Dear Ministry of Justice,

While the police have justly been in the firing line the problem with the boys looking after boys goes much deeper than this and appears to be an attitude throughout the legal fraternity and crown law

I have an affirmation with the evidence attached it is available on request

In several blogs up to 2013 I made a factual mention that a lawyer did not hold a practicing certificate when the lawyer had contacted me at 945 pm in 2006

in 2016 I was approached by NetSafe and was asked to change the statements to reflected that the lawyer held a practicing certificate at the time based on a NZLS email
The NZLS became regulator in 2008 prior to that the regulator for this particular lawyer was the ADLS also the word lawyer had not been defined prior to 1 August 2008

I provided the lawyer and Netsafe with two documents which corroborate the fact which I had established in 2006 direct from the ADLS that the lawyer did not have a practicing certificate the time I was approached

These documents were problematic for the lawyer who sought assistance from the manager regulatory NZLS in January 2018 . he subsequently without any basis in fact or law produced two letters one to the lawyer saying that the NZLS decision which I had provided was wrong and the other to the LCRO seeking them to change their decision.
Based on these two letter the lawyer made a complaint of defamation to the PSPLA .
The law society stood by their letters of January 2018 so I opted to retire from my job as a private investigator ( I am ex police )

The lawyer immediately took defamation action based on the January 2018 Letters
through discovery I was provided with a ADLS dossier which proved the truth, and I communicated with the lawyer as to what the purpose of the court action was
Un beknown to me at the time .

In December 2018 the manager regulatory emailed the lawyer and advised that his January letter had been in correct .

The lawyer stalled the proceedings and in February 2019 took harassment action against me for having communicate with regards to the court action
In taking the harassment proceedings the original claim based on the false letters was affirmed as true

in 2020 I did a privacy request with the law Society and received documents which were almost entirely redacted , from these documents I was able to contact a third party who by way of privacy act provided me with the unredacted December 2018 documents which revealed that the January 2018 letter were false and as a former police officer I identified the affirmation in the harassment proceedings as perjury
almost simultaneously and without application to the court the judge who had according to emails , advised the lawyer to take harassment action ,issued an interim restraining order , he then issued a full restraining order in August of that year

The lawyer concealed the vital dec 2018 document, and this was only produced in 2021 well after I had discovered it , it was never provided for the harassment proceedings which continued to rely on the original ( in my opinion perjured) claim

In November 2020 the lawyer amended the statement of claim and relied on playing on the word lawyer which was defined only after 1 august 2008

The incident in 2006 occurred at a time when no such definition existed.

The defamation and harassment were both found against me and I am now paying the lawyer $75,000 out of my pension

The lawyer was self-represented and was believed without evidence, My evidence did not appear to matter I appealed the district court decisions to the high court who despite its stated objective in the rules being “ The objective of these rules is to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of any proceeding ´ was no that and took over a year and the only change was that the judge dropped the award from 100,000 to 75,000.

I took this to the court of appeal who identified the errors I had highlighted , proving that they were there yet the high court did not " see " them " . The appeal court claimed that it was not in the public interest for the proceedings to continue

The law society are refusing to hold the lawyer and the 2018 manager regulatory to account .

By way of OIA there are several issues which come up and with respect of each I would like documents which support the action taken and discussion papers whcih consider the gap in the law that should be addressed
1. It would appear that the law Society will not act in a mater which is ,has been or potentially will be before the court , this means that all a lawyer has to do to give themselves protection from accountability is to commence proceedings and that disposes of accountability .

a. Please provide the legislative support for this stance and address how this complies with the requirement to comply with the rule of law
b. Who hold the law Society accountable in such a matter this is particularloy revlvant due to the IPCA having identified shortfalls in police actoin, ther is no such body for the law society

2. Criminal action in civil proceedings, this is surprisingly common but to say its criminal leads to defamation , the police refuse to touch it e.g. the perjury complaint for the blatant perjury which is provable by the lawyers own subsequent affirmation.
a. What safe guard are in place to prevent the commission of crime in courts
b. How do you deal with drime in the court proceedigns when judges dont deal with it and the police and law society exclude it.. is this in line with justice ?

3. Self-represented lawyers, the rules appear to focus on “ clients’ A lawyer holding themselves out as a lawyer appears to get bias even being able to communicate with judges behind the scene
a. What consideration has been given to amending the conduct rules to include a provision for self-represented lawyers in court , what independent oversight is provided for the lawyers action and how is accountbility to teh rule of law achieved.

4. With regards to the court the definition of “in the public interest” what is the benchmark for the court for determining what is in the public interest. Several years ago I was charged with breaching a suppression order , it was deemed in the interest of the public to pursue me and give me criminal convictions . these were later over turned when the court of appeal recognised that there was actually no suppression order discoverable which one could breach
a. It appears that we need a better test for “ in the public interest it appears to be an excuse to prosecute or dispose of proceedings at will in my matter with the lawyer the court of appeal held that it was not in the public interest given that the events commenced 20 years ago, the fact that the lawyer brough it to court in 2018 with lies appears to be beside the point .

5. How does one achieve a justice when persued by a self represented lawyer who uses secrecy law to silence a person

For the record this began in 2006 when I questioned why Maf had given coercive law enfocement powers to a fictional organisation whose founder had writen and advised on the animal welfare act under which he obtaine those powers for himself

rather than admittin gher as a mistake or holding hte corrupt accountable it is easier to persecute the whistle blower

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

Dear [email address],

I wish to clarify my request as to how this gap has occured and how self represented lawyers lack accountbility to the rule of law

Lawyers and conveyancers act section 4 Fundamental obligations of lawyers

Every lawyer who provides regulated services must, in the course of his or her practice, comply with the following fundamental obligations:
(a)the obligation to uphold the rule of law and to facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand:
(b)the obligation to be independent in providing regulated services to his or her clients:
(c)the obligation to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients:
(d)the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

so much depends on definition

"regulated services" means,—
(a)in relation to a lawyer or an incorporated law firm,—
(i)legal services;

" legal services" means services that a person provides by carrying out legal work for any other person

The problem is with the word "other "

"lawyer" means a person who holds a current practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor

courts treat lawyers as having obligations and accountability to the rule of law but a self represented Lawyer by definion has no such obligations yet the court prefers their " evidence " over any physical verifiable evidence provided by a lay littigant and treats lawyers who appear without supporting evidence favourably just on their word .....

...see the chief justice addresss to the otago womens lawyers association 2014 " There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law"

The law society is of the belief that self represented lawyers are only accountable to chapter 10 of the conduct rules

It appears that there has never been any consideration to rules for self represented lawyers they are treated as lawyers having accountbility by the court .

I request that under OIA I am provided with all discusion papers that consider the obligations of self represented lawyers and the accountability to the law society and the the law itself .

By holding themselves out as a lawyer the obligations should naturally follow as the do for police officers on or off duty .

we are all supposd to be equal under the law but as in animal farm some are more equal than others and by calling themelves lawyers and acting for themselves a lawyer has no apparent obligation to the rule of law or the high court and no accountbility

please also provide documents which show consideration as to whether a self represented lawyer is their own client and is being a self represented lawyer therefore not a conflict of interest ?

what considerations have been given to a self represented lawyer having oversight by another lawyer or law society to prevent the issues which I have faced with a lawyer commencing action on false documents and perjury and not being held accountable .

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden