Press Release

If your wanting to 'click' on the links in this release head too..
http://nzfamilycourt.com/2013/08/19/law-society-goes-after-lawyer-who-tried-to-protect-a-child-from-being-handed-over-to-a-paedophile/
and get the pdf file.

PRESS RELEASE – NZ HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER ATTACKED BY JUDICIARY AND LAW SOCIETY FOR TRYING TO PROTECT A CHILD FROM A PAEDOPHILE.



*.all attachments are hosted on the file-exchange server. Just click – slow download
You are cordially invited to one of New Zealand’s best show trials since David Bain.
On the 2nd September precisely at 10 am (don’t be late as seating is limited). The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal will be hearing the Law Society’s prosecution of Mr Evgeny Orlov, barrister, for making a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner (and to the Human Rights Tribunal) against Harrison J, (notice of hearing here).

The Law Society will argue that Mr Orlov is not a fit and proper person to practice law because, in effect, he ‘scandalised’ the high and impeccable reputation of the New Zealand judicial system and Harrison J by his complaint, (click here to see the charges).

You may have heard of Mr Orlov, a Human Rights lawyer that has regularly challenged the New Zealand government (via Child Youth and Family Services) in the High Court and Court of Appeal for the actions of CYFS in removing children from their families (sometimes at birth) without proper trials or procedures. He has also been outspoken against the anti-smacking bill which has criminalised normal child discipline practices (click here to see the CYFS succubus as an example of his work). Mr Orlov spent his entire New Zealand legal career attempting to protect New Zealander’s rights to family life and family in many cases pro bono.

In the case of Ley v Ministry of Social Development, Mr Orlov filed a judicial review (pro bono) against the decision of a Family Court judge (Judge Rogers) to remove five Maori children from their parents without a hearing and allowing these children to be placed in non-Maori homes.



Mr Orlov filed a claim against the Family Court for, amongst other things, breaching the Treaty of Waitangi rights of Maori to family and culture and breaching the right to justice.

Harrison J, who heard the case, was so appalled that Mr Orlov suggested that Maori people had been treated unequally that he not only sent Mr Orlov to the Law Society, but ordered costs against him personally as well for suggesting that the Maori people had been treated unequally by the New Zealand legal system. He said ‘all are equal before New Zealand law’.
The decision ordered costs against Mr Orlov although there was no application by anybody for costs and even though he was acting for free (click here for the costs decision).

Harrison J was, of course, correct. The Maori people have the same rights to family life as all New Zealanders because in New Zealand there actually is no right to family life at all. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, which heard Mr Orlov’s appeal against Harrison J’s decision, (click here for that decision).



So, ladies and gentlemen, it is outrageous that Mr Orlov would try to practice human rights law for free in New Zealand. Since we don’t have family rights we also cannot have human rights lawyers running around arguing for them, especially for free.
In another case, Reznikova v Copeland, Harrison J tried to imprison Mr Orlov for contempt for refusing to hand over a child to a paedophile. Harrison issued a habeas corpus order handing a child to a man who was a perpetrator of sexual abuse, had spent two years in a mental institution for shooting his wife with a cross bow and in circumstances when there was an ongoing judicial review with evidence before the Court that he was sexually abusing Mrs Reznikova’s children.

The child, who was handed over to the paedophile by Harrison J, was represented by his brother, Geoff Harrison. The history of Mr Copeland is set out in an article in Investigate magazine (click here for the article) and this was known to Harrison J at the time he handed the child over without even giving the mother an opportunity to be heard. The mother was imprisoned by Harrison J for trying to protect the child against the paedophile.



Again, Harrison J was of course, correct. In a later decision, Judge Somerville of Tauranga, whilst finding that Mr Copeland had committed sexual abuse, nevertheless later in a subsequent decision criticised Mr Orlov for calling him a paedophile in Court. After all, Mr Copeland 'loved' his children and had rights to see them and be with them. Indeed, psychologists appointed by the Family Court said that Mrs Reznikova had cognitive distortions because she was so opposed to a paedophile having contact with her child and was overly angry at CYFS for assisting Mr Copeland in such a noble endeavour.

But all the above is by way of background to the show trial.
This is unique in New Zealand and indeed colonial history because the attempt to remove a lawyer from practice for scandalising the court was forbidden in England as early as 1899 (click here for the McLeod case). The English Court said then:




"Contempt of Court may be committed by publication of scandalous matter respecting the Court after adjudication as well as pending a case before it. In England committals for such contempts have become obsolete: in small colonies consisting principally of coloured populations they may still be necessary in proper cases"
The English, unlike us colonials, have an obsession with free speech and rule of law and other rather unwieldy concepts that are definitely of a rather unsavoury European origin. We are much more progressive.
Because Mr Orlov has criticised the Family Court and the abuse of psychiatry in the New Zealand Family Court system (click here for ‘psycho-logic and the law’), we want to ensure he gets a fair trial so the presiding judge (the honourable Judge Clarkson) will be chairing the Tribunal because, of course, she is a Family Court Judge and also because her husband is a psychiatrist involved in the Family Court system. Judge Clarkson would understand Harrison J as she was involved in a case where three men were permitted to continue having underage sex with a fourteen year old girl and she gagged the parents and the brother, who later committed suicide (click here for that family’s story).



To ensure extra fairness, because Mr Orlov has been continuously suing the Law Society, we have ensured that he will be tried by a panel of senior Law Society members, including an ex vice president of the Canterbury Law Society.
Now, you will also hear during the show that Margaret Malcolm (who is now helping Judith Collins to cover up the Bain case) was also involved in the illegal attempt to prosecute Mr Orlov for attending a Law Society meeting and insisting he be heard, resulting in the police being called to remove him from the Law Society building (click here for a NZ Herald article setting this out).



Judith Collins, former Law Society president and now Minister of Justice, has been worried about ‘feral judges' deciding Bain’s compensation. This implies that in New Zealand our judiciary is principally tame.

During the show you will find that Harrison J is one of our most tame judges - he protects the New Zealand government from crazy human rights lawyers and in turn the Law Society protects him by prosecuting lawyers who make complaints, so it is a good relationship all round.
Another one of our tame judges was Mr Hesketh who was sadly removed by the Disciplinary Tribunal for fraud (click here for the order striking him off) but was soon reinstated as a Human Rights Commissioner and then a lawyer sitting on Mr Orlov’s Disciplinary Committee. It is, of course, comforting that a former judge with such personal experience in fraud would be appointed to judge a lawyer’s ethics; I mean how else could one profess such profound knowledge?

Mr Hesketh, as human rights commissioner, has recently shown a deep concern as to the privacy rights of paedophiles and is currently suing the Sensible Sentencing Trust for trying to protect the New Zealand public from serial paedophiles (click here for an article about this). That is surely fair enough given that there is no right to family in New Zealand but there is a right to be a paedophile in private. Indeed, Mr Hesketh would well argue that fraudsters and paedophiles, being an extra-private type of people, should not have that right disturbed. That is precisely why Time magazine has called New Zealand a "haven for paedophiles" (click here for information on this).

Now, Mr Orlov is being attacked for criticising our judiciary. Our judicial system and judiciary has recently been attacked by Mr Tony Molloy QC, who labelled the judiciary a "fraud on the New Zealand public". Whilst the New Zealand Law Society is prosecuting Mr Orlov for making such ‘scandalous’ statements the Law Society has recently issued a press release against the Fiji government for punishing academics who spoke out against Fijian judges. The New Zealand Law Society has stated that this is basically an interference with the freedom of speech (click here for the press release).



What is the difference you may ask? Well in New Zealand, domestic judges can do no wrong, so it is improper to criticise them, whereas foreign judges are susceptible to error.

You will also discover that the Law Society appointed Lapa Laubscher (a former eminent Q.C during the apartheid era and Botha’s personal lawyer) to act as professional standards director. Mr Laubscher, who knows all about keeping colonials in check, then secretly investigated Mr Orlov world-wide on Harrison J’s direction and met with judges who told him "not to get rid of Mr Orlov yet as he will prove useful as an independent voice". But now Mr Orlov is speaking too much and is no longer useful. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you will hear evidence directly from witnesses as to Mr Laubscher’s involvement and his background because of course, like Mr Hesketh, someone involved in a system that perpetrates crimes against humanity would be well suited to control New Zealand lawyers’ ethics.

You will be sad to know that directly as a result of Mr Orlov’s annoying complaints, Mr Laubscher "resigned" and is now helping migrant and coloured people access the New Zealand justice system as a duty solicitor. I am sure his clients will receive what they deserve quickly and efficiently.
You will hear all of this and much more during the show but without revealing the finale and just to give you a sneak preview, the New Zealand Law Society Disciplinary Tribunal will demonstrate a feat of true judicial magic, the likes of which can only be seen in the most far flung villages of Iran and Pakistan - they will decide the case with absolutely no evidence.

Yes, that is correct! The society has not filed one single statement nor called one witness and has refused to call Harrison J, so there is actually no evidence whatsoever to state that what Mr Orlov has said about Harrison J was untrue. Indeed, the Tribunal has refused Mr Orlov’s application to cross-examine Harrison J and for them to provide discovery (click here for that decision).

That did not stop the New Zealand justice in the Bain case though, did it? I mean, Mr Bain was found guilty without any evidence and so he should have been - whoever said that justice was about truth? That is far too draining on tax-payers money. Our great New Zealand Court of Appeal in Bain correctly and economically dispensed with all that human rights nonsense. Indeed, Bain’s pesky lawyer took every point in the Privy Council.

Well, we are glad Mr Orlov will not be able to do that. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has righty criticised Mr Orlov for taking every point and arguing that he is being prosecuted without evidence. Indeed our wonderful Court of Appeal has held that no evidence and no reasons are required to prosecute Mr Orlov and that everyone should just darned well get on with it.

The decision was made by a panel of our most illustrious judges, including Wild J, who only a year ago set aside the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’s decision to empanel in the case of Wilson J. In that case, Wild J decided that there was insufficient evidence or reasons given for doing so.

What is the difference, you may well ask? Well, Mr Orlov is a lawyer who practices human rights, sometimes for free, and Wilson is an eminent judge who does not do anything for free except perhaps raise horses. Now, raising horses is a noble activity that can only be carried out by the rich and powerful and these types, of course, deserve the protection of the Courts. Harrison J was correct when he said that all people are equal before New Zealand’s judicial system, however he forgot to add that some are more equal than others.

Besides there are too many lawyers and too few judges, we need more judges and fewer lawyers since we do not have innocent people in our prisons. Indeed, we have done away with the concept of provocation so why can’t we do away with the concept of innocence. Like the right to family life, innocence is just another English anachronism. So to use Harrison’s wise words, all New Zealanders are equally guilty but some are guiltier than others.

After the show all those who attend are invited to an after show party to commemorate the professional lynching of Mr Orlov. . Drinks and food are complementary, but you need to RSVP as places are limited.

So please come appropriately dressed to the show trial. If possible, black tie for men and evening dress for ladies. Colonial justice, after all, demands appropriate attire.
Thank you,

E. Orlov

------------------
Equity Law Chambers | A. Level 4, 44 Khyber Pass Road | PO Box 8333 | Auckland | New Zeal