Justice in La Hood- New Plymouth High Court: CIV-2024-443-000013- What Are The Judges "On"?
In a Minute: dated 21 May 2024 , in matter CIV 2024-443-13 PERTAINING TO A MATTER OF CHILD ABDUCTION ON 5/09/2020, that a registrar accepted for filing in 2021 under CPA 2011, s26(1)(a) Justice La Hood continues the courts narrative to defame the plaintiff.
Certain expressions such as "are difficult to follow." or "are poorly pleaded" and "from what I can make from them" serve to achieve two things:
[3] Ms Dunstan’s submissions in response dated 19 May 2024, are difficult to follow. However, Ms Dunstan makes it clear that she does not consent to orders in the terms sought by the second respondent. She seeks a declaration that the District Court Judge breached natural justice by failing to follow the procedure in s 26(1)(b). She seeks other declarations to the effect that there has been “an obvious and extensive miscarriage of justice across all levels of the New Zealand judicial system against plaintiff, Ms Dunstan, and obstructing these proceedings since 2020 …”. She seeks a hearing of the substantive application for judicial review.
To this, it is reasonable for the plaintiff to state: "It is painfully apparent this s166 order has been abused as a mass human rights violation and imagining this is "not clear", WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR ANY COMPETENT JUDGE TO MAINTAIN."
Despite Justice La Hood alleging the submissions were "difficult to follow", somehow he has been able to concisely identify exactly what the plaintiff has sought:
[4] I note that Ms Dunstan’s statement of claim seeks relief in the following terms:
[5] As it appears the parties cannot agree what the appropriate orders should be, a further case management conference is required to timetable this matter to hearing. I direct the registry to arrange a telephone conference for this purpose as soon as possible.
This disregards the High Court Rules 2016, 7.6 Allocation of key dates
(1) If it appears to the Judge at the first case management conference that a proceeding can be readied for hearing or trial, the Judge must immediately allocate a date for hearing or trial.
(2) If a proceeding has not been allocated a hearing or trial date at the first case management conference, the Judge must allocate a date for its hearing or trial when the Judge is satisfied that it can be readied for hearing or trial.
(3) A proceeding can be readied for hearing or trial for the purpose of subclauses (1) and (2) if it is reasonably anticipated that it will be able to proceed to hearing or trial without the need for
(a) any significant amendment of the pleadings; or
(b) any significant interlocutory application; or
(c) any significant refinement of the issues in the proceeding.
There is no requirement to allocate further "limited" court resources to an "urgent teleconference" when extensive delays have already occurred. This is not required to simply comply with procedural process to direct a court hearing. The Plaintiffs concern is the presiding judge will attempt to coerce the counsel to "consent" in order to prevent a hearing for the public to see what miscarriages of justice occur when the media are too scared to report on real stories for fear of the retribution of the government.
领英推荐
A further issue in unregulated proceedings is the use of "burn judges" orn"judge juggling" to avoid recusal- meaning Judges who "pop into a file" to make unlawful or obstructive decisions and then- disappear playing the "hot potato- duty judge" game, to absolve accountability or any realistic redress to correct these erroneous decisions:
As per para [6] of Justice La Hoods minute.
[6] Ms Dunstan also seeks consideration of a leave and recusal application she has filed in respect of McHerron J dated 23 April 2024. There is no need to deal with that application because there is no matter currently before McHerron J for consideration or determination. As McHerron J noted in his minute of 23 April, this proceeding does not have a Judge allocated to it and is being dealt with by the Duty Jude as matters arise. The appropriate course for a recusal application is for the Judge against whom recusal is sought to deal with it should the need arise. If the proceedings are to be dealt with by McHerron J at any stage, he will need to address the recusal application dated 23 April 2024. -La Hood J
In this instance, the plaintiff maintains the recusal of McHerron is paramount for the publics' confidence in the judiciary - as he has made significant orders that have concealed the parties and that MUST be addressed- only he can revoke and correct that error, as the appeals are averaging 6 months IF a high court judge grants leave. To put this into perspective, on 17 Nov 2023, the plaintiff filed 73 leave applications required for 73 matters on foot to progress. Of these, some 6 months later, only 8 have been considered (all refused on baseless grounds)- the rest have been deliberately ignored.?
THIS IS AN ABUSE OF POWER AND THE DEFINITION OF A BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER S27 NZBORA 1990. (Bill Of Rights Act)
Based on Justice McHerrons efforts to coerce crown counsel to imply the judges submissions were counsels was a disgusting performance and one the court would benefit from avoiding in future.
When did the practice of judges coercing Crown Counsel like puppets to make their submissions "vicariously" through Crown Counsel, become "a thing" AND arguably more disturbing: "DO THE JUDGES REALLY THINK NO ONE IS NOTICING?"
Whatever the Judges are "on" it's certainly not working for Justice.
Further acknowledging the binding precedent of Dunningham [2020] NZHC 2956 GREENDRAKE V DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AND MCCONNOCHIE which means these proceedings are "spoken for" - in Justice Jagoses' words of 10 April 2024 regarding matters the same plaintiff was successful in, on an identical point of law, Criminal Procedures Act 2011 in Justice Brewers' decision of 15 May 2024: CIV-2024-404-300 Dunstan v North Shore District Court & Ors (Where all parties were not removed from the proceedings.)
The question of law regarding McHerrons jurisdiction to remove respondents without their request or application after 25 days to respond has expired, as per High Court Rules 2016 r10.16: Removal into Court of Appeal
If the court orders the separate decision of a question of law under rule 10.15, it may further order that it be removed into the Court of Appeal.
Can the Court of appeal be trusted to regulate "Judges Gone Wild" after their display in CA667/2024 on 16 May 2024, and Justice Courtneys' conduct in random minutes dated 17, and 20 May 2024 to:
[2] The Court will not receive further communications from Ms Dunstan while the judgment remains reserved. -Courtney J"