zealand judge, the Maori leadership sold their shares in Te Kotukutuku to property developers, reportedly earning around $100 million. Remarkably, both the media and government have remained silent on these developments. The sole Maori individual who raised objections was Sonny Tawhiao, whose death is detailed in this publication. Through this ordeal, I gleaned several insights, notably the urgent necessity to hold judges, politicians, bureaucracy, and media accountable.

We cannot rely on the current system to fulfil this task, as my observations indicate a tendency to manipulate proceedings to achieve desired outcomes regardless of legal mandates. Instances such as the Winebox Inquiry and attempts to influence the Erebus Inquiry, resulting in the detriment of a truth-seeking judge's career, underscore this concern. This pattern extends beyond isolated incidents, indicative of a broader trend propelled by globalist agendas infiltrating New Zealand.

While my focus extends beyond the Matakana litigation, it pertains to the alarming American encroachment upon our crucial strategic assets. Presently, a significant portion of Matakana falls under American ownership, as does the ownership of so many of our strategic assets, forests, corporations, banks, our foreign debt, all facilitated by legal professionals retained to advance foreign interests. The absence of a clear separation of powers within our constitutional framework grants undue influence to the legal fraternity across all branches of governance. This systemic destruction of our nation demands immediate attention and concerted action from all New Zealanders.

At the bottom of this paper, you will find The Leadership Accountability Court (LAC). It's a system I have designed with the assistance of several individuals who have Ph.Ds.in law to address this endless corruption and failure in public office, the Leadership Accountability Court (LAC) is designed to be an independent court that aims to hold politicians, judges, bureaucracy, the media, and other Responsible Persons accountable for their actions in deploying public office power.

The Matakana Island litigation in the 1990’s represented two cases.

First: Arklow v Maclean, an Equity claim- a bank’s client applied to borrow $5m when the bank decided to do the deal themselves, breaching legally accountable fiduciary obligations they owned Arklow Investments and its owner Christopher Wingate.

The second: Ngai Te Rangi iwi v Ministers of the Crown and the buyers of Matakana Island, FAR, the bank that nicked the Wingate deal, ITT and E1 . Maori were claiming the deal was illegal and that Maori should be the owner of the stolen sacred land over which lay a Treaty of Waitangi claim.

The Wingate litigation, if successful, would result in the ownership of all the assets the defendants in the Arklow case took with notice.

The Maori litigation, the second case, if successful would net them nothing.

The full report parts of which are in the second section of this paper shows certain cabinet ministers, crown lands, crown law and the judiciary perverted the course of justice to ensure Maori got ownership of that land irrespective of rules that limit use of Crown power.

Since the Privy Council decision was delivered in December of 1999 the government has been asked to carry out an inquiry into irregularities and failings by the judiciary. These requests have been rejected on the basis they would impinge on the independent judiciary even though it doesn't because the Government isn't being asked to interfere with judicial decisions, they are simply being asked to review their conduct which is the very reason for separation of power.

Direct evidence shows that certain judges Greig 94, Gault and Blanchard 98, and Henry 99 wrote judgment’s that were false, therefore unlawful.

Arklow v Maclean (FAR Financial)

Background

1. In June 1992 Arklow Investments owned by the Wingate family went to a Wellington merchant bank FAR to borrow $5m to complete a $20m purchase of Matakana Island. Instead of the bank offering terms to loan that money, they asked for $5000 to go find the money. Arklow offered the bank a deal that if they loaned $5m to Arklow they would receive a 25% share in the Arklow project and that the $5m loan would be repaid by selling the 1-16 year forest for more than the loan amount leaving Arklow debt free owning 10,000 acres of development land.

2. What Arklow didn't know was the bank was financially strained with cheques bouncing and that predicament led to their self interest action. The evidence in the subsequent litigation showed the bank immediately used the Arklow business plans and set out to duplicate the deal for themselves and in doing so breached a fiduciary obligation they owned Arklow Wingate.

3. In early 1993 Arklow Wingate placed caveats on the land title and filed a statement of claim in the Auckland High Court. From this point the judiciary had total control on deciding where the ownership of Matakana Island would end up. If Arklow won, Arklow would become the owner. If Arklow lost, FAR would retain ownership.

4. Meanwhile in early 1993 a Maori group representing the Maori tribes of Tauranga, filed a statement of claim in the Wellington High Court claiming the deal by the bank and the Malaysians was a sham and that the receiver had ignored their bid and that they should be the owner of the Waitangi claimed sacred land.

5. Part of their claim was they had a buyer for the timber. When they tried to secure that evidence they realised they needed to stop the new owners logging immediately. They dropped a log over the main road and began a well publicised media campaign that the logging was destroying sacred land.

6. A fire was started by someone in the forest. Maori leadership all over NZ, including Sir Graham Latimer and the Maori Congress screamed at the new buyers and the Crown warning them a line to protect traditional Maori land had been drawn.

7. The new buyers found the police and the court’s utterly useless trying to get the roadblock removed so they could carry on logging. They left them powerless.

8. Eventually a deal was struck and FAR, E1 sold the 10,000 acres of land and 5000 acres of 1-16 year forest to Te Kotukutuku Corporation and the Matakana Island Trust. The price was $10.4m. To fund the purchase they contemporaneously sold the young forest and 5000 acres of the sacred land for $15m to American property developers Port Blakely.

9. Greig J 94 refused Arklow’s claim to stop this deal, ordered Arklow’s caveats lifted and made the Crown position clear:

“This settlement involves a return of at least half the land to the Tangata Whenua. This is of some particular importance in light of the Waitangi Tribunal claim the Maori interests have made. There can be said, as indeed Crown Counsel said representing the *1st, 2nd and 5th defendants, that there is substantial support for the claim that Maori were unjustly deprived of their ancestral land.” * 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants- Minister of Finance, Minister of Lands, District Land Registry Office

10. After 1975 when the Treaty of Waitangi was passed into law, senior judges took on the responsibility of giving the Treaty life by using judicial power to remedy “racial injustice” in appropriate cases.

11. The Ministry of Justice website makes the relationship with Maori clear- they state:

‘The Treaty established a partnership, and imposes on the partners the duty to act reasonably and in good faith. The principle that the Treaty established a partnership and imposed on the partners the duty to act reasonably and in good faith was independently agreed to by all five members of the Court of Appeal, though it was expressed differently by each’.

12. Justice Cooke characterised this duty as:

‘infinitely more than a formality’. He stated that, ‘If a breach of the duty is demonstrated at any time, the duty of the Court will be to insist that it be honoured....the duty to act reasonably and in the utmost good faith is not one-sided. For their part the Maori people have undertaken a duty of loyalty to the Queen, full acceptance of her Government through her responsible Ministers, and reasonable co-operation.’

13. Dame Helen Winkelmann, Chief Justice of New Zealand Keynote Speech to Te Hūnga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa (Māori Law Society), Wellington 29 August 2019.

“I want to map out for you what really is the beginning of the development of an indigenous law of New Zealand and an indigenous way of doing justice to meet the very particular needs of our society. There are three forces at work in this regard. First, there is the ever-increasing recognition in statute that there is a place in our law for the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and for tikanga. Secondly, there is the work the common law does interpreting those statutes, breathing life into what would otherwise just be words on the page. And, thirdly, there is the work judges are doing, to come up with new ways of administering justice.”

14. Privy Council author of the Arklow decision Justice John Henry’s family law firm Hesketh Henry sponsor the “ Harkness Henry speeches”. The 1994 speech by Sir Robin Cooke said:

“the Courts in this field have assisted the parties to achieve voluntary settlements. The challenge of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence has been two-fold: to define the principles of the Treaty and to do what the courts can to ensure that they are given practical effect.

We have not achieved everything one could have wished. But at least in the fields of lands, forests and fisheries, some tangible results can be seen... the traditional courts and in some of their judgments an increased willingness to take into account the Treaty and the fiduciary concept.”

15. This fiduciary concept of Maori Crown partnership adopted by the judiciary clearly compromised the impartiality of the judiciary and made it impossible for Arklow Investments to get a fair hearing.

16. Within a few years of the Privy Council helping Maori, shareholders of Te Kotukutuku Corporation sold to Wellington property developers. All the cries of sacred land had been a ruse.

17. So how did this happen? None of the affidavits to support the “Maori” position were tested. All the Arklow evidence was rejected. The court stated the unlawful and violent action to get the bank to sell to TKC had nothing to do with TKC even though hard evidence including TKC correspondence, media and even the purchase agreement said “upon the signing the violence would end...”

18. The Crown’s position became untenable once their impartiality was compromised. The Matakana litigation had two competing interests after the same block of land. And once the Crown took up support for Maori Arklow’s claim was ignored.

19. Evidence showed that from meetings the defendants had with the Commissioner of Crown lands Brendan Mulholland, the Crown’s anti Wingate pro Maori policy bias was made crystal clear.

20. It became impossible for the Crown to provide an impartial court for Arklow to prosecute its commercial dispute with FAR Financial.

21. The TKC contract to sell the 5000 acres to Blakely Pacific Greig J was ordered to be sealed and hidden from Wingate. That contract had TKC / Maori guarantees there were no claims against the land or Arklow’s constructive trust claim. The Treaty claim was never Te Kotukutuku Corporation’s to claim, they just used it to seduce the crown. Sonny Tawhiao was the hard worker and applicant for the Treaty of Waitangi claim.

22. Te Kotukutuku rode a wave of cultural cringe so much so that whatever they demanded, they got Crown support.

23. The extensive evidence of extortion and corruption committed by TKC shareholders to obtain the contract to buy the Matakana assets from the merchant bank was ignored by the judges, it was supported by the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Finance, Crown Law Office and the Crown Land Office.

24. The Matakana litigation raises hard questions. For example if parliament has sole prerogative for legislation such as the Waitangi Treaty, what happens when judges attempt swaying legitimate cases to favour Maori?

25. The laws to protect the Wingate family were ignored as senior executives of the Crown agency went on a rampage of unlawfulness.

26. A good amount of work identifying the manipulation of evidence and law has been done. The 1997 trial judge’s finding in favour of Arklow is extensively covered by the 1998 Court of Appeal dissenting judgment of Sir Ted Thomas who lays out the chronology of hard evidence quoting documentation and cross examination from the substantive trial which are exact and free from any fault.

27. Thomas J (CA 1998) wrote:

“I would be less than frank if I did not confess to a lack of satisfaction, and certainly no pride, in a judgment as long as this judgment. But I also feel that the length is not entirely of my own making. Once this Court accepted counsel's invitation to enter upon a complete review of the facts, there is no alternative but to undertake a thorough review of the evidence. Having regard to the fact that the hearing before Temm J lasted three weeks and that in that time he heard the evidence of 30 witnesses, this is necessarily a formidable task. Once in issue, there is no substitute for a ``meticulous examination of the facts''. See the dictum of Lord Scarman in National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] 1 All ER 821 at p 831. But I do not consider that this meticulous examination should have been required in this case. Temm J's findings were amply supported by the evidence and there are no exceptional circumstances which would justify differing from his conclusions. See Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932 per Viscount Haldane LC at p 957. Having undertaken a comprehensive examination of the evidence, however, I should make it clear that I am confirmed in my view that the experienced trial Judge in this case possessed a real advantage in making findings of fact and assessing the credibility of the various witnesses.”

28. Canadian Fiduciary law Professor Robert Flannigan referred to the Privy Council judgment of Henry J as flawed. At the time of Flannigan writing that opinion, he was unaware as to the extent at which the record of facts had been intentionally manipulated by the majority of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.

Prof Flannigan wrote:

The more curious proposition, however, was his apparent requirement for mutuality: "Put shortly, there was no mutuality giving rise to the undertaking or imposition of a duty of loyalty."' The suggestion seems to be that some sort of relationship above and beyond the receipt of confidential information was required for fiduciary responsibility.

The acceptance of confidential information, however, is a sufficient basis for fiduciary accountability. Recipients have a limited access. It is not necessary that negotiating parties ultimately agree that one will act on behalf of the other in the course of any proposed use of the information. In this case, the negotiations in which the information was disclosed in fact failed to produce an agreement.”

29. The rules that govern the courts have been built upon by previous situations which they have dealt with. Any claim based on a breach of fiduciary begins an inquiry to establish the facts. Decisions are precedent-based which lay down general statements of principle which then stand as authority in future cases. They do not merely discover legal principles concealed in the luxuriant undergrowth of social trends, they make decisions within broad limits determined by established principles. Facts are critical in any claims involving a fiduciary breach, therefore any manipulation of them is clearly an attempt to manipulate the outcome.

30. The list of unlawful actions committed against Arklow Wingate by the Crown :

Errors of law

Acting ultra vires

Breaches of natural justice

No probative evidence to support certain judgments

Procedural irregularities

Irrationality

Unreasonableness

Unconscionable conduct

Documented bias

Substantial factual errors

31. Laws involved in those breaches include:

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Section 3 Application

Section 9 Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment 48. Section 19 Freedom from discrimination

Section 27 Right to justice

Crimes Act 1961

Section 108 Misleading justice

Section 110 False oaths

Section 111 False statements or declarations

Section 112 Evidence of perjury, false oath, or false statement

Section 113 Fabricating evidence

Section 116 Conspiring to defeat justice

Section 240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception

New Zealand Illegal Contracts Act 1970

Section 7 Without having statutory authority for those assets to be dealt with

Race Relations Act 1971

Section 6 Land, housing, and other accommodation

Human Rights Act 1993

Part 1A Discrimination by Government, related persons and bodies, or persons or bodies acting with legal authority

Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

32. The evidence is clear certain Judges exceeded their lawful authority by manipulating evidence with intention to deceive. They hid and ignored incriminating evidence, breached their judicial oaths, and were ridden with conflicts of interest as they acted with obvious bias because of Crown policy the judiciary adopted to assist Maori whenever possible.

