CONFIRMED FALSE COURT DOCUMENTS OF NEW ZEALAND
A. District Court of New Zealand
(1) FALSE COURT DECISION, Letter of Brian Sceats, Deputy Registrar, Dunedin High/District Court, dated 27 May 2014
* There was NO decision by any judge of the District Court of New Zealand on 27 May 2014 in the case.
* Brian Sceats claimed that Phillips J of the District Court of New Zealand made the decision, mentioned in his letter, dated 27 May 2014.
(2) FALSE COURT DECISION - Letter of Brian Sceats, Deputy Registrar, Dunedin High/District Court, dated 20 November 2014
* There was NO decision by Crosbie J of the District Court of New Zealand on 18 November 2014 in the case.
(3) FALSE COURT DECISION - Email of Alister Frengley, Court Services Manager, Dunedin High/District Court, dated 12 July 2016
* There was NO decision by any judge of the District Court of New Zealand on 12 July 2016 on the charging documents.
* Alister Frengley, after the forgery was discovered, removed and destroyed the evidence of the crimes of forgery and conspiring to defeat justice by using false documents.
B. High Court of New Zealand
(1) FALSE DOCUMENT - “RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J,” dated 17 July 2012, (sent by Sheena Spiers, Team Leader (Civil), Ministry of Justice, on 17 July 2012)
(2) FALSE DOCUMENT - “RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J,” dated 17 July 2012, (sent by Ministry of Justice on 3 May 2017)
* Letter of Dobson J, dated 16 August 2012, to Winkelman J
* Comparison of the signatures - There is significance difference from the signature of Dobson J and the document, dated 17 July 2012, which was sent by Ministry of Justice on 3 May 2017 (after years of refusal by Wellington High Court to provide a copy of the signed document).
* Neither Ministry of Justice nor Wellington High Court could provide the transcript of the hearing in the High Court on 11 July 2012 - FORGERY WAS CONFIRMED.
(3) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF THE HON JUSTICE KOS (Leave to appeal),” dated 30 October 2012, (sent by Karen Mooney, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 30 October 2012)
(4) FALSE DOCUMENT - “Order of the Court (Costs),” dated 4/6/2013," (sent by Paul Collins on or around 2 December 2013)
Paul Collins, stated in his letter, dated 2 December 2013: "I enclose a sealed duplicate original of the costs order made by the Court on 4 June 2013, which I received in the mail on Friday, 29 November, from the High Court Registry. You will see that costs have been ordered in the sum of $9,210 and disbursements of $1,439.88."
* On 2 December 2013, when Paul Collins wrote the letter, he received an email from Carolyn Pritchett, Deputy Registrar, High Court Wellington, stating, “This email is to remind you that this file is scheduled for a call in the Judges Chambers List on Monday 9 December 2013 at 10:00 am. Appearances are required for the List.”
* On 9 December 2013 when I received the false document, dated 4 June 2013, I went to Wellington High Court for a Case Management Conference in this case, and Paul Collins did not show up for the call in Wellington High Court.
FALSE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY AND WELLINGTON HIGH COURT:
(a) Notice of Decision by Wellington Standards Committee 3,” dated 10 February 2014, FALSELY states, “On 4 June 2013, the New Zealand Law Society, represented by Mr Collins, applied for and was awarded costs…”;
* New Zealand Law Society did NOT make the application on 4 June 2013; on 3 February 2017, Jane Penney, Registrar and Court Manager, High Court Wellington, wrote, “Mr Collins costs memorandum was dated 23 July 2012.”
(b) Carolyn Pritchett, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, in her email, dated 26 September 2014, FALSELY stated, “It might be at the hearing or a Conference date that was when an oral application instead was made on 4 June 2013.”
* There was NO oral application made on 4 June 2013, as there was NO hearing on 4 June 2013; on 9 January 2017, Jane Penney wrote, “I am unable to comment on Ms Pritchett’s email.”
* There was NO mention on the costs decision, supposedly made on 4 June 2013, in the letter of Wellington High Court, dated 4 October 2013, when the case was accepted for appeal.
* The FALSE document, dated 4 June 2013, was sent only to Paul Collins, one of the parties, without sending it to Tatsuhiko Koyama, another party, on or around 29 November 2013, after more than 6 months after the decision was supposedly made, making it impossible for Tatsuhiko Koyama to appeal this matter due to the expiry of the appealing period.
(5) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF SIMON FRANCE J,” dated 19 December 2013, (sent by Michaela Stack, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 19 December 2013)
(6) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF RONALD YOUNG J,” dated 17 February 2014, (sent by Michaela Stack, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 17 February 2014)
(7) FALSE DOCUMENT - "ORDER OF DOBSON J (Dismissing application for recall)," dated 13 March 2014, (sent by Michaela Stack, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 13 March 2014)
(8) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J,” dated 28 May 2014, (sent by Michaela Stack, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 28 May 2014)
* There was NO hearing in the High Court in this case.
