Serious Fraud Office
                                  4 minutes read time         22/6/06

Michael Stiassny - The smartest guy in the room.
        How Stiassny betrayed his friend Robert Fardell QC

Michael Stiassny has always worked hard to get where he is.  His ambitious focus has
developed in him a keen sense of when certain wheels needed to be greased to get results
and when certain arms needed to be twisted.  He is accustomed to being the smartest guy
in the room and he has deftly developed the confidence that facilitates this perception.  
This is assisted by Mr. Stiassny's regular demands that most people exit the room, as he
does before he will discuss Metro Water business at the Auckland City
Finance and
Corporate Business
meetings at Auckland City Hall.  

Until December 2005, this perception was so much easier to achieve. You see, Michael
Stiassny and his good mate Robert Fardell QC were an unbeatable team until 11 December
2005..  Part Punch and Judy, part Moe and Curly, and part Enron-style empire builders.  
Like the Enron executives that courted U.S. Politicians and the press and kept the wheels
of justice well oiled, Mr. Fardell proved masterful at this .  An affable and rotund man who
loved to cruise around town in his Rolls Royce, Mr. Fardell was a Queen's Counsel and
former Crown Prosecutor, virtually untouchable in the legal arena in which he was most
familiar and widely respected.

Mr. Stiassny on the other hand was the innovative accountant who recognized the value of
complex accounting exercises to obscure transparency and advance his personal
ambitions.  Like the Enron accountants, his success in compounding accounting schemes
to obscure accurate accounting and justify exorbitant fee charging appeared unmatched in
New Zealand.  Like his mate Fardell, Stiassny was quite successful in finagling himself into
positions within professional organizations that fomented his status and influence as a
leading industry authority, particularly on insolvency matters.

Together Mr. Stiasnny and Mr. Fardell were the smartest guys in the room.  But after many
years of broad acceptance and recognition for their individual and joint efforts, things
started to fall apart for them when their actions began to be scrutinized.  

Of course, this was of little concern to both men initially.  Men who run in the circles that
Fardell and Stiassny did are not accountable in the same way other mere mortals are.  As
questions were raised of their suspicious business practices, both men became deeply
offended and outraged that anyone would question their integrity and noble intentions.  
When this outrage provided them only temporary cover both men resorted to more drastic
measures.

Stiassny took the hard-lined approach, consistent with his reputation.  Some would say
being an aggressive protagonist is a necessary trait for a successful insolvency practitioner
who must deal with determined charges who will attempt virtually anything to thwart a
receiver/liquidator.  If true, Mr. Stiassny was arguably the best.  It is doubtful that anyone in
New Zealand spends more on lawyers to aggressively pursue his interests and protect his
unfettered reputation than Staissny.  While this created far more legal work than Mr.
Fardell could handle, Mr. Fardell was regularly the chauffeur driving Stiassny's legal
challenges.

As with the Enron officials who developed euphemistic taglines that masked the odious
consequences of their objectives, Stiassny, elevated to rock star status by the lemmings in
the second-string business community, was on the business lecture circuit in New Zealand
getting chuckles from the crowd every time he said anyone who knew him knew his
mantra to his staff was
"Get over it.".  This typically followed his esoteric claim of growing
Vector Energy from a ONE billion dollar business to a FIVE billion dollar business in THREE
years.  

Stiassny claimed that the astounding growth (and valuation) of Vector was accomplished in
large part by hyping the 24.9% IPO float to
"grandmother beneficiaries" and aggressively
through the media as he simultaneously constricted share sales through two outlets (in
other words, puff up demand as you restrict supply), then pegging the share price at the
height of the float and extrapolating this value to the entire company.  He was so proud of
this accomplishment as he related it to the Institute of Directors meeting on 19 October 2005
that those listening might be forgiven if they believed his methods were wholly consistent
with his Chartered Accountant and Legal background.  If so, they would be mistaken.  
Accountants and Lawyers would overwhelmingly be horrified that a Chairman of a public
company would make such bold admissions of manipulating the markets and then take
pride in an abstract valuation that is
merely indicated by the seeming results of that
manipulation.

But, as with the Enron scandal, it appeared that both men became comfortable that their
status and position would ultimately protect them.  This would prove the beginning of their
undoing.  

Mr. Fardell became the subject of an Auckland District Law Society complaint in 2002.  He
was forced to lie to the Law Society to cover up his misconduct and refused to divulge
billing records.  While lying is not unusual for a lawyer, it can have repercussions in this
context.  A High Court civil action against Robert Fardell followed when the Law Society
ruled there was insufficient cause for the Law Society to pursue disciplinary action against
Fardell.

The scramble then began in earnest.  Robert Fardell QC played up the angle of the
bumbling lawyer who could not remember important events or find his records.  He then
repeatedly professed to not understanding the relevance of his documents to court ordered
discovery.  He filed and served five lists of documents after repeatedly being caught not
providing proper disclosure.  There is no telling how many more disclosures might have
ensued if not for two factors - the first and
least disturbing of which was the deliberate
destruction of his computer hard-drive.  The second, as you shall soon see, required the
somber gathering of 10 High Court judges.

As Fardell did, Stiassny also claimed to have no records or memories of a two hour
meeting between these men in 2001 where Stiassny misrepresented company finances and
claimed to be a "
good buddy" of an influential High Court judge now on the Court of
Appeal.  He also claimed, in 2004, to be unable to locate facsimile records from 2001 and
before.  Stiassny's lawyers also told the court that phone record details where unavailable,
in contrast to what Telstra Clear had already stated in e-mails to Stiassny's office, e-mails
that Telstra Clear had also copied to Stiassny's lawyers.  

The High Court was nonetheless sympathetic to their seeming incompetence for two years
and Associate Judge Graham Lang, obviously aware of the stakes involved in his
becoming a full-fledged justice, conceded that the self-professed friend-of-powerful-judges
Stiassny would not have to number his discovery documents!  Cleverly, Judge Lang
ensured that all this was done in secret; dutifully instructing his clerk to hang a "litigants
only" sign on the courtroom door and refusing to allow recording of the proceedings on the
basis that accurate recording was an attempt to
"intimidate the Court".