33. The leadership of Ngai Te Rangi Iwi who had been so prominent in media and in High Court affidavits sold their shares in TKC to property developers in 2007 with none of the proceeds going to the iwi. The extensive evidence of extortion and corruption committed by TKC shareholders to obtain the contract to buy the Matakana assets from the merchant bank was not only ignored by the judges, it was supported by the Minister of Lands, the Minister of Finance and the Crown Law Office and the Crown Land Office.

34. As for Sonny Tawhiao his body was found in early July 1999 in a burnt out car just months before the Privy Council case. His mistake was challenging corruption being committed by Ngai Te Rangi leadership.

35. As for any legitimacy for sacred Waitangi land claims. Out of 290,000 acres the Crown confiscated in the 1860’s, the government immediately returned 240,000 acres to Maori. Matakana Island wasn’t touched, it was never confiscated according to the Waitangi Tribunal report dated 2004. It was sold for cash in the 1870’s- 1880’s. Besides, Ngai Te Rangi aren't even from Tauranga, they were a northland invading tribe who murdered their way into the region in the 18th century.

36. Merits Review: The Australian government along with a number of other nations have a Merits Review process to ensure final decisions are legitimate. A Merits Review is the process by which the government employs a person or body other than the primary decision-maker, to reconsider the facts, law and policy aspects of the original decision and determines in this case what should have been the correct and preferable decision. The problem with this system in New Zealand would be the selection of who carries out the merit review. As noted elsewhere in this paper we have a history of coverups and special arrangements for those known in special circles which is why the LAC was designed so that complaints could be put to a randomly selected qualified jury.

Below are extracts from another paper:

Background

I left school at 15, trained as a chef, worked in a sawmill and moved to Australia in January 1980 when I was 18 where I started various small businesses. My wife and I married at St Matthew’s Anglican church Manly in July 1985. I had met Despina a year prior on the 45th floor of my apartment building, the Park Regis at 27 Park Street Sydney. I was meant to go to a meeting but somehow found myself heading up to the 45th floor, the swimming pool and laundry area and there she was sitting by the pool. I was instantly in love. She was visiting Sydney from her family farm in the Riverina with her sister, so I invited them for dinner. The next day I was busy but sent flowers. The following day we went on the ferry to Manly. On the beach I held her hand. On the ferry back I kissed her. Walking past Hyde Park we were near the fountain and the bells from the local church began and I looked at her and said:

“I have this strange feeling I’m going to marry you”, to which she replied, “I had that same feeling”. Nine months later we married. Despina was a hairdresser and I had a small business supplying food. Then I put together a deal to take over Oil Search and did a partnership with Rothwells here in Perth. We didn’t end up taking it over but It made me a millionaire by 25 after Holmes a Court bought out our position. By 1987 we started investing in New Zealand property. After a year fishing and skiing in Vancouver in 1989 we moved to NZ to start a family. The first business I set up was in closed circuit television which I sold to Brierley Investments in May 1991. In July 1991 I began assembling the Matakana Island deal.

I grew up in Rotorua in a time when people were not divided by race. We were just kiwis. New Zealand had plenty of jobs and lots of potential. It was a Fred Dagg /Edmund Hillary can do country where number 8 wire didn't just mean fencing it represented an attitude of self reliance, can do, can fix and move ahead. But something changed. As much as Rogernomics (1984) sold the idea of efficiency and smaller government, it began hiring managers who knew how to manage but didn't know how to do anything. They only knew price, they didn't understand value and they certainly didn't understand potential. They began offloading strategic assets for bargain prices that were the lifeblood of New Zealand. Geoffrey Palmer and Phil Goff began dumbing down education and promoting the idea of rights yet ignored teaching individual responsibilities. Labour began deregulating banking which opened up inflows of loan capital, they removed quotas and tariffs and began destroying kiwi enterprise creating an irreversible slide in our nation's balance sheets.

But it was the policies driven by US educated Geoffrey Palmer for special Maori rights and even opened a new department within the Department of Justice to “educate” the judiciary, the executive and government departments on how they were “meant” to handle Maori issues which changed everything. What they failed to realise is that when you allow race to be a factor in any policy decision process, it will become the deciding factor.

And so the 1990’s was the beginning of a new set of ideas of how the Crown would deal with their treatment of Maori, particularly when it came to land. My Matakana island litigation provided an opportunity for judges to be in a position where they could manipulate the law and deliver the ownership of 10,000 acres of coastal land into the hands of Maori.

Arklow was an equity case, a case where a bank had breached their fiduciary obligations. It wasn't a Treaty of Waitangi land case. Yet certain judges treated Arklow’s property rights as a form of eminent domain, and effectively cancelled my constructive trust claim over the Matakana land to satisfy the Crown’s debt to Maori despite the fact any damage done to Maori was Crown action in the first place.

Various Judges, the Minister of Finance, Minister of Lands, the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Crown Lands, assisted to deliver the ownership of Matakana Island land, and $4.4m in cash into the hands of Maori, not the iwi, not the structure representing 20,000 Tauranga Maori, but to a company called Te Kotukutuku Corporation which was owned by the management of the tribe.

The Maori leadership's extortion, threats, fires and intimidation, all well evidenced, was blatantly ignored by the Crown. The government's conduct suddenly revealed a troubling pattern of disregard for both evidence and legal principles now that Maori with a land claim were involved. When these failures have been highlighted, individuals within legal spheres, particularly academics, suggest judicial error is common.

Over the past 24 years, my complaints have been ignored. The government’s standard reply simplistically asserts that since the matters have been adjudicated by the Privy Council, justice has been served without addressing the errors within the judgments.

But the Privy Council was gagged. Years back it had adopted a policy of getting a local judge from the Dominion country from where the appeal was coming and who was familiar with local New Zealand issues to advise the law lords. In this case it was the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations to Maori. We went, we appealed, we lost and the Privy Council decision was written by New Zealand judge Justice John Henry, a point that was raised in parliament by then MP, Russell Fairbrother QC.

My New Zealand barrister Gary Judd warned me if we had Henry J on the Privy panel we would lose. Later I found out Henry J was a business partner of Maori counsel Alan Galbraith QC. Galbraith has a similar conflict of interest in the Saxmere case which eventually forced Justice Wilson to resign from the NZ Supreme Court in 2010.

The legal threshold for recusal is "the appearance of bias", not bias itself. Despite these rules and clear conflicts of interest, such concerns are brushed aside, with the excuse being that New Zealand's small size fosters familiarity among legal professionals that can’t be helped. Yet surely the ultimate measure of their conduct can be seen in what they do, what they write and for that to be when issues arise, subjected to an unbiased and meticulous scrutiny. I like the saying “I don’t care if you think I’m an idiot, just answer my question”.

The decisions in the Arklow case contain substantial errors of fact, and errors of law, which could at best be claimed are the result of simple errors. But not when they are consistently structured in what appears as a predetermined strategy which produces judgments that would horrify anyone with a reasonable expectation our Courts are safe for matters of dispute to be resolved.

It was obvious the Crown adopted a mindset that translated into one where Wingate had no legal rights because they accepted at face value the lie that Matakana Island land was stolen by white men, covered in burial sites, of great importance to Maori, and subject to a Waitangi Treaty claim.

At the appellate level, Gault J and Henry J led the charge to ensure a guilty bank had to win so that the Maori could keep the land handed to them by Greig J five years prior when on 21 March 1994 the Minister of Finance, Minister of Lands, Crown Law Office, supported Maori against me and the Wellington High Court and lifted my caveats and allowed the bank to sell our property. Greig J made the Crown position clear:

“...I deal first with validation. This settlement involves a return of at least half the land to the Tangata Whenua. This is of some particular importance in light of the Waitangi Tribunal claim the Maori interests have made….There can be said, as indeed Crown Counsel said representing the *1st, 2nd and 5th defendants, that there is substantial support for the claim that Maori were unjustly deprived of their ancestral land.”

Yet none of what the Crown did to assist Maori was for the benefit of the 20,000 members of Ngai Terangi. The Crown simply assisted corrupt Maori leadership in seizing self interest opportunities as they leveraged their special positions as tribal leaders.

Starting in the early months of 1993, the Courts had complete authority to determine who would get the Matakana assets once the legal proceedings commenced. In his 1994 Harkness Henry speech, former chief justice Sir Robin Cooke emphasised that judges would exert maximum effort to support Maori whenever the chance presented itself.

The actions of Justices Greig in 1994, Gault in 1998, and Henry in 1999 dismantled Arklow Wingate's legal rights by implementing an agenda that went beyond their authorised statutory authority to support Maori in accordance with their interpretation of ‘The Crown’s Treaty obligations’.

The Matakana Island Waitangi claim was the work of Matakana Maori researcher Mr Sonny Tawhiao whose claim was hijacked by tribal leadership to get Crown sympathy. When Mr Tawhiao complained and challenged their corruption he was later found dead in the backseat of his burnt out car in July 1999 just 3 months before the Privy hearing before Henry J 1999, killed undoubtedly to silence his criticism of Maori leadership corruption in TKC and Ngai Terangi.

The Bank

The Arklow litigation revealed that shortly after being presented with our deal, the merchant bank immediately began negotiations to sell the 17-34 year forest for $15.6 million to ITT Rayonier Ltd. It was an instant breach of fiduciary obligations. Claims of this type are ordinarily easy because of something referred to as the “Springboard Doctrine”, which evidence shows if the bank sprang into action for themselves the moment they saw our deal on June 15 1992.

Our statement of claim was lodged in March 1993 in the Auckland High Court. By 1994, the bank sought to lift my caveats in the Wellington High Court to sell the land to a Tauranga Maori group making "sacred land Waitangi" demands. Despite our existing claim in the Auckland High Court, Justice Grieg intentionally harmed Arklow by ignoring our interest in the Matakana land as he disregarded clear evidence of extortion by the Maori group and he ordered my caveats lifted allowing the bank, it’s company Caldora Holdings, to sell the land. Greig J even allowed permission for the Maori group to sell half the land to American developers Blakely Pacific to enable the Maori group to fund themselves into the deal, all using my property.

By the time we won in 1997 the fix was already organised for the appeal in 1998 where the appellate Court reversed this decision in a 4/1 ruling, exhibiting judicial activism akin to a banana republic by clearly manipulating facts and ignoring the law. We appealed that decision to the Privy Council, and in 1999, Justice John Henry delivered a judgment aligned with the Court of Appeal's findings.

Judicial Unlawfulness

Any reading of the appellate judgments shows the judges were biased by the preponderance of cogent evidence despite a presumption that judges will carry out their oath of office impartially without bias. The only test to determine bias is an analysis of the facts, but corruption at that level doesn't like any inquiries and they have the power to sweep matter under the carpet despite the fact their conduct in this case is not only inconsistent with the performance undertakings of a judicial oath, but contrary to laws and treaties set or agreed by parliament;

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Section 3 - Application (exceeded lawful authority)

Section 19 - Freedom from discrimination

Section 27 - Right to justice

New Zealand Crimes Act 1961

Section 108 - Misleading justice

Section 110 - False oaths

Section 111 - False statements or declarations

Section 112 - Evidence of perjury, false oath, or false statement

Section 113 - Fabricating evidence

Section 116 - Conspiring to defeat justice

Section 240 - Causing loss by deception

New Zealand Illegal Contracts Act 1970

Section 7 - Without having statutory authority for those assets to be dealt with

Section 6 of the Race Relations Act 1971

Part 1A: Discrimination by Government, related persons and bodies, or persons or bodies acting with legal authority of the Human Rights Act 1993

and Article 7 of the 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And Latimer House Principles regarding steps Commonwealth governments agree to implement when there are allegations of corruption in either the executive or the judiciary.

Bias

In R v Gough, Lord Woolf outlined handling allegations of judicial bias:

“ When considering whether there is a real danger of injustice, the Court gives effect to the maxim, but does so by examining all the material available and giving its conclusion on that material.”

The bias rule has a long history in the common law. A cornerstone of the modern law governing bias is the statement by Lord Hewart CJ that it ‘is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’.

The bias rule long measured this question, which is tethered to public confidence, by reference to the subjective views of presiding judges and that can be seen by what they say and what they do.

The Crown’s Obligation to Maori in Policy

The Ministry of Justice website makes the Crown obligations and relationship with Maori clear:

‘The Crown’s duty of active protection Justice Cooke stated that: ‘the duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable’.

Court of Appeal President Sir Robin Cooke characterised this duty as:

‘infinitely more than a formality’. He stated that, ‘If a breach of the duty is demonstrated at any time, the duty of the Court will be to insist that it be honoured….the duty to act reasonably and in the utmost good faith is not one-sided. For their part the Maori people have undertaken a duty of loyalty to the Queen, full acceptance of her Government through her responsible Ministers, and reasonable co-operation.’

In his 1994 Harkness Henry speech Sir Robin Cooke made the position of the judiciary clear:

“The phrase "the principles of the Treaty" was in the original Act. At no stage has the legislature attempted to define it. Of necessity therefore the courts and the Tribunal had to accept the responsibility of giving it life.”

“The simple and uncompromising words of section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 are "Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi".

“There is not much point in accepting judicial office unless one tries to accept the unwelcome or disturbing, but crucially independent, responsibilities that go with it.”

