The question you 'have to' ask your politicians and judges

Why our System of Government Democracy and Justice is Fucked

If you are offended by swearing I guess you are also offended by our corrupt system of world leadership, their mass murder of innocent people etc- I guessed not. So shut the fuck up and listen. The reality is most people who swear are actually shown to be more honest people- either-way I don’t care if you are offended my job is to convey some realities as to why this world is so screwed up. This is just a small section of my journey- I have been shot at, one of my witnesses murdered, millions of dollars has changed hands, this is about the system you think is honest. I've seen the reality and I am pissed, hence a few swear words is better and safer for all concerned than releasing how I really feel.

Background

In 1992 I had put together a business plan to buy a property called Matakana Island for $20m. It was 10,000 acres covered in forest and I had a deal with Japanese trading house to buy the older timber for $15.75m so for $4.25m I got 5000 acres of 1-16 year forest, 10,000 acres of coastal land, 22 houses a huge sawmill, transport systems including a shipping barge etc. I went to Wellington merchant bank to borrow the $4.25m offering them 2 deals. Loan the money or become a partner in the deal.

The problem was the bank were stone cold broke with even their small cheques bouncing so they didn’t have a brass razoo to invest. But what they did have was my blueprint of a humdinger deal which had profit written all over it. And so within 2 days of seeing our deal they started steps to do it for themselves. They ended with the 10,000 acres land under a $100 shelf company called Caldora Holdings and when I found out I was pissed- seriously pissed. I hadn’t killed anyone that year and so my first reaction was lock and load and take these pricks out in the middle of the night. However, wise friends offered wise words suggesting I employ a lawyer and let the justice system deal with them. 

Gary Judd was my barrister – his words were clear “$80-100,000, less than 2 years, slam dunk I would win.” But within months I knew something was wrong. Justice wasn’t working. For example my method of getting the documentation out of the bank would have been a vision of police walking in and seizing the documents and computers. After all this was a multi-million dollar theft. But not in commercial litigation. There is an Anton pillar application which allows you to serve a demand on the defendants and if they don’t instantly comply they are in contempt of court but I couldn’t get one of those because the courts required “proof” the defendants were going to destroy the documents, and how the hell was I going to get that. It was obvious the scum bags were going to hide documents to hide their theft. 

And so in and out of court we went over months with applications for discovery only to end up with 22 documents and an affidavit stating they were all of the documents. Bullshit! And so back to court 3 times for further and better discover and each time more documents were provided with an affidavit stating they were all the documents. At no time after each new confession “Oh there are more documents”....But did I ever hear the judge scream “Contempt of Court” and impose a huge fine.

Then there was the Maori group called TKC- for Te Kotukutuku Corporation. They appeared claiming they should be the owners of the sacred land.  They claimed Caldora was a sham company, that TKC had the $20m to buy Matakana Island which was a 100% lie. But suddenly they had the support of the Minister of Lands, Minister of Finance and QC David Baragwanath. Together they stormed the court system making demands that were instantly being met. But with hindsight that was because the Crown signed a treaty known as Waitangi with Maori in the 19th century offering them protection of their land. Just a year prior to my litigation starting Lord Cooke our most glorified judge gave a speech making 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 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 Maori 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. It is obvious that, from the point of view of the future of our country, non- Maori have to adjust to an understanding that does not come easily to all: reparation has to be made to the Maori people for past and continuing breaches of the Treaty by which they agreed to yield government. Lip service disclaimers of racial prejudice and token acknowledgments that the Treaty has not been honoured cannot be enough. An obligation has to be seen to be honoured. On the Maori side it has to be understood that the Treaty gave the Queen government, Kawanatanga, and foresaw continuing immigration. The development of New Zealand as a nation has been largely due to that immigration. Maori must recognise that it flowed from the Treaty and that both the history and economy of the nation rule out extravagant claims in the democracy now shared. Both partners should know that a narrow focus on the past is useless. The principles of the Treaty have to be applied to give fair results in today's world”.

Again with hindsight the position of the New Zealand government was clear. If Maori were making claims everyone was told to leave as Maori had priority. At the time I didn’t know this. Google hadn’t been invented and putting all the pieces together was near impossible. But as of 1993 I did notice a few things about Maori demands. I was required under the Resource Management Act to consult with Maori and so the local mayors of Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty jointly introduced me to Ngai Te Rangi leaders. They invited me to come talk, and over the next year I kindly entertained their various requests for information. One was who was I in business with given their fear the rumour was Japanese company Kanematsu was going to own the land. I corrected that by telling them Kanematsu was only buying the older forest.

Meanwhile in July 1992 I was seeking a buyer for the 1-16 year forest and so I ended up in a meeting with one of New Zealand’s best known stockbrokers Neil Craig of Craig and Company. Neil said they would be interested in the younger forest but wanted to take a look at the forestry numbers which my forestry consultant John Cawston provided. That report carried information that made Neil Craig sit up. But not to help me but himself. Yes you guessed it, within days of getting my information he wrote to the vendors of the assets making them an offer. Arsehole! Another shit head that should be shot in the middle of the night.  I didn’t find this out until much later in the discovery of documents where I found a copy of my forestry report re copied onto Craig and Company letter heads in the possession of Te Kotukutuku Corporation. TKC had used it to threaten Kanematsu with “Do the deal with Wingate there will be Maori problems but not if you do a deal with us.” Fuck the Resource Management Act for exposing me to Maori extortion and fuck Neil Craig for being a 2 faced double dealing prick.

After my litigation began in 1993 the Maori suddenly shut down the roads on Matakana Island. They had Maori leaders across NZ screaming on various corporate doors yelling for them to get the fuck off Matakana Island. The media ran stories of how the Wellington merchant bank and its partners were being ignored by the police and the courts in trying to get the roads reopened while at the same time media were conveying threats that the forests would burn if Maori didn’t get the land.

Faced with my litigation and the Maori threats, road blockades and the Wellington High Court ignoring Maori extortion, the bank and its partners decided to sell to TKC.  Gary Judd my barrister was adamant “Never would the court allow that you have rights.” Bullshit I had rights. I heard what Mr Judd argued in court and I thought it was 5% of the story at best. But he insisted and even walked out on a meeting I had where I was demanding he cover, he correct the bullshit Baragwanath QC was saying. But Judd was having none of my amateur suggestions. “I have been a barrister for 26 years what the fuck would you know about these issues” bellowed Gary Judd as he stormed out of the meeting with me and lawyer Phil Ahern. And so the next day I sat there listening to more bullshit go down, the documents in my hand proving otherwise and sure enough we lost. The court ordered my caveats lifted and the land to be transferred to TKC and Matakana island charitable trust.  I was gutted.

A few months later I was in Auckland and called around to Gary Judd’s office. It was easy to get to, simply drive off Anzac Avenue down the drive to the below ground floor and park and walk 50ft right past his window through the door. But as I walked past I looked in and saw David Abbot the lawyer for the defendants sitting at Gary’s desk. What the fuck I thought as I walked in to reception. Even Gary’s secretary wasn’t there. “Gary Judd in” I asked. “No Mr Judd is now on the top floor in Mr Baragwanath’s office” she replied. What the fuck ! I thought as I walked around the front of the building to make my way up to Gary Judd’s new office. Sure enough there it was, the top floor where just months earlier David Baragwanath  QC sat plotting his clients win. Baragwanath was now a judge and all his client except TKC were now Gary Judd’s clients. I was pissed wondering how many people did I need to kill to stop this nightmare.

