Fourteen months into a professorial suspension because I called Hamas Nazis: Some reflections, some bald truth, a ton of depression, packs of wolves in sheep's clothing and red lines. But no paywall.
I’m reminded of an old joke: what’s the difference between a lawyer and a rooster? A rooster clucks defiance. Here’s another: what do you call 100 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
I would begin by saying that I profoundly disagree with you about matters Palestinian but its not really relevant too what you and I have in common.
I am, like you, a victim of a corrupt judicial process carried out within the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants. I have written about it at great length and published many posting about it. Many of those are the texts of letters I have sent to a firm of parasites (my mistake, lawyers) who were intent upon suing me to pay $260,000 costs levied against me following my expulsion. Once I began to explain the severity and depravity of the injustice correspondence from the parasites stopped. There is a lot more to go yet.
I am lucky, perhaps, in that my tribulations take place within a statutory context. As such there are statutory rights I have which I remind them of. These include: right to natural justice, right to proportional treatment, right to information, right to due process as determined by NZICA Rules.
I suspect in your case the principles of justice will only be available to the extent they are built into the common law or equity. I did look at your university's website but nothing stood out.
I'll help you. I don't wish to boast but I am expert at these sorts of issues. At $600 per hour the parasites cannot hope to master the intricacies. They bluff.
In contrast to you the moment I was suspended from membership 3 years ago I emerged from a four year funk. I enjoy the fight because I am going to win and the depraved officials know it.
Contact me. I will have material of use to you. But it would be most helpful if you could send me your university's disciplinary rules.
Robert B Walker
PS - it is not insignificant that I sued a Big 4 accounting firm and grossed $40 million, a promethean sin.
Can’t say I enjoy the fight. The external investigator system is set up to enrich lawyers, provide cover for management. This has nothing to do with truth or due process. I am trying to get a lawyer from CIJA. I believe in classic hate speech laws, my accuser has broken them, I have not, not even close, they are children and reacted to a Muslim friend of the vp screaming bloody murder and they would rather spend other people’s money on lawyers than admit they were wrong.
CIJA must be over-committed. A metaphor: to enjoy sailing you must enjoy rigging yachts. Same with law. You must enjoy the research. I do. You quickly find that you know more than the lawyers. What you need to appreciate about litigating lawyers is their expertise lies in process not necessarily the law. That is the rationale underpinning the dual role system employed in England - the expert in the applicable law briefs the expert in forensic process.
When I engaged a Big 4 firm in litigation I retained the services of a litigation funder. They ended up with the lion’s share and fair enough. We have been hounded ever since by a vexatious idiot. Though he was the perpetrator he wanted a share of the winnings. He established a claim by fraud. The hearing was in March 24 and the judge has not issued his ruling yet. It is imminent.
I have set that out as a prelude to what I am going to tell you. I made another proposal to sue NZICA. The funder is wary because of what happened. They think that what will be settled for will be eaten by the costs. Also they are a bit skeptical of my legal theories. I have identified two relevant torts. The first falls under the broad title of the economic torts. There are several of them and the one that is applicable is conspiracy. Having said that conspiracy in civil law is very different from conspiracy in criminal law and even more different to the febrile minds of Qanon nitwits. Despite efforts in England to kill off the economic torts (see OBG v Allen) they are still alive and well. The other rubric is misfeasance in public office. I have researched this all over the world (England, Australia, NZ and Canada). In all the cases I studied the plaintiff lost for various reasons. It is difficult to hit all the bases the main one being the defendant must have acted in bad faith.
It so happens that Canada is the jurisdiction most favourable for the abstruse torts I refer to. England is hostile. Australia and NZ somewhere in between. Over to you but I can help. I will share my proposal to the litigation funder if you want. I would rather do it by private communication.
I’m reminded of an old joke: what’s the difference between a lawyer and a rooster? A rooster clucks defiance. Here’s another: what do you call 100 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.
What a horrific ordeal!
I would begin by saying that I profoundly disagree with you about matters Palestinian but its not really relevant too what you and I have in common.
I am, like you, a victim of a corrupt judicial process carried out within the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants. I have written about it at great length and published many posting about it. Many of those are the texts of letters I have sent to a firm of parasites (my mistake, lawyers) who were intent upon suing me to pay $260,000 costs levied against me following my expulsion. Once I began to explain the severity and depravity of the injustice correspondence from the parasites stopped. There is a lot more to go yet.
I am lucky, perhaps, in that my tribulations take place within a statutory context. As such there are statutory rights I have which I remind them of. These include: right to natural justice, right to proportional treatment, right to information, right to due process as determined by NZICA Rules.
I suspect in your case the principles of justice will only be available to the extent they are built into the common law or equity. I did look at your university's website but nothing stood out.
I'll help you. I don't wish to boast but I am expert at these sorts of issues. At $600 per hour the parasites cannot hope to master the intricacies. They bluff.
In contrast to you the moment I was suspended from membership 3 years ago I emerged from a four year funk. I enjoy the fight because I am going to win and the depraved officials know it.
Contact me. I will have material of use to you. But it would be most helpful if you could send me your university's disciplinary rules.
Robert B Walker
PS - it is not insignificant that I sued a Big 4 accounting firm and grossed $40 million, a promethean sin.
Can’t say I enjoy the fight. The external investigator system is set up to enrich lawyers, provide cover for management. This has nothing to do with truth or due process. I am trying to get a lawyer from CIJA. I believe in classic hate speech laws, my accuser has broken them, I have not, not even close, they are children and reacted to a Muslim friend of the vp screaming bloody murder and they would rather spend other people’s money on lawyers than admit they were wrong.
CIJA must be over-committed. A metaphor: to enjoy sailing you must enjoy rigging yachts. Same with law. You must enjoy the research. I do. You quickly find that you know more than the lawyers. What you need to appreciate about litigating lawyers is their expertise lies in process not necessarily the law. That is the rationale underpinning the dual role system employed in England - the expert in the applicable law briefs the expert in forensic process.
When I engaged a Big 4 firm in litigation I retained the services of a litigation funder. They ended up with the lion’s share and fair enough. We have been hounded ever since by a vexatious idiot. Though he was the perpetrator he wanted a share of the winnings. He established a claim by fraud. The hearing was in March 24 and the judge has not issued his ruling yet. It is imminent.
I have set that out as a prelude to what I am going to tell you. I made another proposal to sue NZICA. The funder is wary because of what happened. They think that what will be settled for will be eaten by the costs. Also they are a bit skeptical of my legal theories. I have identified two relevant torts. The first falls under the broad title of the economic torts. There are several of them and the one that is applicable is conspiracy. Having said that conspiracy in civil law is very different from conspiracy in criminal law and even more different to the febrile minds of Qanon nitwits. Despite efforts in England to kill off the economic torts (see OBG v Allen) they are still alive and well. The other rubric is misfeasance in public office. I have researched this all over the world (England, Australia, NZ and Canada). In all the cases I studied the plaintiff lost for various reasons. It is difficult to hit all the bases the main one being the defendant must have acted in bad faith.
It so happens that Canada is the jurisdiction most favourable for the abstruse torts I refer to. England is hostile. Australia and NZ somewhere in between. Over to you but I can help. I will share my proposal to the litigation funder if you want. I would rather do it by private communication.