“With naturally varying emphases and language, the judgments unite in defining Treaty principles in phrases such as partnership, fiduciary duty, active protection, full spirit, the honour of the Crown, fair and reasonable recompense for wrong, fundamental concepts, and satisfactory recompense.”

“The challenge of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence has been two-fold: to define the principles of the Treaty and to do what the courts can to ensure that they are given practical effect. We have not achieved everything one could have wished. But at least in the fields of lands, forests and fisheries, some tangible results can be seen.

They have been achieved by an interaction of three forces: first, some enlightened leadership on both the Crown and Mori sides; secondly, the inquiries and reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, the concept of which as an essentially investigatory and recommendatory body may well find some counterpart in the new South Africa; thirdly, the traditional courts and in some of their judgments an increased willingness to take into account the Treaty and the fiduciary concept. The responsibility of judicial decision is quite different from that of Tribunal recommendation. The functions are complementary. All three forces are probably essential to further progress.”

Dame Helen Winkelmann, the Chief Justice’s speech to Te Hūnga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa (Māori Law Society), Wellington 29 August 2019 said:

Justice McGechan:

“ there is no doubt Treaty principles impose a positive obligation on the Crown, within constraints of the reasonable, to protect the position of Maori under the Treaty and the expression from time to time of that position . . . It is a broad obligation of good faith”

Lord Woolf of the Privy Council:

“Foremost amongst [the] principles are the obligations which the Crown undertook of protecting and preserving Maori property, including the Maori language as part of taonga, in return for being recognised as the legitimate government of the whole nation by Maori. This relationship the Treaty envisages should be founded on reasonableness, mutual cooperation and trust”

Justice Baragwanath President of the Law Commission, 2001:

“The drive for tikanga to be recognised becomes more urgent as the Crown increasingly seeks to divest itself of land and resources. Mäori are striving to have the values that underlie tikanga preserved by whatever means possible, including legislation and by the courts.

In discussing the values, we also discuss a number of related concepts. These are: tikanga tangata – social organisation; tikanga rangatira – leadership; and tikanga whenua – land.

The connections with land are reflected in all five of the underlying tikanga values identified above. Whanaungatanga or the relationship with land, mana or the power and authority which hapü and iwi derive from it, utu or the reciprocal.

In recent years, judges are increasingly being required to develop an understanding of Mäori cultural values and practices and how they apply to particular situations that confront them.

The discretionary powers of the courts are an important mechanism in enabling the common law to retain respect and acceptability in a more informed, more critical, and more demanding modern society. They allow judges to determine how principles should be prioritised to ensure that justice is best served in the instant case.

In exercising its discretion, whether sourced in statute, the courts’ inherent jurisdiction or the power of review, the court will often need to take into account Mäori values.

Courts have long been able to draw on principles and material outside the text of particular statutes when considering the interpretation or application of the statutes. They do this for a variety of purposes, one being to protect and promote other principles and values that are external to the statute.

Where the courts have stated that it is appropriate in interpreting a statute to permit or even to require reference to the Treaty of Waitangi or Mäori interests even where the statute makes no reference to it.

The judgement is also authority for a number of other notable points, including that: legislation can be interpreted and the common law developed by reference to other statutes even though they are not directly in point; the Treaty has had significant statutory recognition; Mäori spiritual values are relevant; and courts increasingly take account of treaties and other international instruments even if the statute does not mention them. The judgment includes an extensive and valuable review of many other cases concerning the Treaty.

This principle recognises the Crown obligation to protect, preserve and promote the economic development of Mäori. This includes: a duty to ensure that Mäori are now left with sufficient land and other resources for their maintenance and support and livelihood and that each hapü maintaines a sufficient endowment for its foreseen needs.”

Resource Management Act 1991

‘Treaty of Waitangi: In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi). Whether it matters greatly whether duties of good faith and fair dealing a court of equity will recognise in cases where the conscience of the court requires it are rightly described as “fiduciary” is a matter for consideration in a case where such claims arise for determination. The language of “fiduciary” obligations is now familiar in connection with the dealings between the sovereign and indigenous peoples, including in decisions of the courts in New Zealand.’

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Maori Land Act 1993

‘Whereas the Treaty of Waitangi established the special relationship between the Maori people and the Crown: And whereas it is desirable that the spirit of the exchange of kawanatanga for the protection of rangatiratanga embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi be reaffirmed: And whereas it is desirable to recognise that land is a taonga tuku iho of special significance to Maori people and, for that reason, to promote the retention of that land in the hands of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu, and to protect wahi tapu: and to facilitate the occupation, development, and utilisation of that land for the benefit of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu: And whereas it is desirable to maintain a court and to establish mechanisms to assist the Maori people to achieve the implementation of these principles.’

The Waitangi Tribunal:

‘The duty of the Crown is not merely passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable.’

Impartiality destroyed

What chance do non Maori have when the Crown have already stated their obligation is to their Maori partners?

In his address to Parliament on November 16, 2005, ex-Attorney General Christopher Finlayson cautioned against the use of imprecise references to Treaty principles, noting: “Vague formulaic references to Treaty principles, for example, constitute poor lawmaking.” The judiciary was tasked with rectifying breaches of the Treaty by the Crown without clear directives on how to navigate complex cases involving private property rights, such as the dispute over ownership of Matakana Island, as was evident in my own case. While I accept that official decision making can be driven by extra-legal factors, the Crown upheld its side of their Treaty partnership obligations at my expense. I never had an impartial Court and for that I deserve compensation.

Three Rules

The judiciary ignored three key rules relating to procedural fairness which requires decisions to be consistent with:

The bias rule— free from bias or apprehension of bias by the decision-maker.
The evidence rule—rational or based on evidence that is logically capable of supporting the facts.
The hearing rule—providing people likely to be adversely affected by decisions an opportunity to: present their case and have their response taken into consideration before the decision is made.

The Waitangi Tribunal Report

The 2004 Waitangi Tribunal Report showed how the Matakana Island land was sold by the Maori between 1860s to the 1880s. The report showed that in 1868 five thousand acres was purchased by Whitaker and Russell and the coastal 10,000 acres was bought by William Daldy between December 1869 and September 1873. Mr Daldy paid £800 for his portion. The 5000 acre farm part owned by Whitaker and Russell was bought by the government and given back to the very Maori who had sold the land in the first place and they were able to keep the money they got from the original sale. Out of 290,000 acres the Crown allegedly ‘confiscated’ in the Tauranga region in the 1860s, the government immediately returned 240,000 acres to Maori who then sold it for cash.

From the moment the Maori falsely declared Matakana Island sacred and the banking defendants transferred their stolen assets to Maori, my case against the bank became hopeless despite our lawful rights to a constructive trust claim over the land deal the merchant bank had taken from us. That strategy can clearly be seen in correspondence that referred to the defendant's meetings with the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Brendan Mullholland, and the lawyers' attempts to shake off the Arklow claim. They all knew that by getting the land on Matakana Island into the hands of Maori, their problems would go away.

As for the legitimacy of the Maori claims the land was sacred and needed to be ‘returned to traditional Maori’, they sold the lot to property developers by 2007 and the millions of dollars they received from that sale was deposited into the personal bank accounts of the very Maori leaders and their chartered accountant who had lobbied and obtained Crown support to defeat Arklow Wingate.

New Zealand companies office records show Te Kotukutuku Corporation Ltd (TKC) was owned by the Maori leadership. None of the media have ever reported this fact as if these types of things are meant to be hidden. The key substantial shareholders of TKC were Graeme Ingham the iwi accountant, Howard Palmer chairman of Ngai Te Rangi iwi, Enoka Ngatai chairman Tauranga Moana Maori Trust board, Don Shaw RMA manager was given the job to represent the iwi as required under the Resource Management Act, and John Neill chairman Matakana Island charitable trust (MIT).

Judges for Arklow Wingate

The trial judge Temm J in his High Court 1997 judgment said:

‘In this case the plaintiffs did suffer a loss from the breach of fiduciary duty. They were out-manoeuvred by the defendants who, knowing of the plaintiffs' plans, speeded up the negotiations as the correspondence reveals, and deprived the plaintiffs of a fair chance to complete their own financial arrangements. To put the matter in the vernacular, the defendants pinched the plaintiffs' information and knowledge, used it for themselves and walked away with a pocketful of money leaving the plaintiffs lamenting.’

In the Court of Appeal Justice Ted Thomas (CA 1998) began his dissenting judgment saying:

“I would be less than frank if I did not confess to a lack of satisfaction, and certainly no pride, in a judgment as long as this judgment. But I also feel that the length is not entirely of my own making. Once this Court accepted counsel's invitation to enter upon a complete review of the facts, there is no alternative but to undertake a thorough review of the evidence. Having regard to the fact that the hearing before Temm J lasted three weeks and that in that time he heard the evidence of 30 witnesses, this is necessarily a formidable task. Once in issue, there is no substitute for a ‘meticulous examination of the facts'. See the dictum of Lord Scarman in National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan [1985] 1 All ER 821 at p 831. But I do not consider that this meticulous examination should have been required in this case. Temm J's findings were amply supported by the evidence and there are no exceptional circumstances which would justify differing from his conclusions. See Nocton v Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932 per Viscount Haldane LC at p 957. Having undertaken a comprehensive examination of the evidence, however, I should make it clear that I am confirmed in my view that the experienced trial Judge in this case possessed a real advantage in making findings of fact and assessing the credibility of the various witnesses.”

“The business plan'' Mr Wingate had undoubtedly done a great deal of work in producing what he called “Arklow's business plan”. Temm J described it, correctly I believe, as a “complete workable scheme”. In broad terms it comprised the acquisition of Matakana Island for $20m, a figure at net present value (NPV) which the receivers would accept. The mature timber over 17 years old would be sold to Kanematsu at up to $15.75m. Funding would be required for the balance of $4m to $5m. In the result, the island could be acquired at no cost to Arklow and would be able to be developed as a major residential and tourist development.”

Cases of this type that find advisors guilty of breaching their fiduciary obligations result in disgorgement. Disgorgement refers to a legal remedy that requires an individual to give up any ill-gotten gains or profits obtained as a result of their breach of fiduciary duty. This remedy is used in cases where an advisor has violated their duty to act in the best interests of their client. Only in cases where the thief has passed the property to an innocent third party will that not apply. But in this case Te Kotukutuku Ltd, the Maori company, were abundantly aware of our case which is exactly why the appellate judges manipulated the facts and ignored the law to ensure Maori kept the land.

Judicial Errors

Examples of errors from the Court of Appeal majority include:

“Wingate could never settle the purchase to buy Matakana Island”

Wrong. Read the evidence as outlined in detail in the judgments written by Justices Temm and Thomas who pointed out Wingate had the backing of Kanematsu and the Spencer family for $5m to $20m if we didn't want to do the deal to sell the 17-34 year forest to Kanematsu for $15.75.

“Arklow was never vulnerable to the actions of bank FAR Financial and that the relationship wasn't fiduciary.”

Wrong. It was obvious the moment we entrusted the bank with our proposals we were vulnerable which is the very purpose of fiduciary law.

“FAR Financial were simply a broker acting on behalf of others and had no interest in buying the land and never copied the Arklow business strategies and that there was no evidence [the bank FAR Financial] copied the Arklow age class 17-34 year forest or its pricing strategy.” Greig, Gault, Blanchard and Henry write judgments announcing Arklow lose. They refer to FAR as a ‘broker’ who got Arklow’s ‘trivial’ business plans in an ‘arms-length’ relationship.

Wrong. Again the exact opposite of the documented evidence as outlined by Justices Temm and Thomas who point out the 28 July 1992 letter to ITT identifying the bank offering the 17-34 years age class for $15.6m. And they identified the bank’s letter to CML and additional affidavits stating the bank’s intention was to own the land. As for the label that the merchant bank FAR Financial were simply brokers acting on behalf of others is pure nonsense that even the defendants own lawyers noted in their correspondence with each other.

In his 80 page Court of Appeal dissenting judgment (1998), Justice Ted Thomas J wrote:

Did FAR act contrary to Arklow's (Wingates) interests?

“I do not need to dwell long on the question whether FAR acted contrary to Arklow's interests. Clearly it did. FAR's activity following the meeting on 15 June more than justifies the Judge's conclusion that the company was ``galvanised into activity''. The known steps taken by FAR may be listed as follows (15 June and 15 July are in bold type to indicate the extent of FAR's activity in the intervening period):

15 June 1992 - the meeting is held at FAR's offices.

15 June - [according to FAR verbal evidence] a discussion took place between the FAR directors as to whether to act for Arklow or ``progress the ITT path''.

16 June - the mandate was sent to Arklow.

16 June - Mr Smith rang Mr Olsen advising him that Arklow was 60 per cent complete with a deal which would suit the receivers but, as it was likely not to proceed, he would come back to Mr Olsen.

18 June - Mr Smith rang Mr Olsen again and reiterated that if Arklow's project proceeded Olsens would not be needed, and referred to a ``substantial organisation'' keen to have Olsens involved in both feasibility and, probably, management.

18 June - Mr Walkinton had a discussion with Mr Wiltshire of ITT. This was undoubtedly when ITT learned that the ``prospect on FAR's books'' was Matakana.

Last two weeks of June - FAR received Arklow's information memorandum from Mr Bailey.

Last two weeks of June - Mr Walkinton communicated with Ernslaw about Matakana and concluded that Ernslaw's proposal ``looked very real''.

Late June/early July - Mr Smith spoke to Mr Bailey on the telephone and asked him if Arklow would be receptive to dealing with another party rather than Kanematsu.

3 July - the FAR directors met with the receivers.

3 July - FAR received an information schedule and package from the receivers.

3 - 8 July - FAR requested further information from the receivers.