And so the years rolled on me spending on various court applications while the defendants all had the profits they had stolen from my deal to pay for their lawyers. Finally we had the main trial. Judd had suggested the matter be split into 2 trials. The first to determine if the bank was guilty, the second to trace what is called recipient liability- in other words, who has the stolen booty and did they get it knowing my claim. The High Court was booked for a month. The bank put up various witnesses all of whom we cut to pieces. They claimed they had already been working on the Matakana deal prior to seeing our deal and that what we showed them they already knew. To which the judge asked them why would they then offer to act for me if they were already advanced in their own deal. They produced a hand written note claiming to be the math and strategy of the deal dated 2 months prior to them seeing our deal in July 1992. When I saw the note I instantly realised it was crap. For example, the math outlined things that didn’t occur until October 1992 which were simply impossible to know as at May 1992. The bank for example was trying a range of deals, prices, assets before settings on the October deal, yet here they were claiming to know those exact numbers for various assets months prior. For example ITT Rayonier who bought the 17-34 year forest the note said $13.2m- barge $100,000. Yet in July just days after seeing our deal they offered the older forest to ITT at $15.6m with no mention of the barge. Only later in negotiations did ITT demand the barge in the deal. There was plenty of other examples and those of you interested really need to read the judgements of Temm- Fisher and Thomas to see what a bunch of lying scum bags the defendants were.

I lied, I was caught. But I lied in an affidavit regarding “Security of Costs.”  If I hadn’t I would never had got these bastards into court. Other small matters I was said to have lied on I didn’t. It was just that the system doesn’t allow for correction through re-examining minor points such as comments made by real estate agent Kerry Sharplin re a comment I had made  over his comments that he had buyers for 300 sections. The issue was simply this. In my seeking funding to my deal people I spoke to wanted to know if people even wanted to buy land on Matakana Island. I said we had interest in over 300 sold- sold as in once zoning came through there was that interest. Kerry Sharplin was asked how many he had expressions of interest in and he answered 170. I had said over 300 and that was it I was a lying. The truth was various agents including Mark Grinrod had plenty of people willing to pay $120,000 for a beachfront section. Today those sections would be worth $2m, so they were a bargain.

Well we won the 4 week trial. The judgement was clear. The defendants then applied for a retrial. They claimed I had bugged their telephones. I hadn’t bugged they telephones. The guy they claimed I employed to bug their phones was an electrician by the name of Shawn Kosterko (Robson). He and his brother were all over my like flies and I knew, as did my private investigators that these guys were on the payroll of the defendants via 2 ex policeman Wayne Keiley and Mark Van Leewarden.

Sometimes when you are involved in a large fight you allow spies to get in close so you can note what they ask, what they suggest. I have been around security agencies for years in business and well know the tricks. But somehow the government don’t like the public suing those same tricks they employ all the time. We are simply meant to play dumb.

The defendants lost the application for a retrial, the judge saying that even if I had bugged their telephones it made no difference because the evidence proved beyond doubt the defendants were guilty.

And so off to the Court of Appeal they went. Phil Ahern warning me that Sir Ivor Richardson had said I would pay for bugging phones when I got in his court. Sure enough I lost. The bank were suddenly innocent and I ended up with a judgement that was fiction from the first page. When you get a judgement that has the most basic facts wrong you think you would be able to go up to the registrar point them out and because of the injustice get invited to the judges office for a cup of tea and cookie as you go over the facts while they apologise while they make the corrections. But the system doesn’t work like that. Its designed to keep you far away from talking to the judges no matter the situation. No wonder they hung or jailed so many innocent people. The system is crap. They have no interest in the facts nor an interest in justice which is I guess why people take up weapons and declare war against the system we call democracy.

I then had to appeal the decision to the Privy Council. Gary Judd warning me not to go with Justice John Henry there because Henry had said he was going to “do me”. But the rules are no judges is allowed to prejudge any matter and so we went and we lost. Once again the judgement was pure fiction. Various experts have written about it saying it’s wrong. I already knew that.

It’s now 2015 and with Christmas approaching I look back at all the letters I wrote to various Attorney Generals and ministers, including both Helen Clark and John Key. Helen Clark said my avenue for complaint was my vote. So getting screwed by the big hot shot wanker legal and government fuckwits in fancy offices and high pay can be countered by me waiting for an election and there I will get justice by placing my vote in the box. What the fuck is this world coming to.

We once had some beautiful homes living in Sydney Australia, Hawaii, Rotorua New Zealand and Vancouver Canada. We had a beautiful boat at Point Piper in Sydney harbour and life was wonderful. It needed to be for me I had a tough time getting there. When I was 14 I was dragged home by my father only to find my mother in a pool of blood beaten up because she was pregnant. I was bashed right through childhood and often woke up with dry blood all over my face. I left school at 15 with no qualifications but I worked hard. By 22-23 I was suffered some personal stress issues and was living on the streets of Kings Cross and Potts Point but after a revelation I tried again and within 2 years was married and was a millionaire.

I started and sold my electronics business to Brierley Investments and then became involved in the Matakana island deal in kid 1991. At the time the country was in recession and no one was interested in Matakana and so I had the time to put together a complex deal. But during that time I suffered the endless arseholes that I have over the years wanted to kill. Not just scar but actually shoot dead after a knee shot to get them talking fast. Any mistakes with their answer would be the other knee. Plenty of parts to shoot to get them honest. The justice system  failed me and as I pass 15 years post Privy Council I still wake up in sweats riddled with anger and rage. Not often, but when I do as I did last yesterday even my wonderful family can’t get through to me.

I’m not sure what I should do. I’m alone in my world, my family suffering the effects of what we call freedom, democracy, and transparency. No one cares and it’s for that I feel at times as if I should meet up with these pricks and get some honesty. Last year I drafted a list of questions I wanted answered, addressed in a government inquiry. I wrote to various members of parliament but they ignored me. I didn’t swear or cus, just attached the questions which I list below and they ignored me.

The current jihadist movement is about wrong doing by those same type of leaders. They get power representing us the ordinary people and then don’t give a fuck. Oh they act as if they do but I've spent plenty of time in social circles with ex politicians and I know the drill. My closest friend Sir Peter Tapsell often would act out how meetings would go. “My goodness that is serious well thank you for coming to see me I have these notes and will make inquiries and be rest assured I will get to the bottom of this” as he waves the person goodbye with one hand while the other throws the piece of paper into the bin. “Politicians aren’t interested in anything that won’t help them in their political career Chris” Peter would often say. He is right.

I said to my wife this morning I can see a better system but no one cares. I’m not sure if I want to kill myself quietly or kill a long list of people who deserve to die. I can understand jihad, I have sympathy for the real jihad. I have no interest in the religious lunatics they can got fuck themselves. But the others who have been fucked over by various USA sponsored butchering murdering scum who have fucked over good people, I can understand that.  What other choice are they given- go see Gary Judd QC and take some action in the courts?

