| CAN WE TRUST SOLICITOR GENERAL TO PROTECT THE LAW OF THE LAND? Dateline: 26 August 2007 To the right are pictures of Dr. Michael Cullen, Attorney General of New Zealand (far right) and David Collins QC, Solicitor-General. The Solicitor-General reports directly to the Attorney General and is the chief law enforcement officer for the Crown. As you read the letters below in the Solicitor General's own hand, keep in mind that the Solicitor-General's overriding responsibility is to maintain the rule of law and protect the public interest in New Zealand. His authority is limited to initiating due process where he believes laws are not being followed (he does not have the power to issue orders). Moreover, as the S-G is relied upon as the principle law protection officer for the Country, it is imperative that he not only understand the laws before he acts but also careful not to act unlawfully himself. What follows are two letters that David Collins recently sent out on official Crown letterhead. It is important to note that the kiwisfirst website he refers to in his letters has never been the subject of litigation, nor was it even contacted or put on notice by anyone prior to him sending out these letters. When he begins by referring to his role "in its broadest sense" it is the first warning to hide the women and children ahead of the goose-steppers. When caught out, David's office first claimed he didn't send the first letter, then claimed these did not amount to demand letters (remember again, he is not judge or jury). Has David failed in his legal obligation to follow the law (which requires him to differentiate his personal opinions from his law enforcement role as well as be specific as to the violations he alleges in his official capacity)? Has he been truthful? You be the judge. Additional letters herewith include the Editor of Kiwisfirst's response, an acknowledgment from Michael Cullen's office that he is essentially on top of the situation and a letter from a shareholder of the kiwisfirst.co.nz website - a letter that Mr. Collins never bothered to respond to. 29 July 2007 Dr. David Collins QC Solicitor General P.O. Box 5012 Wellington Dear Dr. Collins, As a shareholder in the New Zealand news website www.kiwisfirst.co.nz, I am shocked and troubled by what I consider your unlawful action in shutting down the site by ordering Enlighten Hosting (the web host) to do so. Not only does your extraordinary intervention in a private business and public service appear to far exceed your legal authority, it also tramples on absolute protections provided by New Zealand law, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Your explanation is required for this oppressive and damaging action taken by you without due process, as well as the legal authority that permits you to operate in such an arbitrary and dictatorial manner. Yours faithfully, Lauren Siemer 27 Clansman Terrace Gulf Harbour cc: Attorney General Michael Cullen *************************************************************************************************** < RESPONSE TO SOLICITOR GENERAL'S OFFFICE > *************************************************************************************************** 24 August 2007 *** HIGHEST PRIORITY *** Grant Liddell Junior Acting Deputy Solicitor General Office of the Solicitor General Your ref: SOL115/1823 Rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Dear Mr. Liddell, Thank you for your letter dated 24 August 2007. I don’t wish to be offensive but your cheeky and evasive reply to the pertinent requests contained in my email letter of 23 August is not productive. Do you really consider a stanch and ambiguous threat to take legal action against a webhost if they don’t act against the interests of a legitimate business does not constitute a demand? Let us please try again. Two simple issues evolve from the cavalcade of demand letters coming from your office. As a first matter of business, answers to the following basic questions are required: 1. As it relates to the Kiwisfirst.co.nz website, did David Collins of your office not send a letter dated 19 July 2007 demanding the webhost delete unspecified references to judges that he had arbitrarily (in contravention of his authority) deem to be ‘defamatory’? 2. Are Mr. Collins and you not aware that defamation law is straightforward in that it requires not only due process but, of equal importance, detailed specifics as to the exact language alleged to be defamatory? 3. If the answer to #2 is yes, why did Mr. Collins send out such a letter so clearly in contravention of the law if not to unlawfully intimidate the webhost into disabling the site? 4. Where does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which guarantees New Zealanders the right to freedom of expression factor into Mr. Collins and your actions on this? 5. One of the most damning references on the Kiwisfirst.co.nz website would seem on its face to be that David Collins’ predecessor Terrence Arnold was appointed as a Court of Appeal judge after being caught concealing material evidence in the Berryman Bridge prosecution. The editor has support for this charge that one might ordinarily expect to land a lawyer in prison rather than into a plum judicial appointment. Is David Collins suggesting by his demand letter to the webhost dated 19 July that this allegation, as one example, is defamatory? 