8 July - FAR received the further information relating to the latest age class distribution of the forestry.

10 July - Mr Smith requested a meeting with Mr Margiotta of ITT and his fellow directors in either Wellington or Auckland at any time in July or August.

Prior to 13 July - FAR arranged for representatives of ITT and the company to inspect the forest on Matakana Island.

13 July - FAR and ITT carried out a joint inspection of the forest on Matakana Island.

Prior to or on 15 July - FAR met with the receivers and sought to establish an arrangement whereby the receivers would pay FAR commission should it introduce an acceptable deal. This arrangement would preclude Arklow as it related only to purchasers ``introduced'' by FAR.

15 July - FAR wrote withdrawing the mandate.

23 July - the receivers confirmed FAR's requested arrangement for payment of a commission for a successful bid ``introduced'' by it.

Late July - FAR sought an option from the receivers which would ``nullify the competition for the option period'' - including Arklow.

27 July - a meeting was held between FAR and ITT at which FAR made an ``offer'' involving other parties to enable it to ``complete the transaction''.

13 July - 18 August - a number of further communications took place between FAR and ITT.

17 August - a draft sale and purchase agreement between ITT and FAR was sent to the receivers.

20 August - the receivers advised FAR they were not prepared to accept the option proposal.

1 September - FAR made a proposal to CML Joseph Banks Trust seeking to complete a deal under which FAR would own the land.

5 September - FAR made a proposal to Ramsey Roundwood seeking to complete the deal under which FAR would also own the land.

September - November - the deal involving FAR, ITT and Ernslaw which was finally acceptable to the receivers was put together.

19 November - the receivers executed an agreement, conditional on statutory consents being obtained, with FAR, ITT and Ernslaw.

5 February 1993 - the receivers executed an unconditional agreement with FAR, ITT and Ernslaw.”

Privy Council Decision Flawed - The Law

Professor Robert Flannigan Canadian equity expert published a statement saying Henry J’s Privy Council decision was flawed:

“One notable [and flawed] exception is the Privy Council decision in Arklow Investments Ltd v MacLean.' Although Justice Henry cited Lord Millett's remarks, he added some curious propositions of his own. He described the duty of loyalty as a "concept [that] encaptures a situation where one person is in a relationship with another which gives rise to a legitimate expectation, which equity will recognize, that the fiduciary will not utilize his or her position in such a way which is adverse to the interests of the principal". He offered no authority for this "legitimate expectation" test, nor did he employ the idea in his subsequent analysis. The more curious proposition, however, was his apparent requirement for mutuality: "Put shortly, there was no mutuality giving rise to the undertaking or imposition of a duty of loyalty."' The suggestion seems to be that some sort of relationship above and beyond the receipt of confidential information was required for fiduciary responsibility. The acceptance of confidential information, however, is a sufficient basis for fiduciary accountability. Recipients have a limited access to that information (i.e., access for the limited purposes for which such information was communicated).

It is not necessary that negotiating parties ultimately agree that one will act on behalf of the other in the course of any proposed use of the information. In this case, the negotiations in which the information was disclosed in fact failed to produce an agreement. The recipient, however, did not subsequently use the information (no benefit). Accordingly, there was fiduciary accountability, but no fiduciary breach. In conventional terms, it was straightforward. A "mutuality" requirement only truncates and misdirects the analysis. Another observation may be made. The issue in Arklow was whether the defendants had (1) breached a fiduciary obligation, or (2) misused confidential information. The Court stated that it was not necessary to consider "[w]hether or not the obligation not to misuse confidential information is properly classed as a fiduciary duty".

The Court went on, however, to insist that: "Characterising the duty to respect confidential information as fiduciary does not create particular duties of loyalty, which are imposed as a result of the nature of the particular relationship and the circumstances giving rise to it. It is not the label which defines the duty."

The point appears to be that asserting fiduciary character for the duty to respect confidences does not by itself define or establish fiduciary content. But that would be incorrect. A proper finding of fiduciary status or accountability (limited access) attracts a singular default duty to forgo self-interest. That duty is associated with a set of generic rules that have individual application as the circumstances dictate.

Those rules, however, are only derivative manifestations of the singular proscription against self-regard. In cases of breach of confidence, that proscription produces the "rule" that fiduciaries must not exploit confidential information. Accordingly, once the label is properly attached (accountability imposed), the associated proscription does automatically define the default duty.”

Robert Flannigan, “The Boundaries of Fiduciary Accountability” (2004) New Zealand Law Review, 215

Professor Flannigan was simply speaking about the judge’s failure of the law and was totally unaware Henry J manipulated key facts in an attempt to destroy evidence which proved the bank owed fiduciary obligations. But the fact Flannigan states Henry J has invented unknown concepts of law should have set off alarm bells.

I undertook this litigation based on law that had been around for hundreds of years through tens of thousands of cases. Claims in fiduciary law require an analysis of the facts. It’s a proscriptive application based on prescriptive rules of conduct. Facts are important and that’s exactly why certain judges messed with them in what they wrote which was the opposite of the record of hard facts, made up by written correspondence, contracts, diary notes and cross examination.

I entered into the litigation to protect my property rights. Banks can’t steal a client's deal for their own self interest benefit because no one would trust taking their deals to banks for funding. The very moment the bank had our business strategy we were vulnerable. The very purpose of fiduciary law is to prevent self interest action that is contrary to the client who has trusted them in a confidential environment for a specific purpose.

Prof Robert Flannigan explains in The Boundaries of Fiduciary Accountability

“Acquiring confidential information in the course of any undertaking, for example, will constitute a limited access arrangement.

The confidential nature of the information, rather than the idiosyncratic nominate character of the undertaking, attracts the accountability.

Banks explicitly or implicitly undertake to forgo their self-interest in any collateral exploitation of the information they request or receive.

A limited access arrangement exists where one person acquires access to the assets of another for a defined or limited purpose. The mischief associated with that access is that the value of the assets will be exploited for personal advantage. The function of fiduciary regulation is to control that opportunism.

Every action associated with a limited access is subject to fiduciary accountability in the specific respect that any action potentially may be opportunistic. The accountability assigned by law initially serves to define the self-denial expected of those with limited access (a guidance function) and to deter their opportunism…Accountability only becomes liability where an unauthorised conflict or benefit is proved.”

R. Flannigan [2009] NZL Rev. 375 (SSRN: 1523382).

Justice Select Inquiry

In 2002, Russell Fairbrother, deputy chairman of the Justice Select Committee, presented a $5 million settlement offer to my family. But hearing that the funds were to come from the Crown, I expressed concern about the government's stance, where acknowledged errors were allowing defendants to retain unlawfully obtained assets. I suggested that the government enact legislation to cancel the decisions of the Privy Council and Court of Appeal, thereby allowing the Courts an opportunity to rectify their mistakes. Mr. Fairbrother, seemingly acting under instructions, proposed terms for a justice select inquiry that explicitly excluded any evidence or discussion of judicial or legal misconduct, effectively concealing corruption.

I opted not to pursue the inquiry for several reasons, primarily due to the pervasive illegality of judicial conduct, which I believed necessitated legislative action, a pursuit I dedicated myself to over the years. While the $5 million was offered as a potential outcome of the inquiry, I remained sceptical of the process. I feared that despite assurances of a favourable outcome, the inquiry might conclude no wrongdoing was found, effectively closing the matter, as the terms of reference prohibited the consideration of evidence indicating judicial misconduct.

A Broken System

The Matakana litigation could have been sorted out in days. Instead, lawyers earned over $14 million in fees with the result being that Matakana land is now mostly owned by American property developers.

The justice and government systems in these types of matters are broken. The unaccountable red tape ruins entrepreneurs' opportunity for a fair go as the government intentionally acts like a giant hand brake on essential progress and as you well know entrepreneurs are the only driving force to build our nation.

This activity destroys our sovereignty as we continue to flog land, forests, farms, fisheries, telecommunications, technology, energy, and banking and replace wealth with debt. It's truly disheartening witnessing New Zealand, once renowned as a beacon of prosperity, now having millions of ordinary kiwi struggling everyday just to keep a roof over their heads and feed their families. Department of Health mental health staff are being overwhelmed by hungry homeless people. In New Zealand! My cousin who works in the ministry says they are given tents to hand out and many of the staff bring food they personally pay for in containers to hand out even though they find that a struggle on their wages and cost of living pressures. They too are suffering.

The inflation data presented over the past 40 years has been total bullshit. The treasury and the Reserve Bank say rising interest rates are necessary to curb inflation. Inflation is driven by corporate greed, manipulated energy prices via ICE and NYMEX , or capital supplies and rates manipulated by LIBOR and SOFR, BIS, BCBS,FSB and IMF. Structures all protected, all underwritten by red tape and imported globalist policies designed to destroy local business. And in the carnage the globalists take over, the facts are clear, look at the results. No wonder accountability in government is fought tooth and nail, because accountability would address the sui generis of these issues.

No Safety Net

Failure occurs because the government does not have any departments to transparently evaluate the decisions of those exercising the power of the state. Accountability is simply a system where questions are allowed to explore the thinking of the decision-maker to test the validity of their conclusions.

In 1991 Singapore set up a safety net by introducing a president who had to be highly commercially successful because he was given the power of veto if the government did anything which threatened the economic stability or survivability of the country. The role of the president of Singapore is often referred to as the “second key”. They set this up to stop politicians spending Singapore’s wealth in an act of populist self interest madness.

New Zealand doesn't have such a safety net. It claims it has 3 hands on the power each independent so that if any single hand fails the others are there to independently review the failure. Yet in practice that concept is an illusion because the issues I have raised are extremely serious yet no action despite the rules and advertised promises of accountability.

It’s all recorded behaviour which casts serious doubt on the judiciary's ability to administer justice, engage in self-regulation, and safeguard the lawful rights and freedoms of citizens guaranteed by parliament. The fact is as a nation desperate for building a competitive advantage are in fact being screwed from within by the team we trust running our nation. Lawyers have hijacked the system as their own short sighted cash-flow monopoly as they act like financially motivated gatekeepers who network with friends.

French diplomat and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 report, ‘Democracy in America’ noted that people fled Europe to the new America democracy experiment to escape the tyranny of the aristocratic class. But that democracy allowed the lawyers to take over the types of power and privileges the old aristocratic class once dominated. It’s a Commonwealth problem.

Politicians need to change the idea that unlawful activities within the judicial system can’t be reviewed. In 2024 it defies belief the Courts have the power to judicially review government operations to censure any unlawful action, yet parliament is forbidden to review let alone block when the judiciary operates unlawfully. Lawyers working in parliament have set these rules to suit themselves.

In 2004 the NZ government passed the Judicial Conduct Panel Act but structured the law to block the Judicial Complaints Commissioner from reviewing the lawfulness or accuracy of any judgment.

USSC Justice Jackson once stated: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” In other words, finality isn't necessarily delivering a correct decision, it's simply delivering a final decision which for hegemony, red tape and corruption say can't be reviewed.

The judgment’s alone provide ample evidence that what Henry J wrote on behalf of the JCPC was erroneous. What Sir Ted Thomas wrote in his extensive NZ Court of Appeal judgment validates what I am saying. It has to be said that no judgment can be relied on unless there is a vigorous and open discussion on its merits and weaknesses and that is what I have asked for and they deny it saying they can’t interfere with the “independent judiciary”. Yet I’m not asking them to “interfere”, I'm saying they need to know what the judiciary is capable of.

The UDHR, Latimer House Principles, the judicial oath, Acts of law including the NZ Bill of Rights and various other publications, advertised standards, treaties and conventions give a clear “sell”, that complaints of corruption and error will be taken seriously which should create an immediate “cards on the table” approach to ensure wrongdoing and failure by any official will be addressed.

In 2004 and 2006 among my complaints over the litigation I warned Attorney Generals’ Margaret Wilson and Michael Cullen, the public needed legislative protection from investment banks. I specifically warned them about Blue Chip Investments and Lombard Finance. The AG ignored my advice and when GFC hit in 2008 ordinary kiwi mums and dads lost over $8 billion they had on deposits with NZ investment banks which could have been prevented by the regulatory control I suggested.

Lombard

After letting a guilty bank go free, FAR Financial then helped set up Lombard Finance who appointed to their board the former Minister of Justice Hon Bill Jeffries (1989-1990) and Sir Doug Graham the former Minister of Treaty Settlements (1993-1999), Minister of Justice (1990-1999) and Attorney General (1997-1999). Doug Graham was appointed the position AG 5 December 1997 just months after I won the case in the High Court. He resigned the position December 10th 1999, just 9 days after our loss in the Privy Council.

James Baldwin once said “I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do”. Democracy only allows us to vote, it doesn’t provide us any accountability from the politicians we voted into public office. The amount of error we have received from the government has ruined any trust. Accountability within government staff is compliance even in the face of blatantly wrong decisions underscores why we need for a new system where a jury of ordinary citizens is made the people’s safety net to prevent abuse of power which has been hijacked by powerful well organised globalist money who have no interest except gut our nations using covert influence groups who use zero accountability to their benefit. Governments, politicians and senior judges fail the people because they don’t have any transparent department to evaluate the final decisions they make. As I have said, accountability is simply a system where questions are allowed to explore the thinking of the decision makers to test the validity of their conclusions and for some type of “Second Key” like a constitutional jury to decide if the exercise of power was legitimate.

If politicians, private secretaries and departmental heads say everything is just dandy then why is the nation screwed. Helen Clark once told me “People who claim the government has ‘failed them’ get accountability by how they cast their vote.” But what do our votes really get us? Today New Zealand's net debt collectively exceeds $722 billion. Reserve Bank data shows there is $347 billion worth of household mortgages across New Zealand and a huge chunk of them are in strife. I did some calculations. If interest rates on $347b in mortgages increase 4%, which they have recently, then that 4% increase will cost those already struggling kiwis an additional $1.6m in repayments every hour or $38.4m every day or $268m every week or nearly $14billion per year. This is money being sucked out of every part of the economy and that's only part of the problem we need to fix. We don’t even own the banks that are sucking those massive profits out of our economy. Their largest shareholders are American.

The Arklow case presents a clear scenario where Justices Thomas and Temm are either accurately referencing existing facts and documentation in support of Arklow or fabricating them. If the judges indeed fabricated evidence, it would be a matter of utmost gravity, wouldn't it? Similarly, if the judges who ruled against Arklow were mistaken and manipulated factual records, that would also be highly serious, wouldn't it?

However, the repercussions of their actions extend beyond the legal realm, as it adversely affected my life, inflicted harm on my family, led to the loss of Sonny Tawhiao's life, and dismantled a $17 billion project that could have been a source of pride and economic value for New Zealand. The oath our leaders swear is not to their work colleagues, not to their boss, not to fellow judges, not to some hidden agenda or fictional structure. Their oath is to the people of New Zealand, and they need to be reminded of that.

The Arklow development team.

The Arklow Wingate plan was to develop 20,000 houses, 4000 of which were either Tauranga harbour or Pacific Ocean waterfront with a development value of $17b.

We employed architects California architects Klages Carter Vail and golf course designers IMG, concept and financial analysts George Lipp from Singapore & engineers Duffill Watts and King from Dunedin. It was a brilliant, fun team.

We were going to build bridge causeways at both ends of Matakana Island with a 6 lane main highway running its full length.

An expected constant population of 120,000+

A permanent employment force of 7000+.

The Matakana airport with a runway of 3000m to handle international flights.

16600 houses, 4400 semi detached or multi units complexes along with additional subsidised accommodation for permanent & casual staff or students of the university.

20 hotels with 300 rooms each given a total of 5900 hotel rooms.

7 IMG signature golf courses.

2080 residential marinas.

2 commercial marinas with berths for 500+ boats with a minimum low tide depth of 2.5m.

4 themed parks.

9 affordable family holiday parks with caravan, cabin and tents.

A myriad of leisure and entertainment facilities the length of the island.

The main inner harbour with a 60 acre water surface area surrounded by a promenade boardwalk with shopping and entertainment and food. Multiple commercial centres with the largest surrounding the airport.

The envisioned establishment of a postgraduate university, funded through profits generated by land development activities, had been meticulously planned. This proposed institution aimed to propel advancements in governance and public service, with a focused effort on enhancing national competitiveness across law, commerce, and political science. A cornerstone of this initiative was the creation of a faculty dedicated to advanced engineering, specialising in robotics systems for various applications in industrial and residential construction. Plans were laid out for a science faculty with a key emphasis on exploring alternative energy systems. Research areas were to include kinetic and chemical energy sources such as hydrogen, thorium, and photosynthetic generation employing cyanobacteria. And storage technologies such as redox flow, molten salt, and lithium salt batteries were also within the scope. As was research focus in biochemistry and molecular biology, particularly emphasising protein structure, molecular engineering, and bacteria utilisation for bioleaching titanomagnetite iron sands along the west coast. I even had my eye on Allied Mining which back then was available for less than $12m. Regrettably, these plans were halted by the decision of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council.

Losses attributable to errors by Crown and judges Greig, Gault, Blanchard and Henry

Current values

Land - 1994: Matakana lands 10,000 acres at $400k per acre = $4b
1994: 5,000 acres of 1-16 forest in 1994 $15m
1994: 500 acre mature Eucalypt forest $3m
1994: Matakana Sawmill and land $5m
1994: Matakana 22 houses and land $10m
1994: Matakana Transport system $5m
Blakely Pacific forestry carbon credits $42m

Direct losses from the cost of the litigation today are worth

1994: sold 2 properties in Fernhill Queenstown $2m
1995: sold 1 apartment Main Beach Gold Coast $1.5m
1998: sold 2 houses Oneroa Waiheke Island $3m
2001: sold Family home 15-17 Grand Vue Kawaha Point $4m
2002: sold 7 % of Scott Dixon Motorsport based on $100m net income Dixon has earnt. Dixon was contracted to SDMS to share 50% so $50m x 7% is $3.5m.
2004: sold Family guest house / office 19 Grand Vue Kawaha Point $2.2m
1992- 2000 Spent on litigation $5.57m- current value could only be calculated on the basis this money was invested in property which has gone up a minimum of 8 times therefore $40m.

Epilogue

List questions I've been asking government to address:

Did the Court of Appeal get any facts wrong?
Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Court get any law wrong?
Where can a victim of judicial activism make their complaint?
Where can a victim of judicial misconduct complain when a clear pattern emerges that shows certain judges perverted the course of justice.
Was Henry J inconsistent with the facts that were before the Court.
Was the threshold required for the application of fiduciary duties under existing case law suddenly and substantially shifted by any of the judges, but particularly Greig, Gault, Blanchard and Henry?
Did the defendants misuse the discovery process by concealing documents?
Did the defendant’s lawyers pervert the course of justice by claiming damaging documents had legal privilege?
Did Justice Greig order the contract Maori entered into to sell half of Matakana island to American property developers be sealed and hidden from Wingate? Did that contract show Maori promised there were no claims on the land despite a Waitangi claim and the Arklow Wingate claim? Why would the judge be justified in that order?
Did barrister John Eichelbaum have a business partnership with Ian Smith, CEO and owner of FAR Financial dating back to the 80’s?
Did John Eichelbaum mislead the Court of Appeal (1998) and the Privy Council (1999) with false submissions?
Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Council engineer false judgments in order to ensure the Matakana Island land remained with Maori defendants?
In 1994 in lifting Mr Wingate’s caveats protecting his interests in Matakana Island did Justice Grieg pervert the course of justice?
Did the Resource Management Act section requiring Arklow to consult with local iwi as directed by the Tauranga / Western Bay of Plenty mayors expose Arklow to extortion and vulnerability?
Has the judiciary been operating a special “Assist Maori” policy?
Was the Crown blinded by the Maori claim the Matakana Island land was sacred without doing any serious inquiries?
Did the Minister of Land and Minister of Finance knowingly assist the Maori defendants at Arklow expense?
Did the Commissioner of Crown Lands Brendan Mulholland set out to destroy Arklow Wingate’s lawful rights in his push to ensure the Maori group TKC got everything they demanded ?
Did the Maori defendants use threats and violence to obtain their contracts from ITT Rayonier, Ernslaw One and FAR Financial in 1993?
Did the Maori defendants (TKC) interfere with Mr Wingate’s relationship with timber buyer Kanematsu Japan by threatening them with “Maori problems”?
Did the defendants use the millions of dollars they had defrauded at Arklow/Wingate’s expense then use that to pay for lawyers to defend their fraud?
Did Sonny Tawhiao’s complaints about iwi leadership corruption offer a problem to iwi leadership who were also the personal shareholders of Te Kotukutuku Corporation?
Did the Tauranga police fail to adequately investigate Waitangi manager (WAI 266/ 215) Sonny Tawhiao’s death?
Did the tribal leadership of Ngai Te Rangi breach their fiduciary duty by directing tribal assets into their own personal names? Was that action theft by a person in a special relationship?
Did the Maori group submit to the Court that the Matakana Island land and forestry and housing assets were going to be jointly owned on a 51/49 basis with a charitable entity known as Matakana Island Trust and was it not correct that the trustees then transferred that benefit into their own names?
Did the tribal leadership of Ngai Te Rangi, namely its Chairman Howard Palmer, accountant Graeme Ingham, Tauranga Moana Trust Board Chairman Enoka Ngatai, iwi Resource Management Act manager Don Shaw, Matakana Island Trust Chairman John Neill provide the High Court affidavits claiming the Matakana Island was sacred and subject to a Waitangi claim but perverted the course of justice by failing to tell the Court they were personally shareholders set to gain real estate worth more than $100m should the Court assist them gain ownership at Arklow’s expense?
Despite the claims which the Crown supported that the Matakana island land was sacred; did the Maori group involved, namely Te Kotukutuku Corporation, sell that land to developers in 2007 resulting in none of the $100m plus going to Ngai Te Rangi iwi or charity Matakana Island Trust, but instead all of it going into the pockets of the Maori leadership, their accountant and lawyers who misled the Court?
Did Arklow’s confidential valuations by forestry consultant John Cawston for the Kanematsu /Arklow deal which was provided in confidence to stockbroker Neil Craig in August 1992 get used by Neil Craig in putting a bid to the receivers on 30 September 1992? When that bid failed did Neil Craig then provide those valuations to Te Kotukutuku and forestry consultant Paul Robinson 4 December 1992? Did iwi accountant Graeme Ingham and iwi RMA manager Don Shaw then use that information to threaten Kanematsu on 7 December 1992?
Did Justice Henry predetermine his Privy Council decision prior to trial?
Did Justice Henry’s Maori family have a direct connection to these Matakana Island Waitangi land claims and the Crown Treaty management process through his step sister?
Was Justice Henry’s family formerly the largest shareholders of Matakana Island?
Was the author of the Privy Council judgment Justice Henry in a business relationship with Alan Galbraith QC defence counsel for the defendants?
Was the Crown’s neutrality compromised by Treaty of Waitangi partnership loyalty obligations that pre-existed prior to Arklow/Wingate’s matter coming before the Courts and why didn’t the Crown take steps to manage that conflict of interest?
Did Henry J have legal authority to arrive at a decision that wasn't supported by the facts?
Did Henry J have legal authority to arrive at a decision that wasn't supported by the law?
If the Crown saw their first obligation to protect Maori land claims why did they fail to provide protection to the members of Ngai Te Rangi iwi instead of assisting corrupt Maori leadership to rob from the very people the Crown was duty bound to protect.
Did New Zealand police create a "criminal conviction recording" after Arklow Wingate’s High Court win on the national online database against Christopher Wingate that was completely false?
Was a senior tax officer Jeff Tyler who issued a false tax payable demand for $1.4m against Christopher Wingate, a former lawyer for defendants Far Financial?
After the Privy Council win did FAR Financial set up Lombard Finance with Michael Reeves and appoint former Attorney General Sir Douglas Graham and Minister of Justice Bill Jeffries to the board of directors?
Was FAR Financial business partner and legal counsel John Eichelbaum partners with former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer and what was his relationship with the judges of the Court of Appeal?
And did John Eichelbaum a barrister and the son of the former Chief Justice Sir Thomas Eichelbaum’s partner Sir Geoffrey Palmer former Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Professor of Law at Victoria University have a close friendship with Sir Ivor Richardson and Sir Kenneth Keith two of the judges that went against Arklow in the Court of Appeal and did they talk about the Arklow case.
Did the defendants know in advance of the Court Appeal decision they had won from an inside source?
Did David Baragwanath QC mislead the High Court at the 1994 Justice Grieg hearing?
Did Arklow/Wingate’s barrister Gary Judd fail to protect Arklow’s legal rights at the 1994 Justice Grieg hearing?
Was Mr Wingate’s barrister Gary Judd QC in a business relationship with David Baragwanath QC? (Baragwanath acted for the Maori defendants 1993-1994. He was critical in delivering them the Matakana land from FAR Financial.)
Did police use a search warrant to uplift confidential files from Mr Wingate’s residence and then invited the defendant’s lawyer Ray Annan to take copies of those files which he did on that very day? (see affidavit Det Sgt Shaw)
Was Justice Baragwanath’s daughter Natalie present at a meeting held by businessman Greg Clark (whose grandfather was involved with the Maori defendants Te Kotukutuku) in March 2000 in which Wingate was offered $18,000 a month in exchange for remaining silent and to stop any complaints about the Matakana Court process?
When those payments stopped in August 2000 immediately after Wingate filed a complaint to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, did the defendants within 48hrs then file for costs against Wingate in the High Court?
Did Lord Cooke who had a strong pro Maori position withdrew in the weekend leading up to the Privy Council trial admitting he had holidays at Lake Taupo with one of the directors of FAR Financial- what was the full extent of that relationship?
Did other TKC Corporation witnesses perjure their evidence and pervert the course of justice?
Did Ernslaw One lawyer and company secretary Jack Porus perjure his evidence and did Ernslaw make a $3.9m profit even though they acted illegally?
Did ITT CEO Charles Margiotta perjure his evidence? Note added- (ITT Rayonier $22m plus profit from culling the 17-34 year forest.- ITT lawyer Patricia Fordyce told Sir Peter Tapsell and myself that her manager, the CEO of ITT, gave false evidence to help FAR escape liability which would then flow onto ITT.) Note re legal privilege. ITT Rayonier’s evidence in support of FAR Financial: In 2001 Patricia Fordyce a former inhouse lawyer working for ITT Rayonier told Sir Peter Tapsell and myself that her manager of ITT Rayonier Charles Margiotta, had given the Court false evidence and that he had perjured himself in doing so. So how does an inquiry deal with her evidence?
Did Don Shaw perjure his evidence?
Did FAR Financial directors perjure their evidence including backdating diary entries?
Did Michael Reeves perjure his evidence?
Did FAR Financial steal confidential information from Arklow Investments?
Did FAR Financial owe Arklow a fiduciary duty?
Was FAR Financial broke when Arklow approached it to borrow money therefore saw the Arklow business plans as an opportunity to get rich by stealing the Arklow deal?
Did FAR Financial state in a letter dated 1 September 1992 to CML/Joseph Banks that FAR Financial was purchasing for themselves the Matakana Island land, selling off the 1-16 year forest and the 17 to 34 year forest therefore were actively copying the Arklow deal? Then did the High Court Greig J 94 and Court of Appeal majority 98 claim that at no time did FAR Financial copy the Arklow deal?
Was the Court of Appeal wrong when they stated: “At no stage was Arklow vulnerable to the action of FAR Financial” Despite the fact FAR Financial were broke and now had the confidential business blueprint plans of Arklow that if implemented had the potential to earn a minimum of $3m.
Did lawyer Jock Fanselow attempt to pervert the course of justice by holding in trust for FAR Financial directors personal assets?
How did 10 Sefton Street, Wadestown, Wellington, a $4m house owned by CEO of merchant bank FAR, hidden in the hands of FAR lawyer Jock Fanselow end up in the ownership of Paul Gerard Foley, the instructing lawyer who put the Matakana Island assets into receivership in 1991 when Paul was at Russell McVeagh acting for New Zealand Forest Products and me, although I used Bell Gully on the Matakana acquisition because of Paul’s conflict of interest re the receivership.

The Matakana Island litigation highlights deep-seated concerns for all New Zealanders regarding the fairness of the legal system and the Crown's favouritism towards Maori interests. The enforcement of the Treaty of Waitangi has often been marred by controversy, with some viewing it as a form of racist apartheid policy. This case underscores the challenges faced by non-Maori individuals when their property rights clash with those of Maori, particularly when bias appears to be present within the highest echelons of the legal system which is meant to be impartial and free of error. Both the Matakana Island Court case and my complaints over 24 years could have been sorted out in hours, but instead they are buried under red tape and obfuscation. Prime Minister Helen Clark and Attorney General Margeret Wilson even attended the wedding of one of the largest shareholders of Te Kotukutuku.

The extraordinary lengths various Crown actors went to in assisting Maori to get their hands on the land at Arklow Wingate’s expense which supports our claim that bias, conflict of interest and procedural unfairness was rife. (para 14,16,19,20,21, 25-31,33,45,49-51, 69-81, 126-134, 160 -174, 193-529 of the Privy Council petition)

After FAR and ITT Rayonier signed a conditional contract with the receivers one of their directors, lawyer Peter Marriot, began acting for the Maori group TKC. Marriot never told his Maori clients he had a conflict of interest, but the Maori group were looking for funding so Marriot introduced them to FAR - namely CEO Ian Smith. The very purpose of getting this meeting going was to steal information from the Maori group who were opposing the “ITT Rayonier” deal to buy Matakana island. ITT was the only identified party at that stage. The identity of Far and Ernslaw wasn't made public until after the agreement to purchase went unconditional in February 1993. On the 7th of December 1992 Smith wrote a letter to his other partners in the project- ITT Rayonier and Ernslaw One and it's worth noting what he said.

7 December 1992 FAR Financial [Smith] to ITT and Ernslaw -

“The following is sent to ensure that there are no misunderstandings due to non communication. Also we believe that it is important that all actions at this point are collectively agreed and brief memos would appear the best way to ensure this from all sides. Given the problems that are being encountered at present FAR is progressing, thinking down several paths on the following bases:

Priority 1 Ensure that the deal as it is currently signed is consummated. If this proves not possible in due course then Priority 2 Have an alternative action plan that leaves Ernslaw, ITT and FAR Forestry in the same position as if the existing deal had progressed as drafted. In the event that this too is not possible: Priority 3 Have a further alternative that ensures the sale and purchase proceeds and that it delivers as much of the expected result of the existing deal as possible to each party. Most of our thinking on Priorities 2 and 3 have been and will continue to be internal, mainly because we still believe it is unlikely that the deal will be blocked from progressing as is and also because we would prefer not to waste time and go too far down these paths until it becomes more evident we need to. ……

….Kotukutuku- I was introduced to the Kotukutuku group by their lawyer who works with FAR from time to time, Their lawyer rang us because he knows we work in the forestry sector and thought we might be able to assist the Kotukutuku in achieving their objectives.

I met with Graham Ingham on Saturday morning. I made it clear that: I might or might not know anything about the situation I might or might not be able to assist in any way I might or might not have an absolute conflict of interest. I was not accepting any brief of any nature to act for Kotukutuku. And that in general I was there to listen to his story but reserved any and all rights of action to act thereafter as I chose.

Simply put Kotukutuku want to: "Own the island" Assist their fellow Maori to gain wealth and employment. I pointed out that as far as I was aware the island was in fact a number of titles, some privately owned and some Maori owned. I enquired as to which of these they desired to own. The answer was as much as possible. As with most of these sorts of discussions, funding capacity and timing of the same was fairly up in the air so I doubt that he has the capacity at this point in time.”

Peter Marriot was going to be a witness in the trial before Temm J but didn't show up after no doubt warned off given the cross examination of FAR CEO Ian Smith where he was grilled over his relationship and loans he had obtained from law firm Hornblow Carran. But this header is from Marriott’s brief of evidence.

PETER MARRIOT • “I am a solicitor from 1988 onwards with the firm, Hornblow Carran Kurta & Bell "

"I was a director of FAR 1992 to 1995.”

When lawyer Peter Marriot who was a director of FAR took his clients TKC to FAR he took them there because TKC was looking for funding to buy Matakana Island. Both Marriot and FAR CEO Ian Smith knew they were using the limited access confidential meeting for one single purpose - to fraudulently extract information from the Maori group that would benefit FAR and harm TKC. This is the level of their ethics.

27 November 1992 Hornblow Carran [Marriot] to DRT (Deloitte Ross Tomatsu Receiver) Re Matakana Island -

“We have received instructions to act for Te Kotukutuku Corporation and also for the people of Ngai Terangi and related Iwi who comprise that company. The company has submitted a bid for the purchase of property on the island held in receivership. We refer to the offer contained in the letter of 28 April 1992 and subsequent reiteration of the offer dated 23 September 1992. Our client notes there has been no conclusive response to the offer….”

You can see how fiduciary obligations, confidentiality mean absolutely nothing to these people, their lawyers included. A victim of this type of crime, breach of fiduciary duty, has nowhere to turn except the Courts. In my case, the defendants had the benefit of the proceeds of crime to buy new houses and cars, go on holidays, and employ teams of lawyers and private investigators to cause me more grief.

Maori Extortion granted relief under the Illegal Contracts Act: In a 26 August 1993 letter leading up to the October agreement for Maori to buy the Matakana land, lawyers Buddle Findlay GV Hubble wrote to Glastor Ennor’s partner Jack Porus for Ernslaw wrote- The key parties to the above litigation TKC. El and ITT, have been able to reach general agreement on a proposal for settlement as follows:

“The plaintiffs will pay to El/Caldora $9.6m and in return Caldora will assign its interest in the land to the plaintiffs and El will assign all of its interests in its forestry right to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs will afford to ITT the same rights of access, management and/or other contractual rights as were given to ITT by Caldora and El. The obligations of ITT to FAR Forestry will remain unchanged It is the intention of the parties that the plaintiffs, being NZers, should become registered proprietors of all of the land other than that occupied by the sawmill owned by FAR Forestry and that ITT will have a registered forestry right over portions of the land affording them the same rights as exist under the present intended contracts.

All barricades currently the subject of litigation will be removed forthwith and in the interim ITT may continue with logging. We have just had a call from Don Shaw who confirms the outline above and we have a letter from Mr Song in similar effect.

The unknown areas are the position of Caldora, the Arklow litigation and FAR Forestry's position. Mr Shaw has indicated a desire for the Maoris to hold a ceremony on Sunday to remove the barricades but would like confirmation from you on behalf of El and if possible Caldora to the effect that the above outline represents the intended agreement between the parties.

Obviously, this has no binding effect but it would provide a solace which would result in the removal of the barricades and will undoubtedly lead to more concrete proposals for the future. The essential ingredient of $9.6m + the willingness of El to sell is all that should really be necessary to bring this matter to a conclusion. We would envisage the parties presenting the Judge a Consent Order which could result in the vesti, of property in the manner we require. Could we please have your urgent comments either today tomorrow morning as the writer is about to leave the country for a period of 3 weeks and would like to be able to advise Mr Shaw that we have a general agreement so that the removal of the barricades can take place.

Cc Mr Williams, Sheiff Angland Fax 309 3019 Mr W D Baragwanath QC, Fax 307 2717 Auckland”

The Maori group’s extortion was clear, removal of the barricades for the contract to buy the Matakana Island land. Even the contract to purchase the assets stated it in paragraph 2.3. Yet Baragwanath QC told the Court his clients had nothing to do with the road blockade or extortion. And all the evidence before the Court was ignored by Greig J.

The Bank was Broke: Below shows the financial strife the merchant bank was in just 10 days before they saw our acquisition plans to buy Matakana Island.

This letter from the bank to ITT Rayonier is offering the 17-34 forest for $15.6m which was $150,000 less than what they knew was our deal with Kanematsu. The Court of appeal majority claimed the bank never used our age class split yet here it is.

Everyday we witness Maori demanding decolonisation from Maori who also have mostly European blood in their ancestry. Some individuals of mixed Maori heritage exploit their Maori roots to validate their position within various publicly funded organisations where they leverage their partial Maori identity to secure employment, by claiming to possess a unique understanding that sets them apart from others.

My late friend Maori MP Sir Peter Tapsell often said:

“What have ordinary Maori have gained from all their hooha? The only winners have been lawyers and Maori elite chasing fancy lifestyles. If Maori had the choice between money in their own pocket or something important for other Maori they would choose money in their own pocket.”

That is a normal human trait and exactly why we need fiduciary type leadership accountability laws to be applied among Maori organisations to stop the endless self interest action where iwi leaders seek to enrich themselves at the expense of their own people they are meant and claim to be looking after. If Maori knew their complaints wouldn't reward them personally, then they would get on with life knowing what the rest of the world has come to realise, that good decisions and hard work make good outcomes instead of seeking to exploit a special position for personal gain based on a race by claiming they are victims of those who have made success through hard efforts. If you allow race to be a factor In any policy decision process, it will become the deciding factor. Yet race or gender are irrelevant to the making of a quality decision.

In 1975 I witnessed Parliament pass the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 not knowing at the time how much it would change my life, let alone the rest of New Zealand. Since its implementation, the once unified nation has become fragmented into various groups. With the treaty in place many Maori now seek special rights based on their racial heritage, even if they only have a small trace of Maori ancestry. Maori activists label anyone who speaks up against their demands as racist, white-privileged land thieves. The wrongs committed by the British Crown were done by a people to a people that no longer exist. Instead of repairing New Zealand it has incentivised anger, created racial division and divided the nation. The Treaty of Waitangi should have been rejected as invalid, null and void, and of no effect because it was written by amateurs with no legal training, with no idea what they were doing apart from finding a way to stop Maori killing each other. Any treaty or agreement is void if it conflicts with mainstream law and conventions. Treaties are similar to contracts in that they establish the rights and obligations of the parties. But Treaties are not permanently binding. As circumstances change Treaties have ended, but not in New Zealand..

The formation of a New Zealand government in 1852 set forth the path for one nation of people, united, living and working side by side. While most people do not object to the Crown making amends for seizures of land Maori has conquered themselves, the decision to legislate an 1840 Treaty binding people of all races to stone age undemocratic concepts, was both irresponsible and unsuitable for any contemporary society in a modern world. In the past, whenever the Maori community demanded justice in the form of financial reparations, the money received mostly ended up benefiting the personal pockets of Maori leaders rather than the broader community.

In 2008 Sir Peter Tapsell, a friend since the early 1970's, asked me to come to New Zealand because his wife Diane was dying of cancer. I was there when she died of lung cancer. In the following days their driveway and street became full of the latest flash cars driven by Maori wearing luxury Hugo Boss outfits who claimed they were businessmen, entrepreneurs and self made millionaires. But probing questions soon flushed out that they were trustees with fiduciary obligations looking after iwi assets for which they had no right to enrich themselves to the degree they were.

Although significant amounts have been paid to Maori by way of reparations and settlements, welfare and healthcare, business and education, language preservation and media initiatives, today Maori are in a worse state relative to the rest of New Zealand society than they were before the Treaty was passed into law.

After we lost in the Privy Council in 1999 I flew back into New Zealand knowing we had debts exceeding $400,000. In mid 2000 the defendants flush with their win placed caveats on our family home in Kawaha Point and pursued costs. The Resource Management Act 1991 required me to get “Maori” approval if I wanted the councils to approve our development. That put me in an extremely difficult position, there was no structure or direction, just instruction to “go make Maori happy”. It exposed Kanematsu, and what they were doing within my acquisition strategy and they then began receiving threats and it slowed down my deal being settled. Eventually TKC shareholders accountant Graeme Ingham and RMA manager Don Shaw fronted up at Kanematsu’s Auckland office demanding they be given the same offer as they were giving Wingate or else there would be Maori trouble as noted in question 28 page 20 of this letter- “Did Arklow’s confidential valuations by forestry consultant John Cawston for the Kanematsu /Arklow deal which was provided in confidence to stockbroker Neil Craig in August 1992 get used by Neil Craig in putting a bid to the receivers on 30 September 1992? When that bid failed did Neil Craig then provide those valuations to Te Kotukutuku and forestry consultant Paul Robinson 4 December 1992? Did iwi accountant Graeme Ingham and iwi RMA manager Don Shaw then use that information to threaten Kanematsu on 7 December 1992?” And of course that threat was made in writing.

I’m reminded of the story about the new forest ranger in Alaska who was walking through the forest when he heard a noise behind him. It was a wolf. The wolf began to growl and grit its teeth. The forest ranger was afraid and, thinking the wolf must be hungry, threw his lunch at the beast and quickly walked away thinking he would be safe. A short while later he heard new noises and looking behind he saw dozens of angry wolves, and they were all hungry! That is what we have in NZ today, hungry wolves looking for free food and, when they growl, politicians quickly feed them, which in turn attracts even more wolves.

Perhaps we need a nationwide inquiry not run by government but private interests to identify why NZ has failed.

Arklow Investments / Wingate litigation timeline:

1993 - Statement of claim. Caveats lodged. Discovery applied for and was mostly ignored by the bank. Security of costs attempted to stop the case moving forward.

1994 - FAR and Ernslaw applied to the High Court Wellington to allow them to sell to Te Kotukutuku Ltd. Greig J ordered Wingate caveats lifted noting the Wingate case has no validity, that the Maori had been unjustly deprived of their ancestral land, and that the deal would in part go towards compensating Maori in light of their Treaty of Waitangi claim. The application was supported by the Crown.

1997 - Wingate Arklow won their substantive trial against the bank in the Auckland High Court. The decision was written by Temm J.

1998 - FAR won the appeal 4/1. Maclean v Arklow Investments Ltd [1998] 3 NZLR 680, 690. Thomas J for Arklow. Gault & Blanchard J wrote for FAR.

1999 - Wingate Arklow lost the appeal to the Privy Council, the decision written by New Zealand judge John Henry. Arklow Investments Ltd v Maclean [1999] UKPC 51.

List of relevant Arklow judgments:

Greig (1994) Wellington High Court- lifted Arklow caveats - validated the sale to Maori

Bisson Casey Richardson J CA 1994 overturned Greig J 94 decision but left the parties in possession of the assets

Temm (1997) Auckland High Court - trial judge- Arklow v Far companies and directors

Thomas (1998) NZ Court of Appeal

Gault (1998) NZ Court of Appeal

Blanchard (1998) NZ Court of Appeal

Henry (1999) Privy Council

Sonny Tawhiao: a single father of 2 young boys, a wonderful, cheerful, genuine guy, who loved gardening, fishing and creating employment schemes for locals. His body was found in the backseat of his burnt out car on the morning of 7 July 1999 just 3 months before the Privy Council was to decide on the issue of Matakana Island ownership. Sonny had called me in late 1998 after FAR / TKC won the Court of Appeal saying iwi leadership wouldn’t provide any information on who owned what and what the win meant. I sent him a large file showing the facts and he used it to challenge iwi management corruption. I got a copy of the police file into his death in 2006 and in it were statements from 3 of his close friends saying Sonny feared for his life, that he had documents he shouldn't have had, and that he feared for his life having been been threatened by Don Shaw, (Shaw- ex special forces and shareholder of Te Kotukutuku Corporation who walked away with over $15m). Sonny Tawhiao had lodged the Waitangi claim Wai 266/215 on 3 December 1991 which Ngai Te Rangi Iwi leadership used to exploit for their own personal gain. Police ruled his Sonny’s death as suicide. Don Shaw was never interviewed by police. Any OIA requests for a copy of the police report is replied with a statement that the file has been destroyed and is no longer available.

Glossary

Arklow Investments - a shelf company supplied by lawyers Bell Gully, used by Christopher Wingate to bid and buy Matakana Island in receivership.

Baragwanath - David Baragwanath QC acted for Te Kotukutuku Corporation in negotiating the contract for the purchase of the Matakana assets in exchange for the removal of the road blockade and he then applied to the Wellington High Court to lift Arklow Wingate caveats and allow FAR Caldora and Ernslaw to sell. Baragwanath resigned representing the Maori group in 1994 when he was appointed a judge of the High Court from where he was appointed President of the Law Commission. When Baragwanath resigned from private practice my lawyer Gary Judd moved into his office and all his clients went to except Te Kotukutuku Corporation who went to Alan Galbraith QC.

Blanchard - Justice Blanchard- judge in the Court of Appeal 1998 decision.

Caldora Holdings Limited - owned the 10,000 acres of Matakana island land, its shares owned 75.1 % by FAR and 24.9% by Ernslaw One.

Carter Holt Harvey - purchased New Zealand Forest Products (NZFP) who had sold the Matakana Island assets on vendor finance to an Asian company who had defaulted on repayments and in 1991 NZFP instructed lawyers Russell McVeagh appoint receivers Deloitte Ross Tomatsu (DRT). My negotiating tactic with Cushing was - establish the receivers were not in a hurry to get them their money back because they were enjoying fees- that foreign buyers were restricted from buying because of LSP legislation - that based on a pe ratio of 10 the asset was worth $14-16m- that I needed a fixed price to organise funding.

Ernslaw One- a Malaysian company owned by the Thiong family from Sawawak and are well known for rainforest destruction.

FAR - Finance and Resources Limited - Wellington merchant bank FAR Financial owned by Ian Wilson Smith.

Galbraith - Alan Galbraith QC took over from David Baragwanth in 1994. He owns Rich Hill Stud and according to various members of the legal profession in partnership with Justice John Henry.

Gault - Justice Gault - judge in the Court of appeal 1998 decision.

Greig - Justice Greig- judge of the High Court in the 1994 decision to lift Arklow Wingate caveats on the Matakana island land and allow FAR / Caldora to sell to Te Kotukutuku Corporation. Even today, the defendants are in receipt of misappropriated trust property or its traceable proceeds because Greig J ordered the lifting of Arklow Wingate caveats under Section 7 of the Illegal Contracts Act without having statutory authority.

Henry - Justice John Henry - NZ judge in who sat and wrote the Privy Council decision- none of the other judges wrote any part of the decision.

ITT Rayonier - American company who purchased the 17-34 year forest in the FAR led deal.

Mariot - Peter Marriot lawyer with Wellington law firm Hornblow Carran who had funded FAR Financial. Marriott was a director of FAR. Mariot also acted for Te Kotukutuku Corporation (TKC) when they were looking for funding to buy Matakana even though Mariot knew FAR were already contracted to buy Matakana- a clear breach of fiduciary duty because Mariot only took them to FAR to steal their information. See page 20

Judd - Gary Judd QC acted for Arklow- instructing solicitor was Phil Ahern of Morrison Kent.

Matakana Island- a 15,000 acre piece of land in the Tauranga harbour of which the 10,000 acres coastal strip was made into a pine plantation forest in the 1930’s. That land was sold by Maori 1860’s-1880’s to non Maori who initially tried livestock farming.

New Zealand Forest Products (NZFP) - see Carter Holt Harvey

Ngai Te Rangi iwi- representing some 20,000 Maori from the Taurangi region.

Privy Council - up until 2004 was the final Court of appeal for New Zealand litigants, after 2004 the NZ Supreme Court became the final Court of appeal.

Professor (Justice) Hon Dr Paul Finn was a consultant to Arklow Wingate before he was appointed to the Federal Court of Appeal in Australia. He was considered the world's greatest authority on Fiduciary law who once underlined, “the most fundamental fiduciary relationship in our society is manifestly that which exists between the community (the people) and the state, its agencies and [[officials].”

Professor Robert Flannigan A Canadian academic now considered the world's leading expert on Fiduciary law.

Professor Peter Birks QC FBA Regius Professor of Civil Law at the University of Oxford and was a consultant to Arklow Wingate who learnt from one of the law lords sitting on the Arklow case in the Privy Council that Henry J drove the decision claiming Crown obligations to Maori were the priority, therefore the appeal irrespective of merit must be declined.

Smith - Ian Wilson Smith CEO owner of merchant bank FAR Financial which includes around 2 dozen $100 shelf companies with similar form.

Te Kotukutuku Corporation - it was initially a Ngai Te Rangi company which did nothing until the Matakana opportunity and then the shares were transferred into the leadership of the tribe including its chairman, accountant and key people. These shareholders all sold to investors for around $100m in 2007. The Ngai Te Rangi iwi never received 1 cent from the proceeds.

Temm - Justice Paul Temm was the trial judge in the Arklow v Maclean (FAR) case. Maclean was a director based in Auckland which allowed the case to be heard in the Commercial list. Paul Temm delivered his decision in favour of Arklow Wingate on May 5 1997 and died 25 May 1997.

Thomas - Justice Ted Thomas judge in the Court of appeal 1998 decision who wrote an 80 page judgment in favour of Arklow Wingate. In

Treaty of Waitangi -1840 Treaty between the British Crown and Maori.

Waitangi Tribunal - set up in the 1980’s to hear complaints and recommend settlements due to Crown breaches of the treaty

Waitangi Claim - lodged in 1991 by Matakana island resident Sonny Tawhiao. In 1992 iwi leadership hijacked that claim and began using it as a springboard for their own personal gain.

Links

Christopher Wingate - Leadership Accountability Law 2023 - Liz Gunn interview of Chris Wingate

Christopher Wingate - Leadership Accountability Law | NZ Loyal

Chris Wingate - A Kiwi in Australia

Chris Wingate - A Kiwi in Australia - NZ Herald

Christopher Wingate, Sir Peter Tapsell, Prof Frank Brosnahan - Our drive from India to London

https://wingate-goodpeopleaward.blogspot.com/2018/05/christopher-wingate-sir-peter-tapsell.html?zx=b21804d54d8b1a9d

I've never been a fan of anyone who makes a complaint about a system without providing suggestions on how it could be improved. Throughout the litigation I often wished a jury could see what I was witnessing and the question I would be putting to the jury would be simple: "Did you give government permission to act corrupt?". That idea led to the design of the LAC.

The LAC

lacglobal.org (under construction)

2024 - 2030

The Six Year Challenge

The government operates as an unaccountable trust entity, belonging to the people, yet lacking a dedicated department to rectify public service errors.

Introduction: Over the past forty years, New Zealand has experienced economic and social decline, revealing a consistent pattern of poor decision-making, flawed policy implementation, and a trajectory headed towards failure. This has prompted the need to find new methods to address systemic failures in political and bureaucratic structures.

Proposal: To address these issues, the Leadership Accountability Court (LAC) is an independent court that aims to hold politicians, judges, bureaucracy, the media, and other Responsible Persons accountable for their actions. The LAC will have jurisdiction to assess and decide claims against crown leadership for the following:

Unconscionable conduct:
Actions deemed extremely unfair or unreasonable, often taking advantage of power imbalances or exploiting vulnerability.

Inequitable conduct:
Actions considered unfair or unjust, typically violating principles of fairness or equity.

Unethical conduct:
Behaviour contrary to moral principles or accepted standards of conduct.

Unreasonable conduct:
Actions lacking justification or rationality in a given context, often devoid of fairness or logic.

Role of the LAC: The LAC serves as an examination of government decisions, evaluating their validity to ensure the detection of errors. Through its jurisdiction and focus on specific types of conduct, the LAC aims to contribute to a more accountable and effective government in New Zealand.

The LAC
We have designed the Leadership Accountability Court (LAC), a quick and affordable judicial system that deals only with the conduct of people responsible for public service.
The LAC operates as a parallel judicial system, enabling citizens to present their grievances to a qualified jury for impartial review to test official decisions in an impartial environment.
Applicants must first convince 3 independent experts before getting an LAC jury to validate their complaint in an ex parte setting, similar to the grand jury system in the United States.
Once legislated, we anticipate that government officials will treat complaints with greater seriousness because the LAC would have the power to test government decisions deemed unreasonable.
The design of the LAC marks the initial phase of a comprehensive reform aimed at saving and salvaging what's left of New Zealand.

The unique concept of the LAC is that it is unlike any other court because it operates with very limited power vested in its judges, with the real power residing with the jury.
The LAC will have the authority to challenge certain decisions made by politicians and officials.
No other court can interfere with the LAC's decisions. The procedures of the LAC are streamlined, straightforward and easy to follow, and all proceedings will be conducted virtually and televised for transparency and accountability.
Responsible Persons, including the conventional judiciary, will be bound by LAC decisions, to New Zealand's net advantage. The LAC actually offers assistance to opposition or independent politicians witnessing unethical conduct within the government. It will counter rigged reviews and consultations influenced by powerful interest groups and lobbyists, ensuring decisions benefit the rights of the individual and the nation as a whole.

The significance of the LAC is it can hold those persons who have the authority to make decisions that have a negative impact on the lives of people they are accountable to by adopting the legal test of “unreasonable, unethical, inequitable or unconscionable conduct” which is significantly easier to apply and less restrictive that the current definitions of unreasonableness or negligence being used in the current court system.

To initiate a case, the affected party must obtain written statements from three experts who understand the problem, supporting the complaint that the Responsible Persons has acted unreasonably, unethically, inequitably, or unconscionably. This is an important safeguard to avoid complaints which have no merit.
Upon receiving the experts' findings of misconduct, the LAC promptly schedules an ex-parte hearing to take place within 30 days. In this proceeding, the defendant is not obligated to participate in the initial phase of "Prove you have a case."
The LAC is overseen by a special judge, whose decisions are also subject to the LAC to ensure accountability.
The judge manages the proceedings. The judge cannot influence the jury by summarising the evidence or explaining the law in favour of one side or the other.

The law is simple, and provided to all LAC juries in identical written form.
A simple majority of the jury ultimately decides on the balance of probabilities if the complaint that the Responsible Persons acted or failed to act in a manner that was unreasonable, unethical, inequitable, or unconscionable is proven or not.
To avoid Responsible Persons becoming bogged down attending LAC hearings, the first hearings of the LAC are ex parte.
This means that the Responsible Persons is not required to attend unless the jury decides that in the absence of further evidence and argument from the Responsible Persons, it would find the case proved.
All proceedings in the LAC are conducted online, using video conference technology, to help with both speed to deal with complaints, and to not unfairly interfere with people’s daily lives.