The tide turned for Fardell in December 2005, when a prima facie case was presented to
the High Court in Auckland that he had 3 times perjured himself on discovery matters in the
civil case.  This followed his disclosure of an email that proved he was acting in a conflict
of interest that involved Stiassny - contrary to his earlier sworn affidavits - an email that
was only reluctantly disclosed after he became convinced that Stiassny's actions in a
defamation suit against Auckland businessman Vince Siemer would expose his
withholding of it.  His pleas for assistance from Michael Stiassny - a friend he had
repeatedly put his neck on the line for - were rebuffed.

Four days later, Robert Fardell Q C 's body was exposed on the rocks below the Takapuna
Heads Cliffs at Auckland as high tide receded.  

Fardell's family immediately hired high-priced legal gun Harry Waalkens QC to ramrod the
cover up of the apparent suicide.  Soon afterward, on 28 February 2006, the  'public
inquest' was conducted in secret and today, almost four months after the inquest, the
Coroner finally came out with his euphemistic findings as to the cause of death;
"death by
drowning, with post mortem indicating death was immediately preceded by a fall
".  

As his grieving family comes to grips with the apparent suicide of this once prominent
lawyer whose actions were themselves increasingly in conflict with the law, Fardell is
unable, even in death, to escape the hand of Stiassny.  As trustee of the Fardell family
trust, Michael Stiassny is still pulling the strings, legally controlling Mr. Fardell's home and
beloved cars.  

Meanwhile, Mr. Stiassny faces serious allegations that he too perjured himself in Court
affidavits, no doubt this too a source of considerable friction between Fardell and Stiassny
in the days immediately before Fardell died.  True to form, Stiassny is aggressively
fighting  ---  to
delay that court case.

Written by Vince Siemer, MBA
Managing Director, Paragon Services Limited
Member - Institute of Directors in New Zealand



IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY                                        CIV 2008 404 0104



BETWEEN                                                           VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
                                                                        Managing Director
                                                                        27 ClansmanTerrace
                                                                        Gulf Harbour
                                                                        Fax: 09 428 2521
                                                                             First Plaintiff


AND                                                                    MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY
                                                                        Director
                                                                        147 St. Heliers Bay Road
                                                                        St Heliers, Auckland
                                                                        Fax: 09 377 7794
                                                                        First Defendant


AND                                                              FERRIER HODGSON AND CO LTD
                                                                   (a registered company in New
                                                                   Zealand) with   its registered
                                                                   offices located at Level 16 Tower
                                                                    Centre, 45 Queen St,   Auckland
                                                                        Fax: 09 377 7794
                                                                        Second Defendant


AND                                                                    THE QUEEN (Crown)
                                                                     By Her Majesty’s representative,
Attorney                                                         General Michael Cullen  (as agent for
the                                                                 Office of the Solicitor General of New
Zealand                                                         and The Ministry of Justice)
                                                                     Parliament
                                                                     Wellington
                                                                     Fax: 04 495 8442
                                                                        Third
Defendant                                                

*********************************************************  

                             Statement of Claim
                                     9 January 2008

*********************************************************  


Submitted by: Vince Siemer, plaintiff                    
                        27 Clansman Tce.                                             
            Gulf Harbour                                                     
            Facsimile: 09 428 2521                         



STATEMENT OF CLAIM
9 January 2008


The Plaintiff says:


0.0                    That at all relevant times, the Crown officials referred to (namely the Solicitor
General and Judges) were purporting to act on behalf of the New Zealand government and in their
official capacity.

1.0                    That the first defendant is a trained lawyer and partner of the second defendant.

2.                    That the second defendant is a duly registered company with its registered offices
located at Level 16, 45 Queen Street, Auckland,

3.                    That the plaintiff is a businessman holding a bachelor’s degree in Industrial
Relations, a Master’s Degree in Business Administration with business interests in New Zealand and
the United States.

BACKGROUND


4.0                     The First and Second Defendants (“The Defendants”) initiated a civil defamation
claim for financial damages against the plaintiff and three other parties on or about 12 April 2005 –
approaching three years ago.

5.0                     Over the ensuing months the Plaintiffs amended their statement of claim three
times.

6.0                     Within a month of filing their claim for damages against the Plaintiff on or about
12 April 2005, the Defendants filed an interlocutory application requesting the Plaintiff be found in
contempt and imprisoned in that civil matter for allegedly continuing to speak and publish freely
concerning the First Defendant’s public actions.

7.0                     Despite defects in their application for contempt, Justice Potter – a judge with
close personal connections with the First Defendant and his lawyer Julian Miles QC – made several
exceptions to prevailing law between May and July 2005 to allow the Defendants’ claim to proceed
unimpeded.

8.0                     On or about the 26th of July 2005 in the High Court at Auckland, the first day of
Potter J’s involvement, Justice Potter was asked by the Plaintiff’s counsel Colin Henry J.D. to
recuse herself on the basis Counsel had – at the time of his request – an active formal complaint
against Her Honour for judicial misconduct in another matter.  This complaint concerned Her Honour’
s ruling on behalf of a close relative defendant in an ex-parte hearing where she failed to disclose
her relationship to that defendant.  Potter J refused to recuse herself as required to do, claiming she
was exercising her judicial discretion to remain the trial judge.

9.0                     Just before this, on or about 27 June 2007, Potter J’s colleague Chief Justice
Randerson denied Mr Henry’s formal complaint of judicial misconduct against Potter J in the other
matter on the basis her decision was ‘procedural’ in nature.  Randerson J’s ruling made it legally
okay in New Zealand (as far as the Chief Judge was concerned) for fellow judges to rule on behalf of
close relatives in ex-parte hearings without disclosing their family relationship to the other parties so
long as the ruling by the judge could be construed as ‘procedural’ in nature.