6. How does the Solicitor General justify his letter dated 31 July 2007 to the webhost of kiwisfirst.co.nz that begins by stating “I am writing to make my position in relation to this website entirely clear”, then proceeds to state ambiguously that he considers a “range of material” on it “objectionable” and - finally – threatening to commence legal action against the webhost if it does not cave into his personal demands as anything but unlawful bullying and a flagrant abuse of his public position? Please be specific. If you agree that Mr. Collins’ sending of these letters exceeded his lawful authority and/or were inappropriate, I expect an apology and compensation for the damage this letter has caused the company. Please respond specifically on this issue of lawful authority (mindful of your responses to questions above). If you or Mr. Collins are accountable enough to provide the legally required specifics as to what he has “assessed” to be defamatory on kiwisfirst, I will be able to appropriately respond with either a retraction or, alternatively, an invite for your office to bring the matter before a jury. Your failure to meet your legal requirements in this regard affords you no lawful right of pursuit. Defamation cases are the purview of juries so don’t even attempt to line up a crooked judge like Terrence Arnold to defeat the cause of justice in such an eventuality. As to the www.stiassny.org website, I refer to your letter dated 10 August 2007 to Ms. Penny Bright which states on this issue, “It is the Solicitor-General’s responsibility as part of his functions in safeguarding the administration of justice to take steps to foster support for the rule of law” It is comforting that you stress such conviction toward this legal responsibility. I am therefore giving you the following opportunity to demonstrate your sincerity and lawful compliance with this responsibility. Judy Potter’s judgment that you zealously rely upon as gospel in your prolific correspondence is an unlawful judgment that has ignored incontrovertible facts with the dangerous purpose of unduly protecting Stiassny from rightful accountability. The case law is unambiguous that when the Court is confronted with evidence that an invasive injunction has been improperly obtained Judges are required to take affirmative action to correct the abuse (Reid v New Zealand Trotting Conference [1984] 1 NZLR 8). This clearly was not done. In fact, the Court of Appeal specifically refused to consider its legal obligation despite it additionally being a legitimate ground of the appeal. Willy Young P’s unlawful refusal in this regard is confirmed by the audio-tape record of the 8 Feb. 2007 hearing. This tape is no doubt available to you. And it is truly scandalous proof of judicial misconduct. Listen to it and then tell me that I am wrong. My obligation as a law-abiding citizen is only to abide by an unlawful order until it has been demonstrated to be unlawful in the Court. There are no provisions in law for the appeal judge to outright ignore material evidence in a duly lodged appeal because this evidence exposes judicial wrongdoing by the lower court. I will simplify this exercise in a manner that leaves no doubt as to the improper actions of the Court in this case relative to the “rule of law” but, in doing so, assert that there is far more expansive evidence regarding Stiassny’s deception of the Court – as well as the Court’s complicity in wantonly turning a blind eye to the deception. NEW ZEALAND LAW 101 (first year law school comprehension): 1) Stiassny obtained the injunction more than two years ago against me and four other defendants on the strength of a single affidavit he swore that stated - “I believe an interim injunction is necessary to protect my professional reputation. The allegations accuse me of fraud and gross professional misconduct. None of the allegations are true and those allegations that have been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and the Institute of Chartered Accountants have been rejected.” (attached as Exhibit A is a full copy of Stiassny’s 8 April 2005 affidavit) 2) LEGAL POINT OF ORDER: As the Solicitor General’s office – on behalf of the New Zealand Government – have now formally announced its intent to file lawsuits to enforce this injunction against numerous other parties, including Enlighten Hosting, FastHost UK, www.publicwatchdogs.org.nz and at least one other webhost, it appears only a matter of time before this injunction granted solely to protect Micheal Stiassny’s unfettered and undeserved reputation is enforced in the most broad (unspecified) sense against every New Zealander and New Zealand sympathizer in the world. I note that webhosters who understand the law, such as Yahoo!, have rejected your unlawful demands to shut down a legal enterprise. How do you justify such huge expenditure of public resources in this case – particularly in light of New Zealand Bill of Rights guarantees and information that follows which proves the law was broken in order to obtain this injunction? 3) The major problem with Stiassny’s sworn affidavit was it was noticeably untrue and materially misleading on the key points when he swore it. This included allegations such as fee overcharging that Stiassny had already admitted to, as well as the facts that the Serious Fraud Office did not investigate the matter (a fact further conceded on the initial site) and that the Chartered Accountants refused to become involved because they considered it a matter for the Courts. (attached as Exhibit B is documentation dispelling Stiassny’s sworn statements in this regard) 4) In the subsequent judgment of Justice Ellen France dated 5 May 2005 that maintained the injunction in the form you have attempted to enforce – in a hearing where no testimony was given and all the written evidence submitted was untested – France audaciously ruled: a. [par. #45] (On the website allegation that Stiassny labeled Paragon insolvent), “It is clear (to France only) that is not factually correct from reading Stiassny’s two reports to the Court.” b. [par. #53] (On the allegation that Stiassny attempted to overcharge Paragon ~$10,000), “It is clear (again, to France) there was no deliberate over-charging in respect of the $10,000…” (attached as Exhibit “C” is France’s full judgment dated 5 May 2005) 5) As to the first conclusion by France, two documents placed before her Honour (sic) prior to her reaching this conclusion incontrovertibly proved otherwise. These were: a. Stiassny’s 12 March 2001 report to the High Court (which France actually refers to in making the opposite claim to that which Stiassny made), and b. The affidavit of Stiassny’s “Manager” Alan Garrett dated 19 April 2005; specifically paragraph #5.12 in that affidavit. (attached as Exhibits “D” and “E” are Stiassny’s 12 March 2001 Report to the High Court and Alan Garrett’s 19 April 2005 affidavit respectively) 6) That these documents originated from Stiassny himself well in advance of the injunction hearing firmly support deception by Stiassny – deception supported by certain judges. This is brilliant documentation that shows either how utterly stupid France and Potter are or, more likely, how willing they were to defy the law of the land concerning injunctions with the net result of propping up Stiassny. 7) The nice thing about France’s ruling is that she has additionally provided the relevant law that supports the fact that she ought not have issued the injunction. 8) Please note paragraph #5.12 from the 19 April 2005 affidavit of Stiassny’s manager that states – “I acknowledge that solvency, and insolvency, are difficult terms to define and the threshold of solvency or insolvency may move depending on the purpose to which the definition is to be put. That said, common tests in analysis of insolvency are the extent to which assets exceed liabilities and the ability to meet debts as they fall due.” (underline for emphasis) 9) Yet France and Potter had no trouble defining insolvency wrongly in this case even with this roadmap handed to them from the insolvency ‘experts’. 10) That Judy Potter was a partner in commercial law with Kensington Swan before her surprising appointment to judgeship must negate any claim by her of ignorance regarding this definition for “insolvency” not only provided by Stiassny’s own ‘manager’ but also widely accepted in business generally. 11) Now, please look at page 7 of Stiassny’s 12 March 2001 report to the High Court where he states – “We had begun disbursing monies to unsecured creditors on the basis of our understanding that funds would be provided by shareholders to support ongoing trading costs as provided in our cashflow forecasts. We now have no such assurances and accordingly no further funds will be released to pre-receivership creditors.” (underline for emphasis) 12) The alarming question is how any court can issue an injunction that prevents a law-abiding citizen from saying what the party granted the injunction has already admitted to?! And then send the man to prison when he exercises his guaranteed legal right to freedom of expression ! That all this occurred as Stiassny failed to prosecute the defamation case that underpins this injunction he obtained under urgency stands as a damning indictment of certain judges’ refusal to comply with their oaths of office to uphold the law of the land. 13) On the matter of the approximate $10,000 attempted overcharge by Stiassny, the very limited and untested evidence before these judges left it utterly impossible to determine, as they did, that this substantial overcharge by Stiassny was not deliberate. Moreover, Stiassny has steadfastly refused to discover bank records that – if they existed – would confirm his assertion that he correctly charged the other company these fees he said were inadvertently charged to Paragon initially. We also now have evidence from the Managing Director of the other company Stiassny claimed the mis-charge should have been directed to that