No one can produce the flight number of Paul Collins, an Auckland lawyer, who allegedly attended the hearing in Wellington on 16 April 2014.
(9) FALSE DOCUMENT - “Judgment,” dated 28 May 2014, (Clifford J), (sent by Paul Collins on or around 9 June 2014)
* This FALSE and FORGED document of the High Court of New Zealand is one of several FALSE and FORGED documents of the Courts of New Zealand, which were used for extortion, robbery, causing loss by deception, etc. in violation of the Crimes Act 1961.
The letter of Paul Collins, dated 9 June 2014, states, “This letter accompanies the sealed judgment and costs order following the delivery of His Honour’s judgment on 28 May 2014.”
It was “IMPOSSIBLE” for Justice Clifford of the High Court of New Zealand to make the order on 28 May 2014 when Paul Collins sent the application on the costs on 3 June 2014, “6 DAYS AFTER” 28 May 2014.
(a) Email of Paul Collins, dated 3 June 2014
(b) Letter of Paul Collins, dated 3 June 2014
(c) Memorandum of Paul Collins, dated 3 June 2014
(d) “Judgment Dated: June 2014”
(e) “Order of the Court (costs) Dated: June 2014”
(10) FALSE DOCUMENT - “LEGAL DISCUSSION BEFORE THE HON JUSTICE CLIFFORD” (sent by Michaela Stack, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 8 September 2014)
* There was NO hearing in the High Court in this case.
* There was NO audio-recording of the hearing in this case.
No one can produce the flight number of Paul Collins, an Auckland lawyer, who allegedly attended the hearing in Wellington on 16 April 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stack, Michaela" <Michaela.Stack@justice.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 13 June 2014 at 11:07 AM
To: "tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com" <tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com>
Subject: CIV 2013 485 6873 Koyama v New Zealand Law Society
I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 9 June 2014.
In general civil proceedings, a typed transcript is provided by our transcription service where evidence is given by witnesses who appear and are cross examined by counsel. The provision of a transcript in these circumstances occurs automatically.
An appeal hearing does not involve evidence from witnesses appearing in court or any cross examination. Therefore a transcript is not prepared automatically. This situation applied to your hearing on 16 April 2014.
If you wish to pursue this request, you will need to file a formal memorandum for consideration by Justice Clifford. You will need to include your reasons in the memorandum. Orders for the preparation of transcripts, can only be made by the presiding Judge. I cannot make a request without a Judge’s authority.
In paragraph 18 of his judgment, Justice Clifford awarded costs to the respondent on a scale 2B basis. The costs sought by the respondent and approved by the Court were consistent with Schedule 3 of the High Court Amendment Rules 2012.
Kind Regards
Michaela Stack
Court Registry Officer | High Court of New Zealand
Phone: +64 4 914 3616 | Fax: +64 4 914 3603
www.courtsofnz.govt.nz
From: "Stack, Michaela" <Michaela.Stack@justice.govt.nz>
Date: Monday, 8 September 2014 at 8:52 AM
To: "tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com" <tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com>
Subject: Request for Transcripts
Mr Koyama
Please find attached the transcripts that you requested for the hearings on 16 April and 20 August 2014.
Kind Regards
Michaela Stack
Court Registry Officer | High Court of New Zealand
Phone: +64 4 914 3616 | Fax: +64 4 914 3603
* There was NO hearing in the High Court in this case.
* There was NO audio-recording of the hearing in this case.
At that time of the alleged hearing, the High Court of New Zealand did NOT have the jurisdiction to hear the case; the Supreme Court of New Zealand had the jurisdiction.
No one can produce the flight number of Paul Collins, an Auckland lawyer, who allegedly attended the hearing in Wellington on 20 August 2014.
(12) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J,” dated 14 October 2014, (sent by Michaela Stack, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 14 October 2014)
* There was NO hearing in the High Court in this case.
No one can produce the flight number of Paul Collins, an Auckland lawyer, who allegedly attended the hearing in Wellington on 20 August 2014.
(13) FALSE DOCUMENT - “Judgment dated 14 October 2014”, (Collins J), (sent by Paul Collins on or around 21 November 2014)
This document, dated 14 October 2014, states:“This proceeding was heard on 20 August 2014 at Wellington before the Honourable Justice Collins, who having heard from Paul Collins…and Helen Carrad…gives judgement that…
(b) The first respondent is entitled to…$7,064.50 and disbursement of $50…
(c) The second respondent…$1,84075…”
Wellington High Court confirmed that there was NO hearing in this case on 20 August 2014.
It was “IMPOSSIBLE” for Justice Collins of the High Court of New Zealand to hear the case on 20 August 2014 when there was NO hearing in this case.
No one can provide the flight number of Paul Collins travelling from Auckland to Wellington to attend the hearing on 20 August 2014.
Due to his inability to produce any record of his travelling from Auckland to Wellington, Paul Collins did NOT seek any cost on the travelling.
Although there is NO audio-recording of the hearing, there exists a FAKE transcript, which is another FALSE document, issued by the High Court of New Zealand.
Helen Carrad, Crown Counsel, in her letter, dated 24 December 2014, FALSELY stated:
“Following the judgment of Justice Collins [dated 14 October 2014], counsel for the NZLS and counsel for the Attorney-General filed costs scheduled in the High Court…”
Wellington High Court confirmed that NO application on the costs submitted to the High Court in this case.
It was “IMPOSSIBLE” to Justice Collins to make the costs decision on 20 August 2014, when the costs application was made after 14 October 2014, about 2 MONTHS LATER.
Even in this FAKE transcript, there is "NO" evidence to suggest that Justice Collins made the costs order, nor Helen Carrad making any costs application during the hearing; Paul Collins did not make costs application at the hearing, as itemised in "Judgment dated 14 October 2014" indicates; the FAKE transcript only states, "MR COLLINS: Thank you Sir. There is an indication that costs are sought. THE COURT: Yes and I will deal with that in my judgment."
- Just prior to 20 August 2014, Helen Carrad did not make any costs application on her submission, dated 13 August 2014.
- Just prior to 20 August 2014, Paul Collins, in his submission, dated 8 August 2014, only stated, "The first respond seeks cots on the 2B scale."
Furthermore, the High Court could NOT make any decision in this case on 20 August 2014, because the Supreme Court of New Zealand had the jurisdiction in this case since around 15 August 2014.
(14) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF GENDALL J,” dated 17 December 2014, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 17 December 2014)
(15) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF GENDALL J,” dated 9 February 2014, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 10 February 2015)
(16) FALSE DOCUMENT - "MINUTE OF GENDALL J,” dated 16 February 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 16 February 2015)
(17) FALSE DOCUMENT - "MINUTE OF GENDALL J,” dated 23 February 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 23 February 2015)
(18) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 26 February 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 27 February 2015)
(19) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 26 February 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 24 August 2015)
(20) FALSE DOCUMENT - Handwritten minute of Mander J, dated 27 February 2015, (retrieved from the official court file found in Dunedin High Court on 19 February 2016)
(21) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 5 March 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 5 March 2015)
(22) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 5 March 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 March 2015)
(23) FALSE DOCUMENT - Unless order of Mander J, dated 12 March 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 March 2015)
(24) FALSE DOCUMENT - Handwritten minute of Mander J, dated 12 March 2015, (sent by sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 March 2015)
(25) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 13 March 2015, (sent by sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 March 2015)
* There is NO signed minute of Mander J, dated 13 March 2015, in the official court file.
(26) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 13 March 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 16 March 2015)
(27) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 17 March 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 17 March 2015)
(28) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “MINUTE OF MANDER J,” dated 17 March 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 17 March 2015)
* There is NO signed minute of Mander J, dated 17 March 2015, in the official court file.
(29) FALSE DOCUMENT - Email of Mander J, dated 20 March 2015 (at 12:11 pm), (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 10 August 2015)
“Friday, 20 March 2015 12:11 p.m.”
"Amelia, I record a brief note of my decision. I don’t think I can wait any longer for the respondent’s response in order to give the appellants’ time to comply with the order.
The appellants’ application for an extension is declined.
The appellants cite Rule 12.7(1) HCRs as providing a time requirement for service, however this rule concerns summary judgment applications and does not apply for the present situation.
The appellants appeal remains extant notwithstanding the operation of the unless order.
I also note for completeness that a hearing of the respondent’s application was attempted to convened however the appellants declined to make themselves available despite repeated efforts by the registry. The matter was dealt with by way of memorandum.
The appellants have still not provided reasons for their non-compliance.
Mander J"
(30) FALSE DOCUMENT - Email of Mander J, dated 20 March 2015 (at 12:18 pm), (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 August 2015)
“Friday, 20 March 2015 12:18:41 p.m.”
“Amelia,
Our emails passed. I have read the respondent’s submissions. My ruling stands and may be notified to the parties without modification.
Many thanks
Mander J”
(31) FALSE DOCUMENT - Order of Mander J, dated 20 March 2015 (at 12:26 pm), (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 20 March 2015)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nicholson, Amelia" <Amelia.Nicholson@justice.govt.nz>
Date: Thursday, 19 March 2015 at 2:13 PM
To: Tatsuhiko Koyama <tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com>
Cc: "Henaghan, Misha" <Misha.Henaghan@dlapf.com>, "Macdonald, Grant" <grant.macdonald@dlapiper.co.nz>, "Thom, Sacha" <sacha.thom@dlapiper.co.nz>
Subject: RE: Appellant's submissions - Koyama v Southern Response (CIV-2014-412-0202)
Dear Tatsuhiko,
Many thanks for your email. All our Christchurch Judges are in Wellington today and Friday attending a conference but as the Unless Order is for close of business tomorrow I will forward this application and any other relevant documents on to the Honourable Justice Mander to deal with as soon as he has the opportunity.
If counsel for the respondent wishes to reply to this application could they please let me know as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
Amelia
From: "Nicholson, Amelia" <Amelia.Nicholson@justice.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 20 March 2015 at 8:26 AM
To: "tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com" <tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com>, "Macdonald, Grant" <grant.macdonald@dlapiper.co.nz>, "Henaghan, Misha" <misha.henaghan@dlapiper.co.nz>, "Thom, Sacha" <sacha.thom@dlapiper.co.nz>
Subject: CIV-2014-412-000202 - Koyama v Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited
Dear Counsel and Mr and Ms Koyama,
Following the receipt of the appellants application for an extension of the unless order and the respondents memorandum in reply, the Honourable Justice Mander has minuted the above named matter as follows:
"The appellants' application for an extension is declined.
The appellants cite Rule 12.7(1) HCRs as providing a time requirement for service, however this rule concerns summary judgment applications and does not apply to the present situation.
The appellants appeal remains extant notwithstanding the operation of the unless order.
I also note for completeness that a hearing of the respondent's application was attempted to be convened however the appellants declined to make themselves available despite repeated efforts by the Registry. The matter was dealt with by way of memorandum.
The appellants have still not provided reasons for their non-compliance.”
Kind regards,
Amelia
Wellington High Court confirmed that there was NO hearing for the cases, and the following documents are false documents; there is NO audio-recording for these FALSE transcripts sent from Wellington High Court:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(11) FALSE DOCUMENT - “LEGAL DISCUSSION BEFORE THE HON JUSTICE D COLLINS” (sent by Michaela Stack, Deputy Registrar, Wellington High Court, on 8 September 2014)
Amelia Nicholson
Deputy Registrar | Christchurch High Court
DDI: +64 3 962 4273 | Ext 54273
From: "Nicholson, Amelia" <Amelia.Nicholson@justice.govt.nz>
Date: Monday, 10 August 2015 at 10:23 AM
To: Tatsuhiko Koyama <tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Request for a copy of the handwritten minute of Mander J, dated 20 March 2015
Dear Mr Koyama,
I do not have a hand written copy of this minute as the Honourable Justice Mander was in Auckland for a conference. This minute was given to me by way of email which I have attached a copy of now.
Kind regards,
Amelia
Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, was involved with Grant Macdonald, Misha Henaghan, and Sacha Thom of DLA Piper New Zealand in the confirmed insurance fraud, causing loss by deception, forgery, using false document for pecuniary advantage, in violation of the Crimes Act 1961.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(32) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF MANDER J,” dated 23 March 2015, (sent by Rebecca Fahey, Civil Caseflow Manager, Christchurch High Court, on 23 March 2015, on the same day when a telephone case management conference was held and before the scheduled hearing on 5 April 2015)
(33) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “JUDGMENT OF MANDER J,” dated 23 March 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 24 March 2015)
(34) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF MANDER J,’ dated 26 May 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 26 May 2015)
(35) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “JUDGMENT OF MANDER J,’ dated 26 May 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 5 August 2015)
* There is NO signed judgement of Mander J, dated 26 May 2015, in the official court file.
(36) FALSE DOCUMENT - Minute of Mander J, date 5 June 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 5 June 2015)
(37) FALSE DOCUMENT - Handwritten minute of Mander J, dated 5 June 2015, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 14 July 2015)
(38) FALSE DOCUMENT - “Order for Costs,” dated 12 June 2015, (sent by Grant Macdonald on or around 15 July 2015) - THIS DOCUMENT WAS SENT "AFTER" THE CASE WAS APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, where the continuous stream of false, forged documents were made and used for fraud in the Court, conspiring to defeat justice, in violation of the Crimes Act 1961.
(39) FALSE DOCUMENT - “ORDER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE AS TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF A BANKRUPTCY NOTICE,” dated 18 September 2015, (sent by Mitch Singh on or around 25 September 2015)
(40) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE as to substituted service of Bankruptcy Notice,” dated 18 September 2015, (sent by Dunedin High Court on 1 October 2015)
* The signature on the document, dated 18 September 2015, is a computer-generated image, pasted on the document. There is NO practice in the High Court of New Zealand to put an digital image on the original court document.
(41) FALSE DOCUMENT - “ORDER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE AS TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF A BANKRUPTCY NOTICE,” dated 18 September 2015, (sent by Dunedin High Court on 1 October 2015)
(42) FALSE DOCUMENT - “INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR,” dated 10 September 2015, (sent by Brian Sceats, Deputy Registrar, Dunedin High Court, on 2 October 2015)
(43) FALSE DOCUMENT - “AFFIDAVIT OF MARY ELIZABETH OLLIVIER IN SUPPORT OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON JUDGMENT DEBTOR,” dated 9 September 2015, (sent by Brian Sceats, Deputy Registrar, Dunedin High Court, on 2 October 2015)
(44) FALSE DOCUMENT - “FURTHER ORDERS OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE AS TO SUBSTITUTED SERVICE OF SUMMONS TO DEBTOR AND CREDITOR’S APPLICATION,” dated 26 January 2016, (sent by Mitch Singh on or around 28 January 2016)
(45) FALSE DOCUMENT - “SUMMONS TO DEBTOR,” dated 21 January 2016, (sent by Mitch Singh on or around 28 January 2016)
(46) FALSE DOCUMENT - Handwritten minute of Associate Judge Osborne, dated 26 January 2016, (sent by Rebecca Fahey, Civil Caseflow Manager, Christchurch High Court, on 18 February 2016)
(47) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE upon review of Deputy Registrar’s decision,” dated 1 March 2016, (sent by Keroli Smith, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 1 March 2016)
(48) FALSE DOCUMENT - “ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS,” dated 3 March 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 4 March 2016)
(49) FALSE DOCUMENT - ”ORDER ADJUDICATING DEBTOR BANKRUPT,” dated 8 March 2016, (send by Hayley McKee on or around 9 March 2016)
(50) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF DAVIDSON J (following memorandum of counsel for judgment creditor dated 9 March 2016 in relation to alleged recording of hearing by judgment debtor),” dated 12 April 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 April 2016)
(51) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF DAVIDSON J (following memorandum of counsel for judgment creditor dated 9 March 2016 in relation to alleged recording of hearing by judgment debtor),” dated 12 April 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 April 2016)
(52) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed “MINUTE OF DAVIDSON J (following memorandum of counsel for judgment creditor dated 9 March 2016 in relation to alleged recording of hearing by judgment debtor),” dated 12 April 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 12 April 2016)
(53) FALSE DOCUMENT - Singed “ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS,” dated 3 March 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 June 2016)
(54) FALSE DOCUMENT - Minute of Associate Judge Matthews, dated 13 June 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 June 2016)
(55) FALSE DOCUMENT - Handwritten minute of Associate Judge Matthews, dated 13 June 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 13 June 2016)
(56) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed “MINUTE OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS,” dated 17 June 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 17 June 2016)
(57) FALSE DOCUMENT - Minute of Associate Judge Osborne, dated 5 December 2016, (sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court ONLY to Grant Slevin, Senior Investigating Solicitor, Insolvency and Trustee Service, Ministry of Innovation and Employment of New Zealand Government, while Tatsuhiko Koyama WAS NOT in New Zealand, on 5 December 2016)
Grant Slevin, Senior Investigating Solicitor, Insolvency and Trustee Service, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, in his email, dated 12 December 2016, wrote: “I would be grateful if you could refer it to Associate Judge Osborne and let me know in due course if my appearance on Thursday 15 December is excused.”
Memorandum of Grant Slevin, dated 12 December 2016, states, “the counsel submits the hearing scheduled for 15 December should be vacated and a date in January 2017 allocated for a determination on the papers or, if the need arises, a case management conference by way of telephone conference.”
(58) FALSE DOCUMENT - "JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE annulling adjudication," dated 13 December 2016, (send by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, BEFORE the scheduled hearing on 15 December 2015, while Tatsuhiko Koyama WAS NOT in New Zealand, on 13 December 2016)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Grant Slevin <grant.slevin@insolvency.govt.nz>
Date: Friday, 23 December 2016 at 10:30 AM
To: Tatsuhiko Koyama <tatsuhiko.koyama@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: URGENT - RETURN LEGAL DOCUMENT - VIOLATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION (7) [UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Mr Koyama,
If what you say is true you have committed an offence under s 433(f) Insolvency Act 2006 by leaving New Zealand without the Assignee’s consent.
A person who commits this offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding $5,000, or both.
Regards,
Grant Slevin | Senior Investigating Solicitor | Insolvency and Trustee Service | Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
DDI +64 3 9626194 | Freephone 0508 467 658 | Private Bag 4714, Christchurch 8140 | www.insolvency.govt.nz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(59) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed "JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE annulling adjudication," dated 13 December 2016, (Sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 4 January 2017)
* The signature on the document, dated 13 December 2016, is a computer-generated image, pasted on the document. There is NO practice in the High Court of New Zealand to put an digital image on the original court document.
(60) FALSE DOCUMENT - "ORDER ANNULLING AN ADJUDICATION," dated 13 December 2016, (Sent by Amelia Nicolson, Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court, on 4 January 2017)
C. Court of Appeal of New Zealand
(1) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF THE COURT,” dated 17 April 2013, (O'Regan P, Wild and White JJ), (sent by Melissa Cathro, Court Registry Officer, Court of Appeal, Ministry of Justice, on 17 April 2012)
* There is NO signed original document in the official case file.
(2) FALSE DOCUMENT - “Judgment of the Court,” dated 8 November 2013, (O'Regan P, Wild and White JJ), (sent by Paul Collins on or around 12 November 2013)
* This document, dated 8 November 2013, was confirmed as false document by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.
This document FALSELY states, "At 3:00pm on 17 April 2013, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand…delivered a judgment… The Court of Appeal determined:…
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard application on a band A basis and disbursements.
With reference to Order C, the Court of Appeal orders the applicant to pay costs to the respondent in the sum of $3,383.00 and disbursements in the sum of $635.10…"
* The following facts clearly indicate that the Court of Appeal (O’Regan P, Wild and White JJ) did not make the seal order, dated 8 November 2013, at 3:00 pm on 17 April 2013, stated in the court order.
a. The amounts in the costs sought or ordered in the case increased from 24 April 2013 to 8 November 2013 AFTER 17 April 2013;
i. $2,386.90 ($1,782.00 + $604.90) – 24 April 2013;
ii. $2,848.90 ($2,244.00 + $604.90) – 26 April 2013;
iii. $2,879.10 ($2,244.00 + $635.10) – 22 May 2013;
iv. $4,018.10 ($3,383.00 + $635.10) – 6 November 2013; and
v. $4,018.10 ($3,383.00 + $635.10) – 8 November 2013.
b. The costs order was signed and sealed on 8 November 2013 by Clare O’Brien, Registrar, Court of Appeal on the day she received it;
c. There was NO memorandum for the costs order, dated 8 November 2013, submitted to the Court by the Respondent;
d. There was NO hearing on the costs order in the Court of Appeal;
e. At the time, the High Court of New Zealand had the jurisdiction in the case, and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand did not have the necessary jurisdiction to make the order, dated 8 November 2013; and
f. The draft of the costs order was served on 11 November 2013 AFTER it was signed and sealed by Clare O’Brien on 8 November 2013 – it is reasonable to conclude that Paul Collins sent his letter, dated 6 November 2013, AFTER the draft order was sealed and signed on 8 November 2013 [if the letter was sent on 8 November 2013 in Auckland, it would have arrived at my home in Dunedin on 11 November 2013; New Zealand Post would deliver all mails within 3 working days within New Zealand].
(3) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF WHITE J,” dated 16 June 2015, (sent by Justine Bird, Court Registry Officer, Court of Appeal, on 16 June 2015)
* The Court of Appeal of New Zealand did NOT have the jurisdiction on the matter; Tatsuhiko Koyama was NOT in New Zealand on or around 16 June 2015.
* The signature on the document, dated 16 June 2015, is significantly different the true signature of Mr Douglas White QC.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaXRlc3RhdHN1aGlrb2tveWFtYWRvY3VtZW50czR8Z3g6NDk5YTZiNDdhYmI1NjM1Nw
* Jan A Flood, Registrar, University of Otago, in her email, dated 7 August 2015, wrote, "...Clare O'Brien, Court Manager/Registrar of the Court of Appeal. Her communication regarding the appropriateness of the Library allowing you to see the documents involved was: 'No you can't. No judgment or any documents get issued for public release with judge's signatures on them."
(4) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE AND DIRECTIONS OF WILD J,” dated 14 August 2015, (sent by Fiona McDonald, Fixtures Manager/Deputy Registrar, Court of Appeal, on 14 August 2015)
* There is NO signed original document in the official case file.
(5) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE AND DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT,” dated 29 September 2015, (Ellen France P, Wild and Cooper JJ), (sent by Fiona McDonald, Fixtures Manager/Deputy Registrar, Court of Appeal, on 29 September 2015)
* There is NO signed original document in the official case file.
(6) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF THE COURT,” dated 5 October 2015, (Ellen France P, Wild and Cooper JJ), (sent by Justine Bird, Court Registry Officer, Court of Appeal, on 5 October 2015)
* There is NO signed original document in the official case file.
(7) FALSE DOCUMENT - “Judgment for sealing,” dated 6 November 2015, (Ellen France P, Wild and Cooper JJ), (sent by Grant MacDonald on or around 17 November 2015)
D. Supreme Court of New Zealand
(1) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK J,” dated 1 April 2014, (sent by the Supreme Court on 1 April 2014)
(2) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “JUDGMENT OF GLAZEBROOK J,” dated 1 April 2014, (sent by Ani Chan, Case Officer, Supreme Court of New Zealand, on 21 October 2014)
(3) FALSE DOCUMENT - Handwritten decision of Glazebrook J, dated 2 April 2014, (sent by the Supreme Court on 2 April 2014)
* It was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Justice Glazebrook of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, located in Wellington, New Zealand, to see the original document of “Application for recall of the decision of the Supreme Court, dated 1 April 2014, on behalf of the Applicant,” dated 2 April 2014, and make the decision on 2 April 2014 when the original document was sent from a postal office in Dunedin, New Zealand, on 2 April 2014.
* The stark difference in the signatures of Glazebrook J in the documents, dated 1 April 2014 and 2 April 2014, just only a day apart, and see , indicates a clear sign of forgery.
(4) FALSE DOCUMENT - “MINUTE OF McGRATH J REVIEWING REGISTRAR’S DECISION,” dated 30 July 2014
(5) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “MINUTE OF McGRATH J REVIEWING REGISTRAR’S DECISION,” dated 30 July 2014, (sent by Gordon Thatcher, Registrar, Supreme Court, on 10 February 2015)https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxrb3lhbWFkb2N1bWVudHN8Z3g6NjEwYTRjNTlkOTEzMTRmZA
(6) FALSE DOCUMENT - “JUDGMENT OF THE COURT,” dated 10 October 2014, (McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ), (sent by Ani Chan, Case Officer, Supreme Court of New Zealand, on 10 October 2014)
(7) FALSE DOCUMENT - Signed, “JUDGMENT OF THE COURT,” dated 10 October 2014, (McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ), (sent by Gordon Thatcher, Registrar, Supreme Court, on 13 October 2014)
* Mr Andrew Straw, US lawyer and notary public, in “Analysis of signatures for detection of forgery,” dated 6 May 2016, stated, “…there is a strong chance that a different person wrote the above signature [on the document, dated 10 October 2014], given the many differences.”
Mr Straw was given the following samples of signatures of Mr Terence Arnold in several documents which had his true signatures:
a. Report of the Crown Law Office for the year ended 30 June 2004;
b. Crown Law Office Statement of Intent for the year ending 30 June 2005; and
c. Crown Law Office Statement of Intent for the year ending 30 June 2007.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another evidence of the forgery of document with the fake signature of Arnold J of the Supreme Court
"Report of the Government Inquiry into Operation Burnham and related matters," dated July 2020
Please compare the signature of Sir Terence Arnold QC in the report, dated July 2020, and copies of the signatures of Mr Terence Arnold in three reports of Crown Law Office, dated 30 June 2004, 30 June 2005, and 30 June 2007.
These signatures are very similar, indicating that these are true signatures of Sir Terence Arnold QC.
Now, please see the confirmed false, forged document, dated 10 October 2014, issued by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
This document contains the fake signature of Justice Arnold.
The signature in “Judgment of the Court,” dated 10 October 2014, is quite different from the true signatures of Sir Terence Arnold QC, including the latest one found in "Report of the Government Inquiry into Operation Burnham and related matters," dated July 2020.
The latest document, bearing the name of Sir Terence Arnold QC, dated July 2020, is another evidence of the forgery of “Judgment of the Court,” dated 10 October 2014, which was issued by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the highest court of New Zealand.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Thatcher, Registrar, Supreme Court, sent FALSE information for the illegal purpose of conspiring to defeat justice and using false documents for pecuniary or financial advantage in violation of the Crimes Act 1961.
Notice of result of application for leave to appeal, dated 10 October 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(8) FALSE DOCUMENT - “Judgment of the Court,” dated 20 October 2014, (McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ), (sent by Paul Collins on or around 28 October 2014)
* It is INCONCEIVABLE that the Supreme Court, comprising of McGrath, William Young, and Arnold JJ, made the costs decision, dated 20 October 2014, when the Court had received the application for recall of the decision, dated 10 October 2014, on or before 20 October 2014.
Letter of the Supreme Court, dated 20 October 2014, stating, “The Court has received…your application for recall (dated 12 October 2014).”