I don’t want to die nor do I want to kill anyone. But in times of grief I can understand the desire to cut them down with a bullet. Some I hate so badly I imagine tied to a chair and for hours I would actually enjoy watching hem suffer. And this is from a man who cried when his pet possum died. From a man who loves his family, a man who always stops to help other people, someone who really cares about humanity. But the older I get the more I realise our world is fake.

We have no systems to hold people to account, sure the average bad person who robs a bank, or murders some poor soul. But the people with real power, the ones we trust in our courts in our government, we have no control over them.  They have got so good at covering up their wrongs they even have control over what goes into the news. Google my case and see what they have written. Look at the list of questions I want addressed in a government inquiry and see what you can find the media write of it.

It’s a worldwide problem. My Matakana experience and all its wrongs is exactly the same as the invasion and bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Gaza, West Bank and now Syria where I have spent time and well know what really is going on. John Pilger’s film & book “The War on Democracy” and Noam Chomsky’s various books detail what a scum system we have. I grew up thinking we were the good guys. In many ways we are.  But so are those people our government are killing on mass all to get control of resources on behalf of corporate banking, oil and armament giants. Our system stinks even more so than most of those we attack in the name of freedom and democracy.

Those of you reading this will forget about the message as you turn on the television, or head out to you next engagement. Forget about the reality of the system you pay for, you support. I don’t blame you. Life for you is good and why should you care about other people suffering because its not affecting you is it. Yet. But just wait until the jihadists grow and grow, all taught the truth of how corrupt and rotten our murderous, thieving rotten scum we call western leadership are. Of course so are their leaders, their system, they are no better. But for those becoming their soldiers in the name of their God, they rush into attack confident they are fighting against wrong, and they are right. They just aren’t aware they don’t have a better system to replace what they are destroying.

In the last 15 years since the Privy Council I thought a lot about a better system. And my conclusion was that we needed to make those we trust running our courts and government fully accountable to a jury. A real system where all the key facts are put to a jury and if they agree the decision by one of our leaders stinks then that leaders must either correct it or he is fired. The Islamic system doesn’t believe in manmade law. To them there is only one law and that is the word of God which is crap because God has never spoken direct to the people, the only claimed words are those via ordinary humans claiming the words are God’s word. Our churches and mosques are no more than political power bases from where narcissists impose their personal will as they wave to the crowds of devoted fools unable to think for themselves.

Yes I am angry. Pissed at most of you fellow humans who all claim you want a better world yet do fuck all to do anything about it. To most of you it’s either a daily diet of sport, television or some god who you think will fix things up. I’ve tried communicating solutions to a god percentage of you out there but judging by the response only less than 5% of you can think things through with the remaining fucked. I’ve tried my best to improve the world. My children are all outstanding leaders, our eldest undertaking research in medicine that may earn her a Nobel Prize based on protein adaption, my son and other daughters all leaders, with multi awards, school dux, etc. My wife the best human who ever lived but who is sadly living with a husband bitter and twisted over his walk in life. But there she stands day after day supporting me.

But nothing makes me happy when I have bad days caused not by me but others who really need to be dispatched from this planet. I think humans need a huge wakeup call. Some years ago I owned restaurant here in Western Australia and one of my staff said some people on table C4 wanted to me to join them. I did, he was a judge, Justice Smith from New Zealand. We talked about Matakana Island and I told him I had to leave NZ because I was going to kill a bunch of people including the judges that screwed me over. Nothing much happened from that chat apart from metal detectors being installed at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Although I did see Justice Smith refuses the defendants application to develop Matakana Island. Today Matakana is no longer owned by the Maori group. They sold out with none of the money going to the Ngai Te Rangi’s 11,000 members instead all of it going to their former chairman, their accountant, in fact the same group I was introduced to by the mayors as required under the Resource Management Act. Yes those pricks, the ones who fooled the gullible cocksucks in government power who didn’t want to believe Maori claims of sacred was a sham. I warned them  but they had the power and attitude of arrogance to ignore me. One of them was the Commissioner of Crown Lands Brendan Mulholland whom I wrote an article once titled - “Brendan Mulholland Village Idiot.”

And so as you all go on your Merry way and things out there shock you like the Paris attack, just ask yourself if you even know how to judge things going on around you. My guess is most of you will bury your heads in the sand just like humans have throughout history, ignoring the hard questions while you survive on dribble.

But just to test you thinking ask yourself who is the bad guys in Syria. Most will say Assad and quote chemical weapon attacks, or the 82 uprising in Hama where thousands died. If you think they are the facts, then fuck you, you’re an example of the sort of ignorance I have been talking about. I guess you also think the Iranian history was caused by Shia lunatics overthrowing the honest Shah. So many of you know absolutely fuck all about anything. Yet you vote, you talk, you have opinions that put to the test doesn’t stack up. I don’t like you and I don’t like our systems of management that are destroying so much that could be so good. The great thing about my idea of having laws and a jury to control our leaders is just that point, to test their thinking. But if all hell rains down on you one day I guess suddenly you will whimper and beg for another shot at getting things right. Too late arsehole you had your chance. 

What you all don’t seem to understand is that abuse of power gets its authority from sovereign immunity. People in positions of governing the people do so in fiduciary roles. Yet the rules that outline the duties of being a fiduciary are being ignored because those in power at the top are not required to answer for their mistakes, hidden agenda, negligence or corruption. They operate power protected by sovereign immunity which comes from the idea the King can do no wrong in his service of the people.

In a democracy, power is conferred from the people in elections with a mandate of the will of the people to those responsible for managing the people’s laws and rights. But democracy is endlessly undermined by weak political accountability structures.

It would no doubt be successfully argued that operation Iraqi Freedom was a breach of the trust conferred to the President by the use of false intelligence Bush executives knowingly concocted to justify an invasion of Iraq. It wasn’t the United States of America who did wrong; it was certain executives hiding behind sovereign immunity and executive power to abuse their positions of trust. Yet despite their heinous wrongs that cost the lives of millions of innocent people the sovereign immunity means they walk away into retirement free to leave the mess behind for others to deal with.

In 1978, a book called the Dilemma of Democracy; Lord Hailsham described the Westminster system as “an elective dictatorship”. Those were his words.  He said “we live under the authority of a rule [of parliamentary supremacy] absolute in theory if tolerable in practice”.  He explained:

“In our lifetime the use of its powers has continuously increased, and the checks and balances had been rendered increasingly ineffective by the concentration of their effective operation more and more in the House of Commons, in the government side of the House of Commons, in the Cabinet within the government side, and to some extent the Prime Minister within the Cabinet.

That is the reality of our world and my advice to the young people is change the laws to ensure anyone running your government is accountable to a jury.

 

 

Justice and Electoral Select Committee

New Zealand House of Representatives

THE INQUIRY INTO THE MATAKANA ISLAND LITIGATION

“That the House of Representatives inquire into, with a view to overturning, the Privy Council’s decision in Arklow Investments Limited v MacLean [2000] 2 NZLR 1, and provide suitable remedies to the plaintiff.”

Background

Mr Wingate was the main plaintiff in Arklow v Maclean. He has applied to the New Zealand House of Representatives Justice and Electoral Select Committee to investigate a miscarriage of justice.

In order for that to be determined these questions will need to be addressed:

1.        Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Council get any facts wrong?

2.        Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Council get any law wrong?

If that answer is yes, then it needs to be determined how that materially affected the outcome.