states Stiassny never did any work for that company. (attached as Exhibit “F” is a copy of that affidavit dated 13 April 2007) 14) From this simple evidence it is clear that the Court of Appeal was willing to send an innocent man to prison for merely speaking the truth rather than entertain evidence (they were furthermore compelled to consider) that showed Potter and France were minimally profoundly stupid. Now you have the incontrovertible evidence. Do something productive with it. A copy of this request for action is being sent for consideration to the Attorney General Michael Cullen. If I go to jail again, he cannot say that he did not know what was occurring on his watch. Lastly, merely for my reference, please respond to my earlier request to provide the procedure for removing a Crown Law officer who has abused his position. In answer to your question, any documents can be served upon me at the address below. In closing, I would like to thank you for your seeming recognition that the rule of law is a fragile body that needs vigilant protection. As you stated, this purpose goes to the very existence of your office. I pray as you pursue this matter that you derive strength, hope and promise, as I have, from the Martin Luther King Jr. quote – “I can show no greater respect for the rule of law than my contempt for one judge’s attempt to subvert it.” Sincerely, Vince Siemer, MBA Editor, www.kiwisfirst.co.nz enclosures cc: Dr. Michael Cullen Attorney General New Zealand ************************************************************************************************** ************************************************************************************************** POSTED 6/8/06 WATER RATES TO GO UP 9.6% TO FUND OTHER CITY SERVICES In a letter dated 28 July 2006, Metro Water Limited gave notice to water consumers that their water charges would increase 9.6%. The notice specifically states that without a demand from the Auckland City Council, the increase would be no more than the rate of inflation, currently less than 3%. The remainder of the increase is due to a specific demand from the city council that Metro Water show a $18 million dollar profit in order to pay for other city services, namely storm sewer upgrades. Current consumer guidelines exclude water charges paying for non-water supply expenditures. The Metro Water notice follows an Auckland City Council meeting on 24 May 2006 where deputy mayor Bruce Hucker and finance and corporate business committee chair Vern Walsh pushed for increased water charges to enable MetroWater to contribute to the City's general fund. The public were made to leave the meeting, at the request of Metro Water Chair Michael Stiassny, when the subject of rate increases were brought up. Days before the notice, Vern Walsh was criticized by Mayor Dick Hubbard for spending $85,000 on a global trip for City Councillors. Under the new regime, the $18 million dollars that Walsh and Hucker have successfully pushed for would go into the same general fund that paid for the $85,000 global holiday. Mayor Hubbard was absent from the 24 May 2006 meeting. Water Pressure Group spokesperson Penny Bright commented, "This proves what we have been saying for the last 8 years, that user charges are not fair and that Metro Water is being used as a cash cow by Auckland City Council to fund other expenditures on an essential service that consumers have no choice but to pay." Water Pressure Group members have staged an ongoing protest against Metro Water. In response, Metro Water last month bankrupted a Water Pressure Group member for refusing to pay and has targeted several others for bankruptcy action. Bruce Hucker could not be reached for comment but it is understood notice was served on him on Friday to appear in the Auckland High Court on 15 August 2006 on behalf of a constituent that Metro Water is attempting to bankrupt for refusing to pay a contested $4,490.62 bill for 15 months water service to her home. Important public release ********************************************************************************************************* MetroWater Limited is the water utility supplier for the Auckland city district. Michael Stiassny is the Chairman of the Board of MetroWater Limited, as he was in 2003 and 2004 when it was uncovered through the efforts of the Water Pressure Group that the Board of Metrowater had been misrepresenting the quality of the drinking water Metrowater was supplying consumers. Reproduced below are: A) Metro Water's 'Statement of Intent', which states that Metro Water Ltd's Board of Directors is directly accountable for the representations made by Metro Water - including the most important representation by far, the quality of drinking water it supplies to consumers. B) Chairman Michael Stiassny's (false) representation in that same document that Metro Water Ltd was supplying 'Aa' grade water to consumers when in fact that was not the case (i.e. a significant portion of the drinking water it was supplying was 'Ua' grade). C) The Commerce Commission's 27 September 2004 ruling that Metro Water likely breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 