By Penny Bright 10 November 2009

What is happening to Vince Siemer makes me ashamed to be a New Zealander.

Vince has just been arrested at his home, and has been taken by Police Officers to the Auckland High Court.

Whether the matter will be heard today – or Vince will be held in custody overnight is at this stage unknown.

Vince refused to attend Court this morning, for reasons outlined in his

‘MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT IN PROTEST TO SHOW TRIAL’ which follows at the end of  this email.

11 November 2009

UPDATE: Vince was released yesterday.

The defended hearing will be heard onMonday 16th November 2009,Auckland High Court, Waterloo Quadrant.

PROTEST outside High Court in support of Vince9.30am – 10am.

10am defended hearing starts.

We need that Court room PACKED with those who support -freedom of expression, the public’s right to know decisions made in a public Court, and against misuse of judicial power at the highest levels!

You don’t want NZ heading from ‘Nanny State’ – to ‘Nazi State’?


Please help to spread the word!



______________________________________________________________________ ___


No.    CIV 2009 404 6747


AND                     VINCENT ROSS SIEMERRespondent ___________________________________________________________________



___________________________________________________________________PRESENTED FOR FILING BY                        V R SIEMER27 Clansman TerraceGulf HarbourAUCKLANDPhone  (09) 428 2121  Fax (09) 428 2521MEMORANDUM OF RESPONDENT9 November 2009RECORDING:

1. The Registrar has refused to accept the Respondent’s legal filings.  Every Judge involved has refused to address this incontrovertible evidence Registrar Tony Mortimer acted unlawfully [ ] and the respondent being denied Court access as a result.

2. In this case where the Respondent’s liberty is at stake, Judge Patricia Courtney – a lawyer whom 4 sworn witnesses gave evidence had deliberately and unlawfully withheld intercepted documents posted to the respondent’s company – then made initial rulings in this case despite admittedly having nothing before her to rule on.

3. Judge Venning then refused to release the audio-record of this appearance before Courtney J.  Venning and Keane JJ asserted Courtney’s certain conflict of interest was resolved by taking her off the case.  Both Judges still upheld her spurious orders.

4. This is an alleged contempt prosecution for publicly disclosing the result of a Public Court Judgment by Winkelmann J in the massive “terrorist” debacle.

5. The accuracy, as well as the public interest and importance, of what the respondent published are common ground.They stand as proof the respondent’s actions are lawful.

6. IMPORTANT: Judge Winkelmann did not provide legal support for suppression of her judgment – AND SHE DID NOT initiated contempt.  It is Solicitor General David Collins alone, using taxpayers’ funds, who is persecuting the respondent.  Mr Collins alone claimed the publication poses a threat to the “accused terrorists” getting a fair trial.   This is patently absurd.  Winkelmann herself selectively read out in open Court – before TV news cameras – the very worst evidence from the publicly suppressed Police affidavit, so the Judge would be a hypocrite if she claimed as much.

7. Moreover, while the Crown were selling the need for the public to endorse broader powers to Police under the proposed Search and Surveillance Bill before Parliament, the Judges were concealing the very fact that Police and Judges had greatly abused their legal existing powers in the largest scale police raids in history.  Most Kiwis do not know that even though the Police and Judges unlawfully abused their powers, the Evidence Act allows them to use the fruits of their unlawful searches and seizures.

8. Equally damning, this contempt prosecution exists only because S-G David Collins told Winkelmann J to amend her judgment last month – which she did.

9. For the last two years Court officers have been selectively issuing media releases in support of the prosecution of 20 New Zealand citizens – while simultaneously suppressing from the public the evidence that police and judicial officers have acted unlawfully.   These are facts.

10. This propaganda extends to this prosecution, with the Court issuing a “press release” when it suits their prosecution, while suppressing Court judgments which show the Judges are acting unlawfully in preventing the respondent court access (see Keane J ruling of 2 November 2009).

11. This persecution by Collins on the public purse has gone on for 2+ years.  This included unlawful attacks on the respondent’s media business and ordering a massive police raid on the respondent’s home and seizure of his business and personal property in 2008.

12. The respondent has a lawful right to defend himself, including evidence showing how David Collins – a non-party to the alleged contempt – has abused his public office and maliciously persecuted the respondent and the respondent’s family.

13. The respondent has a lawful right to cross-examine his accuser David Collins.  He has the right in law to file a counterclaim and a defence.  Courtney and Keane JJ have contravened law and the Court’s own rules 134 and 135 by preventing the Counterclaim being filed, then steamrolled orders before the respondent was able to enlist counsel.

14. The High Court last year ordered the respondent’s news “websites are to be unconditionally closed down…, failing which Mr Siemer will be committed to prison for six months on Friday.”[1] The respondent will resist this dangerous and flatly unlawful order until the day he dies.

15. Misuse of official power is the very essence of tyranny. Reason suggests if the respondent was guilty of unlawful behaviour, Judges would not be denying him Court access and transparent justice.  That the Court has refused to accept the respondent’s filings on the vague claim that they do not comply with proper form when seeking to commit him to prison is as diabolical as it is untrue and unlawful.  This, and the fact that the Judges are demanding their orders in this prosecution be concealed from the public and the audio-transcripts of Courtney J’s malfeasance suppressed, prove the respondent’s position that New Zealand is under extreme threat from lawless judges is a correct one.

16. The respondent has too much respect for the rule of law to attend a show trial by New Zealand Judges intent on breaking the most indispensable laws.  He has engaged Barrister Eugeny Orlov, but because the NZ Court has bankrupted the respondent, Judges cannot decide whether this is a criminal or civil proceeding and Mr Orlov is involved in a trial, legal aid has yet to be approved.

17. If sent to prison under these circumstances, the respondent will not take any food while awaiting an appeal.  As the Court has hastily advanced S-G Collins’ persecution to deny the respondent counsel and defence, he may be required to advance his appeal from a prison cell under urgency.  This is equally the case with the respondent’s appeal of the S-G’s previous persecution (SC48/2009), which is due to be heard by the Supreme Court on 9 December 2009.  The law requires the respondent be permitted to take his computer and printer to prison for this purpose.  The evidence of this legal requirement is attached.  Aware that an appeal is imminent and another one is pending before the Supreme Court, directions from this Court to the prison officials requiring access to computer and legal authorities is required if the Judges imprison the respondent without a proper trial.

18. Irrespective of the Court’s intervention to conceal what is occurring, David Collins submissions in this persecution (dated 21 October but filed on 6 November 2009), and his previous persecution of the respondent in June 2008, establish an indelible record of the travesty which is common in the New Zealand Courts but not being reported by New Zealand media because they are either unaware due to the secretive nature of the NZ Court or fear the same fate.

__________________________V. R. Siemer , respondentCc:       Crown Law

[1] Minute of Full High Court Bench Chisholm and Gendall JJ, 31 July 2008 Solicitor General v Vince Siemer CIV2008 404 472