3.        Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Council engineer false judgements in order to ensure the Matakana Island land remained with Maori defendants?

4.        Has the judiciary been operating a special “Assist Maori” policy?

5.        Was the Crown blinded by the Maori claim the Matakana Island land was sacred without doing any serious inquiries?

6.        Did the Minister of Land and Minister of Finance knowingly assist the Maori defendants at Arklow’s expense?

7.        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?

8.        Did Justice Henry predetermine his Privy Council decision prior to trial?

9.        Was the author of the Privy Council judgement Justice Henry in a business relationship with Alan Galbraith QC defence counsel for the defendants?

10.     Did the defendants know in advance of the Court Appeal decision they had won from an inside source?

11.     Did the Maori defendants use threats and violence to obtain their contracts from ITT Rayonier, Ernslaw One and Far Financial in 1993?

12.     Did the Maori defendants interfere with Mr Wingate’s relationship with timber buyer Kanematsu Japan by threatening them with “Maori problems”?

13.     In 1994 in lifting Mr Wingate’s caveats protecting his interests in Matakana Island did Justice Greig pervert the course of justice?

14.     Did David Baragwanath QC mislead the High Court at the 1994 Justice Greig hearing?

15.     Did Arklow/Wingate’s barrister Gary Judd fail to protect Arklow’s legal rights at the 1994 Justice Greig hearing?

16.     Was Mr Wingate’s barrister Gary Judd QC in a business relationship with David Baragwanath QC? (Mr Baragwanath acted for the Maori defendants 1993-1994.)

17.     Did any of the defendants perjure their evidence?

18.     Did other TKC Corporation witnesses perjure their evidence and pervert the course of justice?

19.     Did Ernslaw One lawyer and company secretary Jack Porus perjure his evidence?

20.     Did ITT CEO Charles Margiotta perjure his evidence?

21.     Did Don Shaw perjure his evidence?

22.     Did Far Financial directors perjure their evidence including backdating diary entries?

23.     Did Far Financial steal confidential information from Arklow Investments?

24.     Did Far Financial owe Arklow a fiduciary duty?

25.     Was Far Financial broke when Arklow approached it to borrow money therefore saw the Arklow business plans as opportunity to get rich by stealing the Arklow deal?

26.     Did the defendants misuse the discovery process by concealing documents? 

27.     Did the defendant’s lawyers pervert the course of justice by claiming damaging documents had legal privilege?

28.     Did barrister John Eichelbaum have a business partnership with Far Financial?

29.     Did John Eichelbaum mislead the Court of Appeal in 1998 with false submissions?

30.     Did lawyer Jock Fanselow attempt to pervert the course of justice by holding in trust Far Financial directors personal assets? 

31.     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?

32.     Did the Tauranga police fail to adequately investigate Waitangi manager (WAI 215) Sonny Tawhiao’s death?

33.     After the Privy Council win did Far Financial set up Lombard Finance with Michael Reeves and appoints former Attorney General Sir Douglas Graham and Minister of Justice Bill Jeffries to the board of directors?

34.     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?

35.     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?

36.     Did the Brendan Mulholland the Commissioner of Crown Lands misuse his office to defeat Arklow’s rights?

37.     Did the tribal leadership of Ngai Te Rangi breach their fiduciary duty by directing tribal assets into their own personal names? (Theft by a person in special relationship)

38.     Did the Maori group submit to Court the Matakana Island land was going to be jointly owned on a 50/50 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? 

39.     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?

40.     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 going into the pockets of the Maori leadership, their accountant and lawyers who misled the court? 

41.     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?

42.     Was a senior tax officer who issued a false tax payable demand for $1.4m against Christopher Wingate, a former lawyer for defendants Far Financial?

43.    Did Arklow’s confidential valuations by forestry consultant Cawstons 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?

 44.    Did Far Financial clearly 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 Court of Appeal majority claim that at no time did Far Financial copy the Arklow deal?

45.    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?

46.    Was Justice Baragwanath’s daughter Natalie present at a meeting held by a businessman 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?

47.    When those payments stopped in August 2000 immediately after Wingate filed a complaint to the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights, did the defendants within 48hrs then file for costs against Wingate in the High Court?

48.    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 right through to the Arklow aim of securing the 10,000 acres of land which according to reports by George E.Lipp Inc, concept analysts and financial consultants of Singapore together with international architects Klages Carter Vail and Partners of California and NZ engineers Duffill Watts and King - calculated Arklow’s turnover of $17.82 billion, with development costs of $6.40 billion, operating costs of $7.99 billion to produce a net cash flow of $3.43 billion.

49.    Is it correct that New Zealand media has never published correct information about the Matakana Island litigation?

Links- :

http://matakanaleadership.blogspot.com.au/

http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/why-i-say-no-to-violence-against-woman.html

http://worldeconomy-wingate.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/billionaires-millionaires-why-invest-in.html

http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/the-arklow-vs-maclean-judgements-say.html

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/inspired-people/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501798&objectid=10534388

http://idiotsinpower.blogspot.com.au/2010/02/brendan-mulholland-kiwi-village-idiot.html

IPA - International Political Accountability Society - Accountability of Politicians through Fiduciary Legislation

Democracy is not dead- it’s simply been hijacked by our dear leaders who have used their fiduciary trustee control at executive level to remove any real methods for ordinary people of accessing accountability from them.

And as history has shown, if you’re immune to fiduciary control, you have the ability to destroy society. It is unfortunate political management has become a game rather than a focus on their legal fiduciary obligation.

The answer is clear. Accountability of politicians through fiduciary legislation. Government’s politicians have abused power since nation and states began. Democracy is undermined by weak political accountability structures. Democratic leaders are meant to act in public interest but we haven’t had much of that and the damage being done by them is increasing.

Government is a 'trust structure' created by people to manage the needs of society. The relationship between government and the governed is clearly a fiduciary one. Yet rules such as Sovereign Immunity or Crown and Judicial Immunity are now being targeted as the very tools of oppression that are preventing those being abused from taking action against the person controlling the laws of a country. Originating from within the courts of equity, the fiduciary concept was partly designed to prevent those holding positions of power from abusing their authority.

Modern arguments suggest anyone accepting any judicial, political or government control over the interests of people requires moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust. Its conduct should therefore be judged by the most exacting fiduciary standards. The fiduciary relationship arises from the government’s ability to control people with the exercise of that power. In effect, if a government has the power to abolish any rights then they are burdened with the fiduciary duty to protect such an interest because the government would benefit from the exercise of its own discretion to extinguish rights which it alone had the power to dispose of.

Time to act- time to push for fiduciary legislation because of the fiduciary's fail- the nation fails.

Watch this space

Dr Michael Bassett's "Incorrect History?"- "City of Sails: the History of Auckland City Council 1989 - 2010"

"Commissioned by the final Auckland City Council as a legacy project before it was folded into the new Auckland super city, this book is the story of Auckland's growth since early times, and of the changes brought about in Auckland in 1989 after reforms driven by the then Minister of Local Government, Michael Bassett."

Dear Michael Bassett

I have recently been given details of your book:

"City of Sails: the History of Auckland City Council 1989 - 2010" by Michael Bassett.

I need to urgently discuss your retracting blatant false and malicious statements and information you have recorded in your "history" book about ACC 1989 - 2010.