in representing that the water it was supplying was 'Aa' grade at a time they knew, or should have known, that it was not. The Commerce Commission's ruling of a 'likely' violation is due to the law being clear that only the Courts can determine conclusively that a violation occurred and whether the Board members are personally liable for the misrepresentation. The 22-month misrepresentation was corrected by Metro Water and the case was not prosecuted. If these events were not disturbing enough, Michael Stiassny regularly insists upon giving 'confidential' off-the-record reports to Auckland City Council proceedings on Water matters. It is suspected that payments of $10 Million in "charitable contributions" to Auckland City by Metro Water annually (subsidized by water ratepayers) is suitable 'greasing of the wheels' to allow Stiassny to keep public water matters secret. The question is whether Auckland ratepayers can afford these secret sessions given Mr. Stiassny's past misrepresentations? WHY AREN'T THE MEDIA REPORTING THIS? EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C WELLINGTON COMMERCE COMMISSION J6775 27 September 2004 Anna xxxx Meredith Connell General Buildings Cnr Shortland & O’Connell Streets PO Box 2213 Auckland Dear Anna METRO WATER LTD/WATERCARE SERVICES LTD Thank you for your comprehensive response to the Commerce Commission’s (‘the Commission) request for information from Metro Water Ltd. The Commission has assessed both Metro Water Ltd and Watercare Services Ltd’s responses and has formed the opinion that Metro Water Ltd is likely to have breached the Fair Trading Acti 1986 (‘the Act’) by representing that the water it was supplying Auckland during the period from June 2002 to April 2004 was of ‘Aa’ grade. The Commission has not been presented with any evidence to show that Metro Water Ltd was acting in reliance on representations made by Watercare Services Ltd when it represented that its water was of ‘Aa’ grade. Nevertheless should this be raised as an issue, the Commission is of the opinion that Metrowater Ltd, as an experienced water retailer, is unlikely to be able to avail itself of an reasonable reliance defence in the present circumstances. The Commission will be taking no further action in this matter at this time. Once again thank you for your time an effort and the detailed and informative information you have provided the Commission in relation to this matter. If you have any concerns or questions, please feel free to contact the writer on (04) 92 3689. Yours sincerely Jonathan Duffy Investigator Fair Trading Branch Commerce Commission ___________________________________________________ ___ Affidavit of Vince Siemer I, Vincent Ross Siemer, of Gulf Harbour, do hereby swear: 1) I am a Director of businesses in New Zealand and abroad and hold a Master’s degree in Business Administration. 2) I attended an Institute of Directors of New Zealand breakfast meeting on 19 May 2005 at the Northern Club where I heard Michael Stiassny (Chairman of Metro Water Limited) claim that he was personally bankrupting the Water Pressure Group members peacefully protesting against him outside the breakfast. He used the words “I am bankrupting (the protestors)”. 3) Mr. Stiassny also said at this meeting that these protesters were not paying their water bills “not because they could not afford to but because they didn’t want to”. I wrote down these words as he said them. 4) If what I heard Mr. Stiassny say is true, it is inconceivable that current bankruptcy law allows Mr. Stiassny to personally target these protesters for bankruptcy, using his Chair position as the monopoly provider of an essential public service to do so. 5) The written program for this meeting stated that Stiassny was a trained lawyer. 6) On 24 May 2006, I attended the Finance and Corporate Business meeting of the Auckland City Council held at the Council building on Greys Avenue in Auckland. At that meeting I witnessed Councillor Bruce Hucker ask Mr. Stiassny – in an extremely long question that included a number of statistical references – to dispute what Mr. Hucker said was a misconception that “the $73 Million dollar profit” MetroWater had earned “was sitting in a pot somewhere”, and to also confirm that in order for Metro Water to continue making “charitable payments” to the Council, Metro Water would need to “increase its debt” given its current charging structure. 7) In response to Mr. Hucker’s question, I witnessed Mr. Stiassny say that Metro Water would need to make ongoing “profits” for Metro Water to continue making the multi-million dollar charitable contributions. The topic of the meeting then turned to raising water charges to the public and Stiassny asked that this discussion be conducted in “confidential”. Meeting Chair Vern Walsh then ordered the public to leave the room. _________________________ Vincent Ross Siemer, Sworn at Auckland this ) day of June 2006 Before me ) __________________________ |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Debt collection debacle implemented by Stiassny at Metro Water Ltd. (see bottom of page) |