The draft of “Judgment of the Court Dated: ” was received by the Supreme Court of New Zealand on 16 October 2014, and, by that time, the Supreme Court of New Zealand was notified of the application for recall of the purported decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, dated 10 October 2014 (this purported decision was made without having any hearing, without giving any notice, by the Supreme Court of New Zealand, similar to other purported decisions which were purportedly made without having any hearing, without giving any notice, by Wellington High Court and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand).
On 16 October 2014, I received an email from Tina Chiles, Executive Assistant, Regulatory, New Zealand Law Society, extorting $37,157.98, by using the CONFIRMED FALSE, FORGED documents, issued by various Courts of New Zealand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FALSE, FORGED DOCUMENTS OF NEW ZEALAND COURTS>
CORRUPTION AT HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL IN NEW ZEALAND
Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) made 4 decisions, without having any hearing, in violation of the Human Rights Act 1993, Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Two members of the Panel of HRRT who made the decisions were: (1) Mr Brian Neeson, a former member of Parliament of the National Party from Helensville electorate (he represented the safe national electorate in which Sir John Key, a former Prime Minister of New Zealand, was elected); (2) Rev R Musuku, a former candidate of the National Party for Mt Albert Electorate in which Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the current Prime Minister of New Zealand is elected; and (3) Mr R D C Hindle and Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairpersons, were members of the New Zealand Law Society, the defendant in the cases, who refused to recuse themselves from the proceedings, although an objection was raised for being the judges in the proceedings because of the apparent bias for their membership in the defendant (and their shared common interests with the defendant).
The illegal four decisions of the Human Rights Review tribunal are following:
(1) Koyama v New Zealand Law Society [2010] NZHRRT 2;
(2) Koyama v New Zealand Law Society [2010] NZHRRT 13;
(3) Koyama v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZHRRT 22; and
(4) Koyama v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZHRRT 29.
Regarding the illegal decision, dated 28 May 2013, the tribunal issued it before the parties made any submissions, clearly indicating that the tribunal was acting and advocating on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society, the defendant in the cases.
On 21 May 2013, I received an email from Kelly Curran, Case Manager, Human Rights Review Tribunal, stating, “1. Mr Koyama’s submissions must be filed and served by 5pm on Friday 7 June 2013,” “Any reply submissions by the NZLS are to be filed and served by 5pm on Friday 21 June 2013.”
On 28 May 2013, I received another email from Kelly Curran, attached with the illegal decision, dated 28 May 2013.
This illegal decision, dated 28 May 2013, is one of the several documents, later used in the bankruptcy fraud in Dunedin High Court and bank robbery by the New Zealand Law Society, aided by Insolvency and Trustee Service of Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST Report on the organised crime by the New Zealand Law Society and Wellington High Court (21 September 2014)
SECOND Report on the organised crime by the New Zealand Law Society and Wellington High Court (29 September 2014)
THIRD Report on the organised crime by the New Zealand Law Society and Court of Appeal (1 October 2014)
FOURTH Report on the organised crime by the New Zealand Law Society and Wellington High Court (4 October 2014)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some applicable sections of the Crimes Act 1961
66 Parties to offences
(1) Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who—
(a) actually commits the offence; or
(b) does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
(c) abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
(d) incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence.
(2) Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose.
116 Conspiring to defeat justice
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.
219 Theft or stealing
(1) Theft or stealing is the act of,—
(a) dishonestly and without claim of right, taking any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property; or
(b) dishonestly and without claim of right, using or dealing with any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property after obtaining possession of, or control over, the property in whatever manner.
234 Robbery
(1) Robbery is theft accompanied by violence or threats of violence, to any person or property, used to extort the property stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen.
(2) Every one who commits robbery is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
(1) Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,—
(a) obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(b) in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
(c) induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
(d) causes loss to any other person.
(1A) Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, without reasonable excuse, sells, transfers, or otherwise makes available any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage knowing that, by deception and without claim of right, the document or thing was, or was caused to be, delivered, executed, made, accepted, endorsed, or altered.
(2) In this section, deception means—
(a) a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and—
(i) knows that it is false in a material particular; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
(b) an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
(c) a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.
256 Forgery
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who makes a false document with the intention of using it to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration.
257 Using forged documents
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, knowing a document to be forged,—
(a) uses the document to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b) uses, deals with, or acts upon the document as if it were genuine; or
(c) causes any other person to use, deal with, or act upon it as if it were genuine.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327382.html
FORMAL COMPLAINT ACCEPTED BY NEW ZEALAND POLICE
On 5 April 2019, New Zealand Police accepted the formal complaint on the series of confirmed organised crimes, committed in New Zealand.
On 24 November 2020, New Zealand Police issued a Police File number of 201123/3809.