Individuals applying to the LAC can represent themselves, hire a lawyer, or request the court to provide legal assistance. Subject to certain reasonable limitations, the costs of complainants and Responsible Persons will be met by the State.
The jury consists of 11 people. Jurors will be randomly selected from a larger randomly generated pool from the electoral register, who shall then pass a basic assessment to qualify them for the LAC jury pool.
If the jury decides in favour of the complainant in the initial ex parte hearing, there will be a full hearing in which the Responsible Persons can present evidence and argue the case.

If the complaint is proven, the judge issues an order for the Responsible Persons to rectify the problem within 30 days.
Failure to comply with the order of an LAC judge may result in termination of employment or being held in contempt which could lead to arrest and continued detention until compliance is achieved.
The verdicts rendered by the jury are conclusive and are not subject to appeal in a different court.
The LAC can only hear the same complaint again if there is evidence of jury manipulation in the previous case.

LAC Rules of Procedure:
The Complainant is: Any New Zealand citizen who has not achieved success in persuading the Responsible Persons to rectify the alleged misconduct.

The Responsible Persons Purposes of the LAC are:
Any government or quasi-governmental officials or employees including the PM and cabinet, all government politicians, all civil servants, and public employees.

The complainant obtains three letters of support for the complaint from experts in the field in agreement that in their view the action or inaction of the Responsible Persons was unreasonable, unethical, inequitable, or unconscionable.
An expert is anyone with 10 or more years of experience in the field, regardless of academic qualifications.
The letters of support are then submitted to the LAC with a written description of the conduct complained of.
Within 30 days of receipt of the complaint the LAC must list the complaint for an ex-parte hearing. The LAC has no discretion to reject a complaint supported by 3 experts.

At any stage prior to the ex-parte hearing the complainant may apply to the LAC judge for orders of discovery and subpoenas, and to delay the hearing where postponement is necessary as a result.

The ex-parte hearing of the complaint shall be virtual. The faces of the LAC judge and the complainant, its representatives and witnesses shall be visible. The jurors’ faces shall not be visible.

At the ex-parte hearing, the complainant will present evidence to prove the complaint to the jury.

An LAC jury pool of 20 potential jurors shall be drawn at random from the electoral register and pre-qualified by basic assessment to sit on an LAC jury. The jury selected to hear a complaint consists of 11 people randomly selected from the LAC jury pool.

There is no jury screening by the LAC judge or the parties and no jury challenges.

All jury decisions must be made by the agreement of at least 6 jurors on the balance of probabilities. Jurors can be polled and questioned as and when it is deemed necessary.

Each juror is paid a tax-free $40 per hour by direct payment at the end of each day's proceedings, which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation.

Jurors may not discuss or reveal any aspect of the internal jury discussions about the complaint during the evidence, deliberation or after any decision at any stage with any person, including any member of the media, other than another member of the same jury. Significant fines ranging from $500 to $5000 (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation ) shall be imposed for breach of this rule and any juror found to have violated this rule shall be immediately discharged from the jury and the hearing will continue.

If a juror becomes incapacitated for any reason during the course of the LAC hearing, that juror will be discharged from the jury and the hearing shall continue.

The jury in the ex-parte hearing may reject the complaint, however if the jury finds that it would, in the absence of evidence and argument from the Responsible Persons find the complaint proved on the balance of probabilities, the LAC judge must issue an order for a full trial.

If the LAC judge orders a full trial, the expert letters and written complaint will be sent to the Responsible Persons with a notice that the jury will find the case proved without further evidence and argument provided by the Responsible Persons and providing a date for trial no later than 30 days from the jury decision. The Responsible Persons will also be sent a link to the recordings of all the proceedings in the ex parte hearing, including the evidence given by all witnesses.

Service on the Responsible Persons may be in person or by leaving the LAC documents at the last known home or business address of the Responsible Persons or by email to the last known address of the Responsible Persons.

Within 14 days of the jury decision, the Responsible Persons may apply to the LAC judge for orders of discovery and subpoenas. In only very exceptional circumstances the LAC judge may grant a delay of the trial due to the volume of evidence, but under no circumstances may any such delay be longer than 3 months.

The LAC judge may issue contempt orders if any person fails to comply with a discovery order at any stage of the proceedings.

Trial Procedure:
The full hearing shall take place before an identical jury as the ex-parte proceeding and will be a continuation of that hearing. If the Responsible Persons does not attend the full hearing of the LAC personally or through his/her representatives, the jury will find the case proved.

All reasonable costs of the parties, including lawyers, professional advisors and experts, shall be met from government funds, whatever the outcome. Any costs of either party exceeding the costs of the other party by 10% or more will be disallowed. All costs shall be submitted to the jury at the end of proceedings who shall then decide by simple majority on the balance of probabilities if the costs are reasonable or not. No unreasonable costs shall be reimbursed. Reasonable costs shall be reimbursed within 7 days. Costs for each party are capped to a maximum of $250,000 (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation), except in cases where the LAC judge and jury unanimously certify that the case was of extraordinary complexity and the costs in excess of such limit were nevertheless reasonable.

The full hearing shall also be virtual. The faces of the LAC judge and all parties, their representatives and witnesses shall be visible. The jurors’ faces shall not be visible.

All proceedings before the LAC court shall be open to the general public to view online. The only circumstances in which such public access may be suspended is if the LAC judge is satisfied by written submission from the head of the NZSIS that holding that part of the proceeding in public would compromise national security. The LAC judge would nevertheless have the discretion to ignore such submission.

The full hearing shall begin with an opening statement from the complainant or his/her representatives. This may not be interrupted by the LAC judge or the Responsible Persons or his/her representatives. This statement may last no longer than 1 hour.

The opening statement of the complainant shall then be followed by the opening statement of the Responsible Persons or his/her representatives. This also may not be interrupted by the LAC judge or the complainant or his/her representatives. This statement may last no longer than 1 hour.

The Responsible Persons may require any witness who gave evidence in the ex-parte hearing to attend the full hearing for cross-examination. This evidence shall be heard first.

Evidence shall then be called on behalf of the Responsible Persons.
Following the Responsible Persons witnesses, the witness may be cross-examined by the complainant.

Any re-examination must be limited to less than 30 minutes unless the jury agrees longer time is required.
The LAC judge may ask questions of any witness for clarification following cross-examination.

The LAC judge may require any witness to attend the LAC court to give evidence and be cross examined by both parties.
Evidence may be introduced by affidavit, however if the evidence is contested by the opposing party the witness must be made available for cross examination.

The complainant may not introduce fresh evidence or witnesses that were not introduced or called in the ex-parte hearing, but shall have a right to call fresh evidence in rebuttal of any evidence called by the Responsible Persons. The Responsible Persons may not call any new evidence after closing its case.

At the end of the evidence, the Responsible Persons first makes a closing argument lasting no longer than 3 hours. Following the closing argument of the Responsible Persons, the complainant also makes a closing argument lasting no longer than 3 hours.

Neither party may be interrupted by the LAC judge or the other party during their closing arguments.

The LAC judge shall remind the jury of the burden of proof always remaining on the complainant (balance of probabilities) and provide the jury with the LAC written statement of the definitions of unreasonable, unethical, inequitable or unconscionable conduct that is identical for all LACs. The LAC judge may not comment, expand on or explain these definitions in any way.

Following closing arguments the jury considers its verdict virtually, in private. The jury shall be provided with any copies of documents or video recordings of witnesses they request.

If a jury cannot reach a decision within 7 days, the judge shall discharge the jury and the complaint may be re-heard before a different jury at the earliest date that the case can next be scheduled in the LAC. If the second jury cannot reach a verdict the

LAC judge will dismiss the complaint.

If the jury finds the complaint proved, the LAC judge shall make an order that the Responsible Persons address the conduct complained of within 30 days. If the conduct complained of is not addressed within 30 days to the satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant may return to the LAC and, unless contested, the LAC judge must make an order requiring the government/employer to dismiss the Responsible Persons from his/her position/employment. If contested, the same jury will be re-empanelled to decide, on the balance of probabilities, if the complaint was addressed by the Responsible Persons. If the jury, by simple majority, decides that the complaint was not addressed, the LAC Judge must make a dismissal order which must be complied with.

The LAC possesses the power to direct the government to grant immediate "compensatory damages" to an individual participating in the legal proceedings. This entails an initial provisional payment of 20% from a maximum of $100 million (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation) for property damage. And 50% from an estimated compensation of up to $5 million (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation) for loss of life or severe long-term injury. These payments must be made within 48hrs of the LAC order.

The LAC jury may recommend that the LAC judge make a confiscation order in relation to any assets of the Responsible Persons if they find a complaint proved, and if, on the balance of probabilities, the LAC jury finds such assets have been gained as a result of the unreasonable, unethical, inequitable or unconscionable conduct. If such a finding is made by the LAC jury, the LAC judge must make a confiscation order, which must be effected within 90 days. Proceeds of such a confiscation order would go to the state of New Zealand. The judge has limited discretion not to make a confiscation order.

There shall be no appeal from the decision of the jury or the order of a LAC Judge, or review by any other court or tribunal, save for the fact that the decisions of an LAC judge are subject to the jurisdiction of the LAC. Refusal to obey any order of an LAC judge will be treated as contempt of court and result in immediate arrest and detention until the order is complied with.
No complaint or complaint founded on the same facts against the same Responsible Persons may be made twice, unless it is proved to an LAC jury that, on the balance of probabilities, a previous LAC decision on a complaint was wrongly interfered with.

The LAC may hear complaints by multiple complainants or against multiple Responsible Persons in the same proceedings if founded on the same facts, or series of facts.

Definitions which each LAC jury will be provided in writing:
Unreasonable Conduct - means conduct that is clearly against the weight of evidence or without evidence to support it, including the failure to act when clearly against the weight of evidence. (Lord Wilson in Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41, [2018] AC 899, adapted by LAC)
Unethical Conduct - means failing to act with integrity, acting improperly or giving the perception of acting improperly, engaging in immoral behaviour, cheating, acting without principles or scruples, or acting dishonourably. (LAC definition)
Inequitable Conduct - refers to either actions or omissions and can include intentional misrepresentation of facts and concealment of pertinent information. It refers to conduct that directly contradicts acting in good faith and fairly with others. This includes making decisions that are biased, prejudiced, or influenced by incorrect factors, which can result in an unfair or unjust outcome. (Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (adapted)
Unconscionable Conduct - conduct that is so unfair or oppressive that no reasonable person would accept it. It involves conduct that is contrary to good faith, fairness, and justice. (LAC definition)

LAC Rules of Evidence:
Admissibility:

Any relevant evidence shall be admissible. Relevant evidence is any evidence with a tendency to make a fact relating to the complaint more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
If there is any doubt as to the admissibility of evidence the LAC judge shall rule that the evidence is admissible.

Judicial Notice:
An LAC Judge may take judicial notice of any evidence that is generally known and that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, however either party may call evidence questioning any fact that the LAC judge has taken judicial notice of.

Character Evidence:
Character evidence is inadmissible. Similar evidence is allowed.

Privilege:
Privilege has been used as a means to hide wrongdoing therefore all documents are discoverable.

Competency:
Any person of sound mind is competent as a witness. Where soundness of mind is challenged, the LAC judge will hear evidence from all parties in the absence of the LAC jury and rule on the issue. Minors are competent witnesses, although the reliability of their evidence may be challenged in cross-examination and argued as an issue for the LAC jury to consider as part of its final deliberations.

Expert Evidence:
Unless a witness is an expert, a witness may only give evidence as to facts, not opinion. An expert is anyone with 10 years or more experience in a relevant field, regardless of academic qualifications.

Hearsay Evidence:
First-hand hearsay evidence shall be admissible, although its reliability may be challenged in cross- examination and may be argued as an issue for the LAC jury to consider as part of its final deliberations. Second-hand hearsay evidence shall not be admissible.

Documentary and other evidence:
Written documents, visual or audio recordings, photographs and their copies shall be admissible, although evidence may be called as to their authenticity as an issue for the LAC jury to consider as part of its final deliberations.

Agreed Evidence:
The parties may agree on evidence, in whatsoever format the parties agree, and this evidence may be submitted to the LAC jury.

Getting the LAC into legislation:
We promote accountable democracy by fully funding the top forty politicians, contingent upon their support for the enactment of the Leadership Accountability Court into law. This group of forty politicians holds enough sway to create a tipping point of influence. Publicity surrounding this initiative would portray the politicians as advocates for transparency and accountability within both politics and bureaucracy, generating positive public perception. Instead of perpetuating a history of secrecy and clandestine dealings, this approach would be viewed as a progressive step towards modernising democracy and ensuring its accountability.

The New Zealand parliament has 122 seats. The October 2023 election resulted in a coalition of three center-right parties. The Coalition Government has 67 seats; National 48, ACT 11, New Zealand First 8. The Opposition has 55 seats; Labour 34, Te Pati Maori 6, Greens 15.
$10 million budget to fund the top 40 MPs from National, ACT, and Labour.
$10 million budget to fund ex political heavyweights and hired pens to sell the sizzle.
$5m to budget global growth.
NZ $25m in total for 2024- 2030 or $350k per month over 6 years.
Dedicating $200-$300 million to support the LAC conveys a resolute message that the people want an accountable government structure. These issues are of global significance and demand serious attention. The future of humanity is on the line.

Guide To What My Blogs Are About

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

The Matakana Island Litigation and the LAC