Take me to Church. . . “Evil preaches tolerance until it is dominant, then it tries to silence good.” ― Charles J. Chaput
The appellant is appealing the decision of Justice Churchman issued 17 June 2024
The initial response via email outlining this was obviously in err was not a formal recall application, as I was waiting for crown counsels submissions to be filed on 18 June 2024 to finalise the appellants recall application.
?On his own initiative, for reasons unknown, Justice Churchman decided to issue an additional judgement purporting to be in response to a recall application that had not yet been filed:
ASIDE FROM THE FACT THIS IS AN OBVIOUS ERROR OF LAW AND Justice Churchman “covers all bases” extra judicially deciding “IF” this was an attempt at a recusal application- it would be declined Also. . .Without leave of a high court judge, due to an existing s166 restraint Justice Churchman had no jurisdiction to issue this decision.
The appellant then filed a formal recall application at approximately 4:30pm outlining the obvious errors of law and breaches of human rights that Justice Churchman should have corrected.
In "response" Justice Churchman issued “pro forma” via email through the registrar on 18 June 2024, ?to refuse to address the formal recusal application filed on 18 June 2024, imagining to have “already dealt with the application BEFORE it existed.” Which is not only in err, but completely irrational and unreasonable.
?It is of serious concern that Justice Churchman continues to be in a position to obstruct justice which is compounding the damage caused and subsequent damages owed- in due course.
History of the matter on hand:
On 17 June 2024 Justice Churchman issued a minute with several procedural errors and breaches of human rights- these MUST be recalled and corrected.
Should Justice Churchman take umbrage with the “restrictions” of human rights for his “needs” as a judge- he is enabled to raise these concerns under s7 with parliament for clarification or additional scope for “interpretation.”
On 7 March 2024 Justice Grau identified obvious errors of district court judges ignoring DUE PROCESS that in her words “MUST” be followed, regarding the CPA 2011. She was suitably concerned with this systemic error of multiple judges on at least 3 known occasions (in reality closer to 20 instances) to alert the Chief District Court judge.
[16] Finally, I would emphasise again that, although Judge Hikaka may well have been correct that Ms Dunstan is continuing to file proceedings in various Courts which amounts to an abuse of process, the process set out in s 26(1) of the CPA must be followed before such conclusion may be arrived at and charging documents are then rejected under s 26(3). This is now the third time since 2022 that Ms Dunstan’s charging documents appear to have been refused for filing without the procedure in s 26(1) being observed. On this basis, I also direct that a copy of this minute be relayed to the Chief District Court Judge.
?This decision was withheld from the appellant by the High Court registry staff for 6 weeks and to date, it is evident the chief District Court Judge has done nothing to change the disregard of CPA 2011 the district court judges have ignored with this litigant since 2020 to date.
Justice Mc Herron decided, after all defendants had failed to respond or file any statement of defence within 25 days, they would be replaced with the Attorney General to restart the 25 day response time.
Justice McHerrons conduct in attempting to coerce counsel for the Court was questionable at best and remains unaddressed.
Counsel for Judge Hikka have sought and been granted removal from proceedings as there is no plausible nor lawful defense for his incompetence and obvious errors of law.
Justice La Hood ignored mandatory legislation and binding precedents of
[2020] NZHC 2956
GREENDRAKE V DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AND MCCONNOCHIE, 10 November 2020: Justice Dunningham:
领英推荐
[50] As this error of law was pivotal to the ability of Mr Greendrake to continue his prosecution, I consider it is appropriate to make the following declaration: (a) The charges, having been accepted for filing by the Deputy Registrar under s 26(1)(a) CPA could not be rejected by a Judge under s 26(1)(b), and the requirement to issue a summons under s 33 was triggered
[92] The Judge’s decision rejecting the charges for filing under s 26(1)(b) CPA is set aside. As confirmed by the declaration set out at [50] above, the charges were accepted for filing on 5 September 2018.
directed a 2.5 day fixture to discuss a matter largely spoken for on legal precedents and MANDATORY human rights of NZBORA 1990, HRA 1993 that the court MUST not breach, regardless of their opinion or “preference” to interpret the law to suit a false narrative.
The appellant filed a memorandum in good faith for the benefit of the judiciaries reputation to be seen to be acting justly.
Unfortunately, Justice Churchman declined ALL requests without lawful grounds- and then- allegedly refused to recall his minute, without awarding the appellants RIGHT to file a formal recall application AFTER counsel for the Attorney General had filed submissions.
GROUNDS FOR PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND APPARENT BIAS WITH JUSTICE CHURCHMAN:
?Considering Justice Churchmans’ history outlined in this supporting affidavit- including multiple “extra judicial” steps taken to obstruct no less than 3 other matters against the same appellant:
a) CIV 2023-409-314 & CIV2023-409-320 on 30 August 2023
b)?Then exceeding jurisdiction to direct associate judge Lester to “dispose of” Churchmans recusal application on 13 September 2023
c)??Overriding the decision of HH Justice Ellis to accept a tort of DV on 27 July 2024
Then collaborating with justice Walkers decision of 6 September 2023 TO PREVENT A SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND REMOVE THE CASE TO AUCKLAND ON 19 September 2024 attached marked “I”- WHERE JUSTICE Downs threw the case out on the false basis: “the s166 order prevents Ms Dunstan filing any further proceedings.”
And ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST with independent legal proceedings for Justice Churchmans’ conduct as a land court judge and shareholder of Pine Time and Grow trees, statement of claim FILED 25 September 2023.
There are reasonable grounds of a perceived conflict of interests that Justice Churchman should have recused himself as the progressive thing to do for the reputation of justice.
As Lord Hewart CJ's said: "it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."
"The legal establishment is deeply divided over when it is reasonable for the presumption of impartiality to yield to the suspicion that extra legal influences may have compromised the judge's impartial judgment”- Charles G Geyh
WHERES THE "COMITY" EARNED IN MISCONDUCT LIKE THIS- RIFE THROUGHOUT ALL LEVELS OF THE COURTS? Any what has parliament not regulated this sooner?