At page 191, you state that:

"Flow-on legal challenges eventuates from Adrian Chisholm and the Waiheke Country Club, complaining that sewage treatment plant was going to be too close to the club's property."

Michael you are absolutely 100 percent WRONG

I had NO part in the Oneroa Village treatment plant whatsoever. I do not even know where it was final located, but clearly it would be within a short distance of the Oneroa area.

Many, many miles away, within the Onetangi Valley, my matter with the ACC, was about when I stopped ACC abusing power by attempting to use section 330 "emergency powers" of the RMA to create a raw sewage dump on a public reserve.

This was done in the in the Environment Court on 14th January  1998, where Judge Kenderdine stated during her verbal decision: that ACC treatment of Mr Chisholm was "reprehensible"

This was not a "treatment plant"  - it was the most basic and barbaric raw sewage shit dump, the size of two rugby fields and crudely constructed 30 cm x 30 cm trenches created by a bulldozer on the ACC public reserve, 3 metres from my boundary fence where I had a legitimate legal expectation that my property rights as an adjoining owner would be upheld and protected.

There was no consultation whatsoever with me and I was left to read of ACC's activities in the NZ Herald on nthe 7th January 1998.

At that time I had just spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars on lodging a resource consent under the RMA (with the very same Authority (ACC) who was abusing power across the fence) to build a $25m eco tourist lodge, conference and function centre and vineyard adjoining this ACC public golf course.

The Resource Consent had already been partly processed by ACC when this abuse of power occurred. So the ACC could not say they did not know what was happening over their fence of their public reserve.

This dispute went on from 7 Jan 1998 until 17th December 2003 and there are dozens of media reports including network news items on both TV1 and TV3, radio, newspapers, 43 court hearings in 4 court jurisdictions, including my arrest for criminal trespass (ordered by ACC) for standing as an Auckland Ratepayer in front of the bulldozers to attempt a citizens arrest and prevent the abuse of power by ACC and the desecration of a public reserve.
It also included ( I believe the only timer his occurred in the ACC offices) my sleeping the night in the Mayor's office the night of 24 February 2000, when the Mayor Chris Fletcher and CEO Bryan Taylor would not hand over a full copy of a PI report the ACC had commissioned to be done on my family. The report was shredded by order of the Auckland High Court, Justice Bruce Robertson the next day.

My question is very simple:

How could you get these two completely unrelated matters mixed up into the one event?

I am completely gob smacked.

This is not just a "mistake" - in fact I am at a complete loss to describe your basic lack of research or basic level of enquiry or cross referencing.

I need an apology and a formal retraction from your "history"book urgently.

The book must be reprinted and and the current copies withdrawn from circulation.

Please request your lawyers contact me urgently.

Yours faithfully

Adrian Chisholm
PO Box 109 452
Newmarket
Auckland 1149

Government Inquiry into Murder, Corruption, Crown Negligence and Maori Extortion - The Matakana Island Litigation

"We don't want to believe our power is held by a handful of incompetent men"
 

New Zealand House of Representatives

Inquiry into Arklow Investments Limited v MacLean
 The Matakana island Litigation

Separation of Powers is about what?
Stopping an inquiry into another hand on the power who fail or Checks and balances?
 

In 2009 I wrote “In life you end up valuing the lows almost as you do the highs because the lows build character and the highs reward you for the struggle”

As a businessman, father and New Zealander I had held a faith that at the highest levels of government there would exist a group of leaders who would be accurate, diligent, caring and honest. And that they would use that power to correct any of the mistakes done at the lower levels. Well I was wrong. We don't want to believe our power is held by a handful of incompetent men, but that is exactly what I found.

This new inquiry is about corruption at the highest levels. For years New Zealanders have seen one shonky deal after another- they appear endless.

My court case was about a merchant bank called Far Financial. A private bank based in Wellington who made sure it surrounded itself with the most powerful people running New Zealand. At the time I came in contact with them in 1992 they were broke. I didn't know that because they had approached my company Arklow Investments offering their services. I was at the time putting together a deal to buy a 10,000 acre property in the Tauranga harbour which was covered in pine forest aged up to 34 years. The land had a sawmill and its business was planting and growing trees, then cutting and processing them.

As a forestry business it made about $1.3m profit which was not enough to pay its bills and at the time I was trying to buy it, it was in the hands of a receiver because the owners had borrowed 100% of the purchase price and couldn't make the repayments. The price the receivers were seeking was $30m plus so I went to the debenture holder, the party owed the money and negotiated a price of $20m. I had been up to Japan several times seeking a buyer for the forest and I had finally ended up with a deal for that company to pay $15.75m for the 17-34 year forest.

So I put together an information memorandum outlining my proposal to put to banks or investors. The summary of that information was as follows:

I am buying Matakana island's 10,000 acres of coastal land for a price of $20m. I require up to $5m to complete the purchase. I will repay that $5m after selling the 1-16 year forest. The banks security would be the 10,000 acres, the sawmill, transport system, 20 odd houses, a mature hardwood forest and the 5000 acre 1-16 year forest. The younger forest we thought was worth around $6-10m. It actually sold for $10m a year later but that's another part of the story I won't get in detail on at this point.

The merchant bank Far Financial had approached us wanting to see what our deal was and so in June 1992 we provided them with over 100 pages of how our deal was structured. We offered 2 basic deals. Loan us the $5m like  a normal bank loan or invest the $5m and get a 25% share this project. It was a great deal. But the problem was, the bank were broke as can be seen here in this letter from them to their bank:

   

 

The above documents you can see the bank were broke. Had bounced cheques, couldn't make car repayments. You also see a file open numbered "498"- that was opened for their new client, my company Arklow Investments Matakana Island deal. But instead of offering us $5m as you would expect a bank to do, they asked us for $5000 to go look for the money and so our relationship never went any further. I didn't know they were broke I just provided them with our deal's details and left it with them.

So, what did the bank do? Well you can see that on July 15th they made contact with the receivers. Other documentation showed that 2 days after they first started getting our information they started fishing around and had made contact with an American forestry called ITT Rayonier. The letter just above dated 28 July shows Far Financial offering the 17-35 year forest to ITT Rayonier for $150,000 less than our Kanematsu deal of $15.75m. They were now on their way to stealing our deal.

In the months that followed Far Financial, ITT Rayonier and Ernslaw One purchased Matakana Island. The court cases that followed began on the basis of my barrister Gary Judd saying " it will take less than 2 years...will cost you $80-100,000... you have an excellent case... you will win."

I did win. In 1997 after a 4 week hearing Justice Paul Temm slammed the defendants with a solid judgement outlining their guilt. Gary Judd my barrister never ran the case he had pulled out 1 month prior to the hearing claiming I had lied on a security of costs affidavit stating his duty as an officer of the court was compromised. We replaced him with Noel Ingram QC.

 

The above pictures show my staff during the trial and then just above with Noel Ingram QC the day we won the trial which was May 5 1997. A month after this picture was taken Justice Paul Temm suddenly died. The defendants then claimed I had bugged their telephone lines, gained an unfair advantage and wanted a new trial. That application was brought before Justice Fisher. Fisher had to look at what if any advantage I would have gained from bugging the defendants. He found none and pointed out the defendants guilt was clear.

The Bugging Case

The case was dropped when we showed the police the man I was alleged to have employed to carry out the bugging was on the payroll of the defendants. We knew he was spying on their behalf and my investigators led by John Hughes were spying on them. The Rotorua police were being directed by a team of former detectives working for the defendants used their contacts to cause as much problems for Wingate /Arklow as possible. They even had the former deputy commissioner of police on their payroll. They even used a search warrant, took evidence against the defendants and gave it that same day to Ray Annan, a lawyer working for the defendants.

Former senior police inspector John Hughes ready at the High Court to give evidence about the bugging case if it got raised during the Far Financial trial.

 

So two decisions were then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The decision of Justice Temm and the retrial application by Justice Fisher. That case was heard in early 1998. And so enters the Maori group. My litigation began in early 1993. And around that time some of you may recall a road blockade was erected on Matakana island by local Tauranga "Maori" who claimed they should be the owners, that the land was sacred, that they had the money etc. That Maori group threatened to "burn the forests" and a fire did occur. They also used the Maori Congress to lobby ITT Rayonier and Ernslaw One Ltd threatening them with "Maori trouble" if they didn't hand over the Matakana land.
I employed researchers to investigate the "sacred land claims" and found it was complete nonsense. The original Tauranga tribe the Ranganui lived peacefully at the top of Mt Maunganui and were massacred by a northern NZ tribe called Ngai Te Rangi not long before Captain Cook arrived. So any claims this is their sacred land is rubbish. Besides, the local Maori sold for cash all of the Matakana land (15000 acres) to three businessman in the 1880's. The government in the 1890's then purchased back 5000acres of that now improved land and gave it for free to local Maori. So there is no sad story here of troops taking land and local Maori being hard done by.
By late 1993 the new owners (Far Financial, ITT and E1) fearful of my case against the bank, for strategic reasons, sold the land to the "Maori group" who had set up a company called Te Kotukutuku and their charitable trust called Matakana Island Charitable trust. But to get ownership they needed to lift my caveats. That case in 1994 was before Justice Greig. Together with the support of the Crown- Minister of Lands, Minister of Finance the judge ordered my caveats lifted allowing the bank to sell. The judge said in his judgement that the sale would go a long way to solving the local Maori Waitangi claims. But the Maori group didn't have any money to buy so they arranged an American group to buy half the "sacred land" (5000 acres) and 1-16 year forest for $15m.

And so after my win against the bank in 1997 the Maori group appeared in the Court of Appeal in 1998 to push one key point. "The bank may have done a little wrong but the important issue was that the sacred land was now in the hands of the traditional owners."  

When they judgement came out I was shocked. Not only had I lost but the facts were completely twisted, false, misleading  and bore zero relationship to what the actual documents showed. One judge, justice Ted Thomas was on my side-  

Justice Ted Thomas minority decision in the Court of Appeal 1998 -

http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/justice-ted-thomas-decision-nz-court-of.html

After the Court of Appeal I had to take my case to the Privy Council in London. Lord Cooke pulled out from hearing the case at the 11th hour because he shared holidays with one of the Far Financial directors. He was replaced by Sir Andrew Leggatt. The decision was handed down by NZ judge John Henry. Arklow Wingate lost.

Since then I have been appealing to various authorities seeking a new trial. Below is some of the reaction I have had and below that is a list of questions I have assembled that show the extent of the corruption involved in this case.

 

Professor Peter Spiller

"Thanks for sending this to me: it makes disturbing reading."

Sir Peter Tapsell August 2009

“I have read your submission from cover to cover and I agree with you completely. You have formulated a cohesive and articulate argument and backed it up. I cannot believe the government has not done something about it, it’s appalling.”
 

Retired Australian High Court Justice Michael Kirby

" I also enjoyed the dissenting opinions of Justice Ted Thomas.  He is often ahead of the game."

Professor Paul Finn

“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.”

Justice Paul Temm

“To put the matter is 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”

Christopher Wingate

"I think it's a travesty of justice that in this particular case, the defendants have been able to fight me using teams of powerful lawyers paid for by stolen money."

 

 

 

 

Below is a list of questions that if unanswered because legal persons in parliament block an inquiry; then there is no doubt we have serious and organised cover-ups of corruption. Parliament must overturn the Privy Council decision because that's their duty of care.

  Justice and Electoral Select Committee

New Zealand House of Representatives

“That the House of Representatives inquire into, with a view to overturning, the Privy Council’s decision in Arklow Investments Limited v MacLean [2000] 2 NZLR 1, and provide suitable remedies to the plaintiff.”

Background

Mr Wingate was the main plaintiff in Arklow v Maclean. He has applied to the New Zealand House of Representatives Justice and Electoral Select Committee to investigate a miscarriage of justice.

In order for that to be determined these questions will need to be addressed:

1.        Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Council get any facts wrong?

2.        Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Council get any law wrong?

If that answer is yes, then it needs to be determined how that materially affected the outcome.

3.        Did the Court of Appeal and Privy Council engineer false judgements in order to ensure the Matakana Island land remained with Maori defendants?

4.        Has the judiciary been operating a special “Assist Maori” policy?

5.        Was the Crown blinded by the Maori claim the Matakana Island land was sacred without doing any serious inquiries?

6.        Did the Minister of Land and Minister of Finance knowingly assist the Maori defendants at Arklow’s expense?

7.        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?

8.        Did Justice Henry predetermine his Privy Council decision prior to trial?

9.        Was the author of the Privy Council judgement Justice Henry in a business relationship with Alan Galbraith QC defence counsel for the defendants?

10.     Did the defendants know in advance of the Court Appeal decision they had won from an inside source?

11.     Did the Maori defendants use threats and violence to obtain their contracts from ITT Rayonier, Ernslaw One and Far Financial in 1993?

12.     Did the Maori defendants interfere with Mr Wingate’s relationship with timber buyer Kanematsu Japan by threatening them with “Maori problems”?

13.     In 1994 in lifting Mr Wingate’s caveats protecting his interests in Matakana Island did Justice Greig pervert the course of justice?

14.     Did David Baragwanath QC mislead the High Court at the 1994 Justice Greig hearing?

15.     Did Arklow/Wingate’s barrister Gary Judd fail to protect Arklow’s legal rights at the 1994 Justice Greig hearing?

16.     Was Mr Wingate’s barrister Gary Judd QC in a business relationship with David Baragwanath QC? (Mr Baragwanath acted for the Maori defendants 1993-1994.)

17.     Did any of the defendants perjure their evidence?

18.     Did other TKC Corporation witnesses perjure their evidence and pervert the course of justice?

19.     Did Ernslaw One lawyer and company secretary Jack Porus perjure his evidence?

20.     Did ITT CEO Charles Margiotta perjure his evidence?

21.     Did Don Shaw perjure his evidence?

22.     Did Far Financial directors perjure their evidence including backdating diary entries?

23.     Did Far Financial steal confidential information from Arklow Investments?

24.     Did Far Financial owe Arklow a fiduciary duty?

25.     Was Far Financial broke when Arklow approached it to borrow money therefore saw the Arklow business plans as opportunity to get rich by stealing the Arklow deal?

26.     Did the defendants misuse the discovery process by concealing documents? 

27.     Did the defendant’s lawyers pervert the course of justice by claiming damaging documents had legal privilege?

28.     Did barrister John Eichelbaum have a business partnership with Far Financial?

29.     Did John Eichelbaum mislead the Court of Appeal in 1998 with false submissions?

30.     Did lawyer Jock Fanselow attempt to pervert the course of justice by holding in trust Far Financial directors personal assets? 

31.     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?

32.     Did the Tauranga police fail to adequately investigate Waitangi manager (WAI 215) Sonny Tawhiao’s death?

33.     After the Privy Council win did Far Financial set up Lombard Finance with Michael Reeves and appoints former Attorney General Sir Douglas Graham and Minister of Justice Bill Jeffries to the board of directors?

34.     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?

35.     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?

36.     Did the Brendan Mulholland the Commissioner of Crown Lands misuse his office to defeat Arklow’s rights?

37.     Did the tribal leadership of Ngai Te Rangi breach their fiduciary duty by directing tribal assets into their own personal names? (Theft by a person in special relationship)

38.     Did the Maori group submit to Court the Matakana Island land was going to be jointly owned on a 50/50 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? 

39.     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?

40.     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 going into the pockets of the Maori leadership, their accountant and lawyers who misled the court? 

41.     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?

42.     Was a senior tax officer who issued a false tax payable demand for $1.4m against Christopher Wingate, a former lawyer for defendants Far Financial?

43.    Did Arklow’s confidential valuations by forestry consultant Cawstons 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?

 44.    Did Far Financial clearly 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 Court of Appeal majority claim that at no time did Far Financial copy the Arklow deal?

45.    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?

46.    Was Justice Baragwanath’s daughter Natalie present at a meeting held by a businessman 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?

47.    When those payments stopped in August 2000 immediately after Wingate filed a complaint to the United Nation’s Commission on Human Rights, did the defendants within 48hrs then file for costs against Wingate in the High Court?

48.    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 right through to the Arklow aim of securing the 10,000 acres of land which according to reports by George E.Lipp Inc, concept analysts and financial consultants of Singapore together with international architects Klages Carter Vail and Partners of California and NZ engineers Duffill Watts and King - calculated Arklow’s turnover of $17.82 billion, with development costs of $6.40 billion, operating costs of $7.99 billion to produce a net cash flow of $3.43 billion.

 

Note:

 

The NZ Government provided the template.

* “That the House of Representatives inquire into, with a view to overturning, the Privy Council’s decision in Arklow Investments Limited v MacLean [2000] 2 NZLR 1, and provide suitable remedies to the plaintiff.”

The Arklow / Wingate team provided the questions.

 

Was the Privy Council wrong on the law ?

 

Below is a paper done by leading international equity expert Professor Robert Flannigan. I can hear some suggest it's just his opinion. However, I have employed the world's most respected experts in this area of law, Professor Paul Finn and Professor Peter Birks.  The law is clear, and Flannigan is correct. If anyone who doubt's this needs to write a paper espousing their views on how fiduciary obligations operate. Flannigan surgically rips apart the Privy Council decision.

The word ‘fiduciary’ derives from the Latin fiducia which means trust or confidence. In Roman law fiducia was a pactum, an “appendage to a conveyance”. Its primary use was a direction to the holder of property concerning that person’s obligations in relation to the property. One such example was fiducia cum amico, an institution which still exists in Civilian jurisdictions, in which a person receives assets subject to an obligation to deal with them in a particular way, in good faith.

The Boundaries of

Fiduciary Accountability 

(Professor) ROBERT FLANNIGAN

Citation: 2004 N.Z. L. Rev. 215 2004

The English Jurisprudence

The senior English courts have been content for the most part to employ a traditional approach. An example is the 1993 decision of the Privy Council in Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid, which confirmed the English commitment to the strict application of fiduciary responsibility.' The judgment of Lord Templeman is an illustration of the proposition that courts will do what is necessary to remove any incentive to act opportunistically. Generally, there are few indications in the senior English courts of any willingness to engage in the comprehensive articulation of the abstract character of fiduciary accountability.
The judgment of Lord Millett in Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew is now regarded as stating the current English position on the nature of fiduciary responsibility. The definitive extract, quoted regularly in English courts,"
A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations. They are the defining characteristics of the fiduciary. As Dr. Finn pointed out in his classic work Fiduciary Obligations (1977) p. 2, he is not subject to fiduciary obligations because he is a fiduciary; it is because he is subject to them that he is a fiduciary.

Lord Millett recognised that conventional fiduciary responsibility addresses disloyalty or opportunism. The "core" obligation, as the listed "facets" or rules illustrate, is to forgo self-interest.

Beyond that, however, there is little in the judgment to advance our comprehension of fiduciary analysis. There is one semantic concern with Lord Millett's remarks. The rules he listed are not "defining characteristics of the fiduciary" in the sense that they identify who is a fiduciary. Rather, they are consequences of a fiduciary characterisation. The rules themselves do not indicate what it is that makes a person a fiduciary. They only have application once triggered by a prior finding of fiduciary status. That is only a semantic point, but semantics are a main source of confusion in the fiduciary jurisprudence. Consider Lord Millett's reference to Finn. It should be evident at this point that Finn's observation confounds the matter. He appears to have it exactly backwards. Actors become subject to specific fiduciary rules because their access is limited (that is, because they are fiduciaries), not because they are somehow spontaneously subjected to fiduciary obligations.

The issue in Bristol was whether a lack of care on the part of a fiduciary was a fiduciary breach. Lord Millett agreed with the view that negligence by a fiduciary was properly regulated by general tort law principles. Acting negligently was not a fiduciary breach. As he explained it, "Breach of fiduciary obligation, therefore, connotes disloyalty or infidelity. Mere incompetence is not enough. He understood that the duty of care and the duty of loyalty are parallel general duties applied on a default basis to regulate two distinct mischiefs.

The English experience since Bristol, for the most part, is unremarkable. The English judges have remained on the sidelines in the debate over the definitive criteria for fiduciary responsibility. Their abstract analysis of the nature of the obligation usually begins and ends with the citation of Lord Millett's judgment.

The Arklow Case

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. 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.

On the general question of the relationship between fiduciary obligation and breach of confidence, it is worth mentioning the words of Lord Steyn a few months later in Attorney General v Blake. With reference to the disclosure of confidential information by a spy, Lord Steyn stated: "If the information was still confidential, Blake would in my view have been liable as a fiduciary .... He was ... in a very similar position to a fiduciary. The reason of the rule applying to fiduciaries applies to him." That is a sound observation. The "reason of the rule" is the same for both fiduciary obligation and breach of confidence. Information that is confidential is information that cannot be freely exploited. Where access is for a defined or limited purpose, it is a breach of loyalty to disclose or exploit the information for other than the defined purpose. In the end, although ostensibly closer to the conventional position, the English jurisprudence is in much the same condition as that of Australia and Canada. The English judges appear to understand the singular function of fiduciary responsibility, but have had difficulty in articulating an analytical construct that offers definition and distinction in the marginal cases where it matters. The continuation of this state of affairs will serve only to diminish the efficacy of fiduciary discipline in each of these jurisdictions.

Conclusion

The boundaries of fiduciary accountability appear to be unsettled. That is an illusion. Though currently obscured by a layer of confusion, the conventional boundaries remain intelligible and unchanged. Those who have access for a defined or limited purpose are subject to fiduciary regulation; those with open access are not. Most judges understand this distinction intuitively. They also recognise that different nominate arrangements are properly subjected to generic fiduciary control. Traditionally they applied this form of regulation by direct appeal to public policy, by analogy, or by the assertion of policy artifacts (the conflict and profit rules). These analytical techniques were conceptually untidy in some respects, but the function and boundaries of the jurisdiction were uncontroversial. Unfortunately, in the last while, commentators and judges unintentionally challenged the conventional boundaries when they introduced various abstract criteria in attempts to organise what they regarded as disjointed or unpolished analysis. They introduced these concepts, in most instances, in order to describe and clarify, not displace, what they perceived to be the conventional boundaries. The problem was that their criteria implied or accommodated boundaries that were not congruent with the conventional scope of fiduciary accountability. The criteria were insufficiently precise for their intended definition task. Nevertheless, because they sprang from credible sources, they had the appearance of logic and authority, and were incorporated to different degrees in judicial analyses. That produced an additional measure of confusion quite apart from the inherent indeterminacy of the various criteria. If all the criteria were potentially applicable, what was their relationship to one another? Were they redundant? Was there priority amongst them? Did they have different weight? Predictably, the novelty, number, and controversial content of the criteria produced substantial confusion. Equally predictably, the fiduciary jurisdiction was criticised, even ridiculed, for its vagueness and, more damaging, its seeming plasticity.

The main difficulty with several of the criteria was their open-ended quality. They could be interpreted in both restrictive and expansive ways. The misinterpretation concern was realised in several senior court decisions (and many more lower court decisions). The Supreme Court of Canada notoriously adopted expansive interpretations in the aboriginal/Crown and medical records contexts. The Court passed over the conventional boundary between the nominate and fiduciary dimensions. In contrast, in those same areas, the High Court of Australia declined to make the conceptual leap. In other respects, however, employing other criteria, the High Court has been unduly restrictive. In Canada, the more recent decisions of the Supreme Court are conventional in result, though the judges continue to toy with suspect criteria. The one promising development is the decision in KLB, which suggests the possibility of a significant rehabilitation or clarification of the jurisprudence.

Throughout this same period, the senior English courts have resisted manufacturing or applying novel criteria, though there are exceptions. Most recently, the English appear to have accepted Lord Millett's conventional statement of principle, and have not otherwise generally engaged in the abstract analysis of fiduciary accountability.

The solution to the problem of an opaque jurisprudence is not always apparent. That is not the case here. It is possible in this area to chronicle with some precision the production of increasing levels of confusion as a result of the introduction of numerous imprecise and irrelevant criteria over a number of decades. The solution is straightforward. Each and every one of the introduced criteria must be discarded. Unjust enrichment, discretion, encumbered power, abuse of power, power differential, total reliance, vulnerability, reasonable (legitimate) expectation, commercial character, arm's length, mutuality, and a collection of others, are all unsatisfactory as general tests. It is necessary to expunge them all in order to restore our proper comprehension of the conventional boundaries. The conventional function is undisputed. It is manifest public policy that our limited access arrangements be shielded from the infection of self-interest. That policy produces specific boundaries. There is no other policy identified in the jurisprudence that would justify altering those boundaries. A failure to recognise the distinction between nominate and fiduciary regulation, or to discard the confusions of the past decades, will condemn the jurisprudence to a further period of uncertain application and continuing questions of legitimacy.

Parliament Must Act

The above paper is clear. The Privy Council got the law wrong. Not only did they get the law wrong they wrote completely incorrect facts no doubt designed to cover their tracks.
Sir Peter Tapsell told me the decision against me was namely because some in government thought the land claims were legitimate. But they weren't. The Maori group were the leaders of the tribe who misused their positions to personally enrich themselves and certain people in the government and judiciary failed to investigate what was going on.

The inquiry into Arklow faces strong opposition from people within the legal fraternity who either by personal friendship or club rules will try their best to see it shut down irrespective of the corruption and negligence involved. Below is a letter I have sent to the Secretary of the Commonwealth in anticipation of that.

Commonwealth Secretariat

Marlborough House Pall Mall
London United Kingdom

10 February 2015

Dear Mr Secretary

If a member nation has a corrupt or negligent judiciary, what can be done if the Attorney General uses ‘Separation of Powers’ to stop a parliamentary inquiry into said judiciary? 

This has the effect of upsetting the Separation of Powers doctrine, which I understand is in place to create independent checks and balances on both legislative and judicial functions.

Please advise on this matter.

Sincerely

Christopher Wingate

 

Fiduciary Law and our Government Leadership

 

Some years ago I wrote:

"My aim has never wavered. To me fiduciary accountability (legislation) is the answer to all our political, judicial, economic, social & educational problems. When the world finally understands and adopts this, they will look back and wonder how they ever managed without it.”

Since the Matakana decision I have built a careful and detailed case for the removal of Crown Immunity. As some of you know, a fiduciary is a person who you trust to look after something that belongs to you. The most powerful fiduciary in society are our politicians and judges. Yet incredibly, you can't challenge them when they fail. Your doctor, lawyer, accountant, advisors, etc, are all accountable in a court of law. But the top of the power tree operate under ancient laws of immunity stemming from the dictatorship concept of "The King can do no wrong- the King is always correct."

Government is a trust structure owned by the people. We select people from our communities... well...our political parties put forward candidates for us to select from and those people are then employed with managing our nation.

I don't need to get into details of how often they fail you all know many stories yourselves. But failure by a doctor or a lawyer may only harm a few dozen at most. But failure by those we trust running our nation harms millions of people. Wars, bankruptcy, poor health and education services, loss of state assets, inflation and no money to look after our families is caused by poor government leadership.

From local councils through to the state management a fiduciary duty of care needs to be in place so that they can be held to account for their decisions. So how can we do this? Politicians are members of political parties and any of you who have had anything to do with them knows that decisions are made by a very small group of people. Those people put up ideas, candidates and members generally agree. If I asked the main political party or it's members of parliament to adopt fiduciary legislation they would reject it. They simply don't want to be held to account.

So, what we do is flood the political parties and actively push fiduciary legislation. I explained it like this to my kids. "You are members of the sailing club and have nice waterfront facilities and one day some powerboat people ask if they can also use your club. But you say no. Then over the next year your membership increases then one day at a meeting one of the new members suggests the club allows powerboats and calls for a motion in favour- someone else seconds the proposal and when it goes to vote the powerboats are now allowed to use the sailing club facilities."

That is the wonderful thing about democracy. By introducing new duty of care rules into our political parties the existing candidates have no choice but to comply with Party Policy.

Politics needs to be modernised. For too long it has been the lobby of political self interest and corrupt monopoly business. Democracy needs to be modernised. Democracy is not just about people having a vote, it's about ideas, culture and people and communities with needs. To maintain those links those we entrust the management of our nations must have connected to them strict rules that remind them they work for the people and not themselves or those who often secretly fund their elections.

 





Matakana Island

 

 

 The Arklow team

 Bryce Taylor, Kerry Sharplin, Chris Wingate, John Lepper, Mike Pittar

 

The Wingate family 1997

 

New Zealand Herald interview- Chris Wingate Kiwi in Australia

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/inspired-people/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501798&objectid=10534388



http://lawisanass-wingate.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/new-zealand-house-of-representatives.html