10.0                   Also on the first day of the hearing on, or about 26 July 2005, Justice Potter
denied the Plaintiff’s application that the proceedings before her be accurately recorded.  This
request for accurate official recording of the contempt proceedings was raised at every appearance
before Justice Potter over the next two years – and each and every time she refused this reasonable
request without explanation other than it was her judicial right to deny accurate recording.

11.0                  Before this contempt application was fully heard, the plaintiff had appealed Ellen
France’s gagging injunction to the New Zealand Court of Appeal (CA87/05).  In the face of clear
evidence the injunction was unlawful provided at the appeal hearing in Wellington on or about 2
November 2008, Judge Robert Chambers – and acknowledged close mate of the defendants –
upheld the injunction on behalf of the Court of Appeal by overruling France J on contractual grounds
which had not been cross-appealed (in a ruling issued on 13 December 2005).

12.0                  It is an evidential fact that the Defendants’ entire application for contempt and
imprisonment of the Plaintiff was based on hearsay and assumptions.  The only circumstantial
evidence came from two ‘eye-witnesses’, who both claimed they saw a person each identified as the
Plaintiff in buildings around the time stickers that violated a gagging injunction were posted –
although neither would go so far as to say they witnessed any contemptuous conduct.  Both of these
witnesses worked for the defendants’ lawyers and both had been coached by the defendants as to
their testimony.


13.0                  When the Defendants wrapped up their contempt application, Defendants’ counsel
Julian Miles QC made application before Judge Potter on 19 December 2005 to cross-examine the
Plaintiff’s affidavit witnesses – pointedly telling the judge at the time of this application that the
Defendants could not prove their claim of contempt without such cross-examination.


14.0                   When the Plaintiff did not oppose the cross-examination of witness Edmundo
Tunney – the witness whom defendants’ counsel claimed was necessary to establish their contempt
claim – Judge Potter twice suggested to Mr Miles to drop his application, finally adjourning the
proceedings early to give counsel time to think it over when he failed to pick up on Her Honour’s cue
that she would find other ways to ensure this was not an obstacle to their case.

15.0                   Defence counsel’s open court admission at the end of his submission that he
required examination of Plaintiff’s witnesses if he had any chance to prove his case clearly
demonstrated the defendants’ application was defective, ill-advised and an abuse of Court process.  
Potter J’s reaction in coercing plaintiffs’ counsel to then drop what he understood to be an
imperative application – and then Her Honour still find the Plaintiff guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
on multiple counts with nothing more than conflicting circumstantial and hearsay evidence –
demonstrates a certain lawlessness by Justice Potter.

16.0                  Moreover, Potter J refused to allow the Plaintiff cross examination of affidavit
witnesses against him in proceedings where his liberty was at stake – this in violation of essential
civil rights afforded in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and common law.

17.0                  Potter J also conducted part of the contempt proceedings ex-parte, on 5 December
2005 in the Auckland High Court, outside of the presence of the Plaintiff and/or his lawyer.

18.0                   In closing submissions given on 20 December 2005, the Plaintiff pointed out the
odd disparity where the Defendants’ counsel claimed to have spent nearly $190,000 pursuing a
contempt application they admitted to be deficient against the Plaintiff at the same time they had
done nothing to advance the subsequent proceedings which their contempt diversion was premised
upon, other than to change their statement of claim three times for a total of four drafts.  
Defendants’ counsel Mr Miles would later inform Potter J that the Plaintiffs had simply been too
busy to advance the substantive matter.  Potter J accepted this implausible excuse without
challenge.

19.0                  Potter’s subsequent findings of guilt beyond reasonable doubt on multiple counts
of contempt and her assessment of $200,000 in costs against the Plaintiff defied every applicable
law, case precedent and pure logic, instead relying solely on the hardy annual of judicial discretion.

20.0                  In a related High Court action (CIV2003 404 5782) the Defendants’ counsel
McElroys were caught out inflating cost figures and submitting these padded cost figures to the
Court for sealing.  When this matter went to a Court of Appeal hearing (CA172/07) on 18 June 2007,
Susan Glazebrook J showed open contempt and disrespect for the Plaintiff, refused the submission
of legal evidence from the lower court which exposed overcharging by Defendants’ counsel, allowed
new evidence from the Bar by Defendants’ counsel and openly defended the criminal practice of
lawyers padding their bills.


21.0                   In or about October 2006, the Defendants, by their solicitors, lodged a caveat on
the Plaintiff’s residence and claimed they intended to pursue bankruptcy, if necessary, to collect
their costs awards granted by the Court.

22.0                  In correspondence with Ray White Manager Gary Brown in August 2007, the
Defendants refused to release the caveat they registered on the residence at 27 Clansman Terrace,
Gulf Harbour, thereby preventing its unimpeded sale - to the detriment of the Siemer Family Trust
which owns the property.

23.0                  Potter J’s ruling of guilty and the unprecedented costs were appealed by Plaintiff to
the New Zealand Court of Appeal in a hearing on 8 February 2007 (CA55/06) where it was
demonstrated in viva voce examination of the witness Alan Garrett – whom Potter J had earlier
denied the Plaintiff the ability to cross-examine – that the eye-witness had been coached by him.  
More troubling, it was cogently demonstrated this witness materially changed his identification after
being coached by Mr Garrett and that the defendants withheld exculpatory evidence.  This witness
evidence – caught on audiotape at the hearing – was ignored by the Court of Appeal in upholding
Potter J’s ruling and dismissing the appeal.

24.0                  Cross examination of this witness at this hearing also revealed that comments by
the Plaintiff which High Court Justice Ellen France had earlier ruled were false (in support of Her
Honour’s gagging injunction against all the Defendants) were indeed truthful and accurate by the
Defendants’ own definition.  In these circumstances the Court of Appeal were legally compelled at
that moment and without hesitation to revoke the gagging injunction – which itself was a
contravention of prevailing New Zealand law.  Court of Appeal President Willy Young outright refused
to abide by his legal obligations in this regard (evidence of His Eminence the President’s unlawful
refusal again caught on audiotape at the hearing).

25.0                   In dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal, His Eminence, President of the Court of
Appeal and beacon of everything honourable in New Zealand Willy Young wrongfully attempted to
defend Potter J’s unconscionable conduct at the initial hearing by suggesting in His Honour’s written
decision on 4 April 2007 (CA55/06 & CA150/06) Her Honour’s conduct was likely caused by the
Plaintiff’s actions – including a suggestion Potter J was justly insulted by the reasonable request the
hearing before her be accurately recorded.  This defence of Potter J‘s conduct by Young P was
despite the extensive and uncontested evidence  of seven witnesses – including that of the plaintiffs’
sole witness – all stating the Plaintiff was respectful and considerate toward Potter J.

26.0                  The Plaintiff then appealed the Court of Appeal dismissal to the New Zealand
Supreme Court (SC26/2007), as well as filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judith Marjorie
Potter J with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.  The receipt of this formal complaint was
acknowledged by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner Ian Haynes in a letter dated 11 June 2006.

27.0                   Mr Ian Haynes is a close friend and former business partner of Judy Potter J.  As
an active lawyer and partner with Kensington Swan, he also has an inherent conflict of interest in
holding errant judges accountable.  Kensington Swan is the largest reported benefactor of Legal Aid
payments in New Zealand, with the firm reportedly receiving $2.26 MILLION in Mr Haynes first full
year as Judicial Conduct Commissioner.   

28.0                  As of the date of this counterclaim, Mr Haynes has failed to rule on the Plaintiff’s
formal complaint against Potter J – a complaint that includes 18 uncontested and sworn witness
statements in relation to Her Honour Ms. Potter’s judicial misconduct.

29.0                  The Judicial Conduct Commissioner – specifically established by the New Zealand
Parliament to hold corrupt and unfit judges accountable – was created by The Judicial Conduct
Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004.  Since then, not one of more than 200 formal
complaints of judge misconduct has been advanced by Mr Haynes to a formal Panel investigation
as provided for in the Act.  This extensive empirical evidence further demonstrates how ineffective
his office is in holding errant and unfit judges accountable.

30.0                  The Judicial Conduct Commissioner also regularly employs his lawyer friends at
direct expense to the Government and citizens of New Zealand.  Mr Haynes has refused to divulge
these financial figures and what lawyer mates he is paying on the basis he is exempt from the
Official Information Act 1982 which compels other Government agencies to properly divulge how and
where agencies spend monies and use information.

31.0                   On 10 February 2006, the Plaintiff filed a perjury cause of action in the Auckland
High Court (CIV2006 404 593) against the First Defendant for the demonstrably false 8 April 2005
affidavit the First Defendant used to obtain the gagging injunction against the plaintiff and three
other defendants.  In a ruling dated 9 August 2006, Associate Judge Doogue dismissed the perjury
claim on the basis the Defendants were claiming witness immunity from prosecution.  The
unquestionable effect of this judgment by Doogue AJ is that anyone can commit perjury in the New
Zealand Courts if the person lodging the false claim then claims they are also a witness in the
proceedings.

32.0                  In or about the first week of December 2006, the Plaintiff submitted a formal
complaint to the NEW ZEALAND POLICE against the First Defendant detailing his perjury.  This
criminal complaint was supported by a sworn affidavit with hard evidence appended.  It was
registered by the Police as Complaint no. 061211-9310 on 11 December 2006.  As of the date of
this counterclaim – well over a year later – the Plaintiff has not received any prosecution decision
from the Police.  Despite repeated emails to the detective put in charge of the complaint (Brett
Henshaw), he has been unable to get any information as to the status of the complaint since 27
November 2007.

33.0                  As a direct result of judicial decisions in the Defendants’ unproven civil claim
(CIV2005 404 1808), they were able to get the Auckland High Court to place Paragon Services
Limited, a company owned by the plaintiff and his wife, into liquidation on 15 March 2007.

34.0                   In June 2007, Potter J had been involved in the matter for more than two years.  
She was intimately aware the Defendants had done virtually nothing to advance their defamation
claim in two years and that it was the Plaintiff who had filed an application a year earlier to advance
the substantive matter.  Potter J was also fully aware the Plaintiff had filed a formal misconduct
complaint against her with the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.  She had specifically corresponded
with her friend the Commissioner on how to avoid it.

35.0                  With this as a backdrop Potter again refused to recuse herself from the case,
refused accurate recording of proceedings and insisted upon railroading the second contempt
hearing when she knew the Plaintiff would be out of the country – hearing the matter ex-parte on 4
July 2007.

36.0                  Potter J granted a writ of arrest at that ex parte hearing and the Plaintiff was
arrested and immediately remanded to custody when he returned to Auckland Airport on 12 July
2007.  This was the second time she had wantonly conducted ex-parte proceedings in a trial for
committal (the first time being in the Auckland High Court on 5 December 2005).

37.0                  Over the two days of the sentencing hearing conducted on 12 – 13 July 2007,
Potter J denied the Plaintiff bond or the ability to access his legal authorities or files despite him
being self-represented.  She then sentenced him to six weeks in prison, suggesting this
unprecedented sentence was based upon at least one case where no prison time was served yet
Potter J claimed a three week prison term eventuated.

38.0                  Potter J had not consulted the Plaintiff when she set the contempt hearing for 4
July 2007. Her Honour then denied his prompt and reasonable request for the hearing to be
adjourned for a date before or after his overseas trip.  In contrast, when Plaintiffs’ counsel asked for
a deadline extension to Her Honour’s timetable for cost submissions immediately after this railroad
hearing, she quickly complied in granting the extension.

39.0                  After the second contempt hearing before Potter J, Her Honour unlawfully removed
the Plaintiff’s submissions concerning the open issue of costs from the High Court File without
notice to the parties.  Potter J then claimed (falsely) in her 31 August 2007 ruling granting a further
$51,791.03 in costs to her plaintiff mates that the Plaintiff had failed to make submissions – this
after Her Honour had personally and unilaterally instructed Court staff to remove such submissions.

40.0                  At 10.00 am of the day the Plaintiff was taken into custody, Potter J had in her
hands The New Zealand Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the appeal of her earlier contempt decision
which had been issued in Wellington only minutes before.  While refusing to consider the
substantive appeal, The Honourable Supreme Court did go so far as to rule that Potter J was not
biased.

41.0                  Not insignificantly, the First Defendant partnered with the husband of New Zealand
Supreme Court Chief Justice Sian Elias on the Board of Directors of Vector Limited weeks before
this second contempt hearing that resulted in the Plaintiff’s imprisonment.

42.0                  The First Defendant had previously stated to the Plaintiff and his wife that Court of
Appeal Justice Grant Hammond was a friend of his – this statement being in direct response to his
accounting scams being challenged by them.

43.0                  Shortly after the Plaintiff was sent to Mt Eden Prison by Potter J, the Solicitor
General of New Zealand David Collins QC (“S-G”) got directly involved to unduly protect the First
Defendant in these proceedings while he unlawfully attacked the Plaintiff’s business interests.  One
example of the latter was a letter dated 19 July 2007 from the S-G to Enlighten Hosting Limited
(“Enlighten”) in which the S-G threatened legal action by the Crown if Enlighten did not take
immediate action detrimental to the Plaintiff’s business interests in relation to a website they were
hosting.

44.0                  In response to the threat by the S-G on behalf of the Crown, Enlighten immediately
shut down the website www.kiwisfirst.co.nz.  Enlighten unilaterally reactivated the website within
days after they became convinced the S-G had operated outside the law and had no legal authority
to make the demand threat he had made toward them.

45.0                  The Office of the Solicitor General would later verbally deny that the S-G had sent
such a letter until colleagues of the Plaintiff obtained a copy of it.

46.0                  While the Plaintiff was in Mt Eden Prison, a Parliamentary Petition was sponsored
by the Honourable Member of Parliament Rodney Hyde of Epsom requesting an inquiry into the
circumstances of the Plaintiff’s imprisonment by Potter J.  In direct response, the S-G Mr Collins
unlawfully killed the advancement of this official inquiry by incorrectly telling Parliamentary
Committee staff the matter was sub judice and that he would soon be lodging additional charges for
contempt against the Plaintiff.  Discovery is required to determine the exact method and dates of
the S-G’s actions in unduly killing the Parliamentary Select Committed inquiry.

47.0                   As the highest operating law enforcement officer of New Zealand, the Solicitor
General certainly knew or should have known before his misrepresentation to Parliament:

47.1 The contempt matter was unquestionably concluded and was not sub judice.

47.2  Any further attempt by him to prosecute a contempt constituted double jeopardy.

48.0         In addition to being unlawful, the actions by the Solicitor General were extremely unusual,
in that:

48.1 This Crown Officer was expending extraordinary public resources to assist one person (Michael
Stiassny) in his unproven civil claim against a law-abiding citizen,

48.2   This Crown Officer’s actions had the certain effect of unduly protecting an errant judge to the
detriment of the laws he had sworn an oath to uphold and protect.

48.0                  As it turned out, the Solicitor General’s claim that the matter was sub judice proved
a ruse as well as a misrepresentation to Parliament.  Once he killed the Parliamentary Inquiry into
Potter J’s unlawful imprisonment of the Plaintiff, Mr Collins took no further action and hid the
evidence of his involvement.

49.0                  Both counsel representing the Plaintiff in this ordeal – namely Colin Henry J.D. and
Grant Illingworth Q.C. – spoke scathingly of Judy Potter J’s unfitness to be a Judge.  Mr Henry, as
previously mentioned, had caught Potter J out for ruling on behalf of her brother-in-law without
disclosing her relationship.  Mr Illingworth called Judge Judy Potter “The Worst”, “An
embarrassment to the Court”, and saying of Her Honour “When she gets a bee in her bonnet, the
law does not matter.”   To have such experienced senior counsel speak so disdainfully of Potter J’s
unfitness as a judge is extremely telling.

50.0                  As a law-abiding citizen who must therefore put his faith for justice in the very
Crown institutions which have been repeatedly demonstrated to break the laws of the land and Court
rules to his detriment and damage over long periods, the Plaintiff is left with no other choice but to
adjoin the Crown in this action.  Without the assistance of an Honourable Court, the Crown and
Defendants are likely to continue their efforts to pervert justice, make an absolute mockery of due
process and forever tarnish the honourable reputation of the New Zealand Court system.


CAUSE OF ACTION

51.0         WITH THE EXTENSIVE COMPLICITY OF AGENTS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE
QUEEN AND CROWN, THE DEFENDANTS HAVE ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO DEFEAT
THE COURSE OF JUSTICE

PARTICULARS

51.1 The Defendants initiated their defamation claim against the Plaintiff on a single perjured
affidavit, then dragged the chains of their substantive claim which they filed to coerce the Court into
wrongfully granting an injunction.  They simultaneously embarked on a vicious campaign of deceit,
abuse of judicial process, unlawful evasion, financial attrition and efforts designed solely to prevent
the Plaintiff and the other defendants from defending against their fabricated defamation claim.  In
doing so, the Defendants have set out specifically to defeat the course of justice.

51.2            The Court and Crown, by their actions, are a complicit party in the abuse of judicial
process, as evidenced by the following:

51.2.1      In a non evidential hearing 28 April 2005 where the only evidence before Ellen France J
were conflicting and untested affidavits, Her Honour France J nevertheless ruled (5 May 2005) it was
clear to her the unquestionable attempt at substantial fee overcharging by the Defendants was
inadvertent AND that the First Defendant had never attempted to label Paragon Services Limited
insolvent.  NO judge could possibly have logically reached these conclusions on the extremely
limited, materially conflicting and untested evidence Ellen France J professed to base this decision
on – in what was not even an evidential hearing.

51.2.2       When Ellen France J’s injunction ruling could not be sustained on legal grounds on
appeal, Robert Chambers J nonetheless upheld it at the Court of Appeal by overruling France J on a
contractual point that had not been cross-appealed and, further, was legally unenforceable due to
well known legal misrepresentations by Robert Fardell QC and the First Defendant (who has an
LLB).  [(CA87/05) 13 December 2005]

51.2.3      Rodney Hansen J:

51.2.3.1       Ruled costs against the Plaintiff and Paragon Service Limited and in favour of the
Plaintiffs on an interlocutory application by the plaintiff where the Plaintiff was successful on 7 of 9
points.  Where costs normally follow the event, such a reverse ruling is unprecedented and speaks
of judicial bias.

51.2.3.2       Later ignored his own ruling on meritorious legal arguments that favoured the Plaintiff
by striking out parts of his statement of defence. This ruling is currently on appeal to the Court of
Appeal.

51.2.3.3       Exempted the defendants from their legal obligations in providing discovery when it
became clear to His Honour the defendants had been deceptive on discovery and had no intention
of abiding by their legal obligation regarding discovery.

51.2.3.4       Unlawfully assisted the defendants by allowing them to retreat from their original
allegations and ring-fence an extremely narrow interpretation of their defamation claim that had no
foundation in law or fact.

51.2.4            Judy Potter J:

51.2.4.1      repeatedly refused to recuse herself where she had an unquestionable and serious
conflict of interest,

51.2.4.2      repeatedly conducted hearings outside the presence of the plaintiff or his lawyer in
hearings where the Plaintiff’s liberty was at stake,

51.2.4.3      repeatedly refused to permit accurate recording of proceedings without explanation other
than to say it was within her power to do so,

51.2.4.4      Never challenged or even questioned the Defendants as to why none of the half dozen
people whom hearsay witnesses claimed actually witnessed breaches of the injunction by the
Defendants came forward or provided evidence.

51.2.4.5      Used contrived case law to support an unprecedented six week prison sentence in this
unproven civil defamation case where Her Honour personally had witnessed two years of diversion
and procrastination by the defendants on the very matter all their superfluous applications hung on,

51.2.4.6      Awarded an unprecedented $200,000 in costs in favour of the defendants in an
interlocutory application.  (This award, which is 4-5 times more than any comparable case, was so
indefensible that the Court of Appeal chose not to even address it on legal grounds as they are
required to do – saying instead it was simply within Judge Potter’s discretion to award such an
outlandish sum. [CA150/07 4 April 2007, Young P for the Court] )

51.2.4.7      Later demanded this ridiculous and untenable sum be paid to the defendants
immediately.

51.2.4.8      Debarred the Plaintiff’s defence after it became evident two long years later the
Defendants were unprepared to advance the matter unless and until the Judge killed off the Plaintiff
ahead of trial.

51.2.4.9      Falsely claimed submissions were not filed by the Plaintiff after she secretly had these
submissions removed from the Court file.

51.2.5      Potter J found the Plaintiff “Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt”:

51.2.5.1 Solely on a newspaper article where not even the reporter gave evidence.

51.2.5.2   Solely on hearsay and double-hearsay evidence – as in the case where Alan Garrett
claimed (solely by affidavit) that flyers were in envelopes addressed to unconnected non-parties.  
Not one of these people who the envelopes were addressed to provided evidence.

51.2.5.3   Solely on witness testimony where the witness provided vastly conflicting descriptions of
the accused and described stickers with vastly different shapes and messages than had been
supplied in evidence.

51.2.5.4  Based upon the unrepresented Plaintiff’s non-responses, “no evidence” and refusal to
submit to cross-examination.

51.2.6       The Solicitor General of New Zealand David Collins QC – the second highest law
enforcement officer in the land:

51.2.6.1  Made material misrepresentations to Parliament in order to unduly deprive the Plaintiff his
legal rights, protect an errant judge and unduly assist the Defendants in an unproven civil claim.

51.2.6.2   Unlawfully interfered with private commerce by using his official position to threaten a
legitimate and lawful enterprise, with the effect of damaging the Plaintiff and his business
associates.

51.2.6.3  Used his official position as a Crown enforcement officer to advance a personal agenda
that was inconsistent with the Crown’s public role, obligations and objectives.

51.2.6.4   Knowingly concealed the extent of his involvement, thereby demonstrating he understood
what he was doing was unlawful, as well as an egregious breach of his sworn oath to uphold and
protect the laws of New Zealand.

51.2.7            Robertson J, acting in his official capacity as Judge for the New Zealand Court of
Appeal, unlawfully attempted to coerce the Plaintiff to provide his personal financial information to
the Defendants for the intended purpose of allowing the Defendants to financially incapacitate – if
not bankrupt – the Plaintiff ahead of trial (and thereby avoid having to prosecute their false claim)
despite extensive evidence the means by which they were seeking to financially incapacitate the
Plaintiff was itself a fraudulent abuse of process.

51.3            The concerted actions of the parties above had the overriding purpose and effect of
defeating the course of justice and amounted to a conspiracy to obstruct, prevent, pervert and/or
defeat the course of justice as provided in Section 116 of the Crimes Act 1961.


51.4             All the defendants named in this alleged conspiracy to defeat the course of justice are
highly touted legal minds in New Zealand.  They cannot realistically expect to find refuge by
professing ignorance of the laws of New Zealand.

51.5             By debarring the Plaintiff’s defence, Potter J denied the Plaintiff his essential legal
right to defend himself in an unproven civil defamation claim where Her Honour has already sent the
law-abiding Plaintiff to prison.

51.6            By exempting the Plaintiffs from proper discovery and allowing them to retreat from the
initial allegations of defamation they made against the Plaintiff, Rodney Hansen J has defiled
elementary laws of the land with the effect of further insulating the Defendants from legal obligations
and accountability.

51.7             By ruling the First Defendant is immune from criminal perjury charges on the basis the
First Defendant is now a witness whose own sworn lies have afforded him witness immunity, Doogue
AJ has set the stage for an enormous judicial travesty in circumstances where Potter J has ruled
the Plaintiff cannot even defend himself against these lies and Rodney Hansen J has ruled the
Defendants do not have to stand by or prove their initial allegations of defamation against the
Plaintiff - or merely conform to discovery requirements.

Wherefore the Plaintiff Claims Against the Defendants Jointly and Severally for:


(a)     General damages of $1,250,000

(b)    Compensation for unjust incarceration at Mt Eden Prison in the amount of $100,000.

(c)     Aggravated damages of $200,000.

(d)    Special damages for economic loss that has or might arise from the defendants’ malicious
actions (details to be provided in due course).

(e)    Expenses related to the house at 27 Clansman Terrace, Gulf Harbour from July 2007 due to
the inability to sell with clear title due to actions of Crown and Defendants in these proceedings.

(f)        Exemplary damages of $2,150,000.

(g)     Interest on costs and damages at the rate of 8.25% (except for ongoing Clansman Terrace
expenses incurred).

(h)      Costs.

And from the Crown the Plaintiff seeks an ex gratia payment equal to the award against the
Defendants.


SECOND AND/OR ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION

51.0            The Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 – 50.


52.0            THE ACTIONS OF THE CROWN AND THE DEFENDANTS SYSTEMATICALLY
DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFF OF LEGAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE NEW ZEALAND BILL
OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND COMMON LAW

PARTICULARS

52.1            By dragging the chains of their substantive defamation claim filed merely to coerce the
Court into wrongfully granting an injunction, as they simultaneously embarked on a vicious and
costly campaign to prevent the Plaintiff defending the Defendants’ fabricated defamation claim, the
Defendants are guilty of abusing the judicial process with the objective of denying the Plaintiff his
legal rights as guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

52.2            The gagging injunction by High Court Justice Ellen France was unlawful and was
demonstrated to the Court of Appeal as being unlawful, as well as obtained by deceit.  The law is
well-established that the Court has an obligation to correct abuse of judicial processes when they
have been convincingly demonstrated to have occurred, particularly where the abuse has caused
harm and deprivation of guaranteed liberties.  There is no provision in law for a judge to insist he has
the judicial discretion to ignore certain exculpatory evidence with the designed result of ignoring the
law he has sworn to serve, suppressing a citizen’s guaranteed legal rights, unjustly putting that
citizen on the road to personal bankruptcy and unjustly putting that citizen in jail, as Willy Young P
did.

52.3            Chambers J’s 13 December 2005 ruling on behalf of the Court of Appeal in these
proceedings (CA87/05) abused His Honour’s position solely to improperly assist the Defendants –
who are his admitted mates.  Chambers J’s additional ruling that the Plaintiff has not lost anything
by the injunction is an egregious affront to the Bill of Rights Act 1990 as intended and enacted by
Parliament on behalf of the people of New Zealand.

52.4            While it should be evident to anyone looking at this case that justice can not be relied
upon from New Zealand Courts, it is every person’s minimum right to be afforded respect from New
Zealand Judges AND for those judges not to conceal criminal conduct.  When Susie Glazebrook J
exhibited outright contempt and disrespect for the Plaintiff and openly defended the criminal practice
of lawyers padding their bills, Her Honour’s actions stepped beyond the realm of judicial error into
the certain arena of judicial misconduct.  Her Honour’s misconduct most certainly covered up
criminal conduct by the Defendants and their counsel, as well as aided and abetted the Defendants
and their counsel’s pursuit of bankruptcy against the Plaintiff and the unjust barring of his defence
in these proceedings.

52.5            Potter J’s rulings denying the Plaintiff the ability to cross-examine witnesses against
him – or even the ability to be present – at hearings where his liberty was at stake, and where he
would ultimately be found guilty and sent to prison, violates the must fundamental laws of the land,
was a blatant contravention of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

52.6            When Potter J subsequently denied the unrepresented Plaintiff access to his legal
authorities and files for sentencing, Her Honour further demonstrated her wanton disregard for the
laws of the land and her oath of office.  When Potter J then silently took the Plaintiff’s legal
submissions out of the Official Court File and then claimed they had not been received Her Honour
likely committed an egregious breach of her public trust with the certain effect of further assisting
the Defendants, harming the Plaintiff and covering up her own judicial misconduct.

52.7            The Plaintiff has an inalienable right to transparent and natural justice.  In
circumstances where Potter J  was the subject of two separate, active and serious judicial
misconduct  complaints against her at the very time she was asked to recuse herself and provide
accurate recording of hearings, Her Honour’s failure to do either must minimally be cause for
censure and a new trial.  That Her Honour’s fellow judges – despite this knowledge – covered up her
misconduct instead is without question.  The Plaintiff has suffered damage as a result and this
damage is still ongoing.

52.8             With the complicity of the New Zealand Courts, the Defendants have placed a caveat
on property owned by the Plaintiff’s family trust, thereby blackmailing the Plaintiff to succumb to the
Defendants’ unlawful demands in order to prevent unrelated parties to the proceedings from unlawful
restraint of their legal rights.

52.9             A New Zealand Citizen has the right to expect the New Zealand Police to act
responsibly, without fear or favour and to enforce the laws of the land.  The Police failures to
address a thoroughly documented criminal complaint in the matter CIV2005 404 1808, and the
Plaintiff’s inability to merely get an update on the 13 month old criminal complaint, cogently
demonstrates the New Zealand Police – for whatever reason or reasons – are unwilling or incapable
of fulfilling their lawful function of competently investigating and acting on a serious criminal
complaint where powerful courtiers are committing the unlawful acts against law-abiding citizens.

52.10         Systemic defects in the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner have further
denied the Plaintiff his fundamental right to due process.  In addition to the inherent conflict of
interest of Commissioner Ian Haynes in holding judges accountable, his office’s exemption from
compliance with the Official Information Act 1982 and his utter failure to find one complaint worthy of
an investigation in three years, he has also claimed he is unable to access anything other than (a
very narrow interpretation of) “documents”, to the exclusion of digital and electronic media and
anything else that is not already written down in document format.  This untenable position in law by
the Commissioner contradicts every Court definition which labels an extensive array of mediums as
‘documents’.


52.11         Given the well-known practice of certain New Zealand judges altering written documents
to disguise their misconduct, the Commissioner’s position amounts to nothing short of an open
invitation to further commit and conceal judicial misconduct, making a farce of his public duty – as
Parliament intended and the New Zealand public understand it – to expose judicial misconduct.   An
extremely cogent example is the Plaintiff’s complaint against Susan Glazebrook J, where the
Commissioner claimed not to have access to Court hearing audiotapes which proved Judge
Glazebrook’s guilt.  He then dismissed the complaint as baseless.

52.12         Commissioner Haynes also has employed a stealthy ‘legal trick’ to protect unfit and
corrupt judges. He relies on “judge friendly” legal opinions from outside lawyers to dismiss valid
complaints against Judges.  In this “one hand washes the other” approach, the Commissioner
escapes charges of malfeasance and cronyism by simply saying he relied on an ‘independent’ legal
opinion, while the ‘independent expert’ he picked out and paid with government funds cannot be held
accountable because he/she does not have the same legislative obligation to expose corrupt judges
as the Commissioner has and his/her fiduciary duty is only to their client (Commissioner Haynes).

52.13         Every New Zealand citizen has the minimal expectation and right not to be unlawfully
targeted by the same institutions the Crown has set up to uphold and protect the very laws and civil
liberties they have so profoundly violated with impunity.  The evidence is extensive that the Crown
has effectively bankrolled an extensive unlawful assault by many of its officers against the Plaintiff
and many people closely associated with him.

            Wherefore the Plaintiff Claims Against the Defendants Jointly and Severally

a.       General damages of $1,250,000

b.      Compensation for unjust incarceration at Mt Eden Prison in the amount of $100,000.

c.       Aggravated damages of $200,000.

d.      Special damages for economic loss that has or might arise from the defendants’ malevolent
actions (details to be provided in due course).

e.      Expenses related to the house at 27 Clansman Terrace, Gulf Harbour from July 2007 due to
the inability to sell with clear title due to actions of Crown and Defendants in these proceedings.

f.         Exemplary damages of $2,150,000.

g.      Interest on costs and damages at the rate of 8.25% (except for ongoing Clansman Terrace
expenses incurred).

h.       Costs.

And from the Crown the Plaintiff seeks an ex gratia payment equal to the award against the
Defendants.

THIRD OR ALTERNATIVE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS ONLY

53.0          The Plaintiff repeats paragraphs 1 – 50.

54.0             THE DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY TO BRING A FALSE
ALLEGATION AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF.

PARTICULARS

54.1      The First Defendant’s affidavit dated 8 April 2005, which formed the sole basis for the initial
court gagging injunction and contempt claim, was a demonstrably false statement that was
materially misleading.

54.2       But for this materially inaccurate and misleading affidavit, the injunction would never have
been issued, the contempt charge could never have eventuated and the defendants’ unfounded
claim could never have advanced.

54.3       The First Defendant is a trained lawyer and therefore must have known before he swore his
8 April 2005 that he was committing an offence under Section 115 of the Crimes Act 1961.

54.4      The First Defendant is a partner of the Second Defendant and his unlawful actions in
initiating these false proceedings were done with the knowledge, assistance and financial support of
the Second Defendant.

      Wherefore the Plaintiff Claims Against the Defendants Jointly and Severally for:

i.         General damages of $1,250,000

j.         Compensation for unjust incarceration at Mt Eden Prison in the amount of $100,000.

k.       Aggravated damages of $200,000.

l.         Special damages for economic loss that has or might arise from the defendants’ malevolent
actions (details to be provided in due course).

m.     Expenses related to the house at 27 Clansman Terrace, Gulf Harbour from July 2007 due to
the inability to sell with clear title due to actions of the defendants in these proceedings.

n.      Exemplary damages of $2,150,000.

o.      Interest on costs and damages at the rate of 8.25% (except for ongoing Clansman Terrace
expenses incurred).

p.      Costs.


THIS STATEMENT OF CLAIM IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT ROSS
SIEMER DATED 9JANUARY 2008.  THE REASON FOR THIS MUST BE CLEAR.  IF MR. SIEMER
HAS LIED IN SUPPORT OF THE EGREGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT HE ALLEGES, AND AS
CONTAINED HEREIN, HE CAN AND SHOULD BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED.  WHEN NO ONE
CRIMINALLY CHARGES HIM YOU WILL HAVE YOUR ANSWER AS TO THE MAGNITUDE OF
CORRUPTION WHICH HAS TAKEN OVER OUR HONOURABLE COURTS.

                                                                                                                                              
                                           _______________________

Vince Siemer,
Plaintiff
Date: 9 January 2008

This document is filed by the Plaintiff, whose address for service is

7 Clansman Terrace
Gulf Harbour

Copies to defendants

********************************************  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY                                 CIV 2008 404


BETWEEN                                VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
                                                     27 ClansmanTerrace
                                                     Gulf Harbour
                                                     Fax: 09 428 2521
First Defendant

AND                                        MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY
                                                     147 St. Heliers Bay Road
                                                     St Heliers, Auckland
                                                     Fax: 09 377 7794
                                                     First Defendant

AND                                        FERRIER HODGSON AND CO LTD
(a registered company in New Zealand) with   its registered offices located at Level 16 Tower Centre,
45 Queen St,   Auckland
     Fax: 09 377 7794
                                                     Second Defendant


AND                                        THE QUEEN (Crown)
As represented by the Office of the Solicitor General of New Zealand and The New Zealand Courts  
c/o Dr. Michael Cullen, New Zealand Attorney General
Parliament
Wellington
Fax: 04 495 8442
                                                        Third Defedant                                        

AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT ROSS SIEMER IN SUPPORT OF
                  STATEMENT OF CLAIM
                                                      9 January 2008



Submitted by: Vince Siemer, Defendant                
                                27 Clansman Tce.                                
                             Gulf Harbour                                        
                             Facsimile: 09 428 2521        


AFFIDAVIT OF VINCENT ROSS SIEMER IN SUPPORT OF COUNTERCLAIM
9 January 2008


I, Vincent Ross Siemer, Managing Director of Gulf Harbour do hereby swear:

1.       
 [AFFIDAVIT BLOCKED BY JUDICIAL ORDER FROM PUBLICATION]

Sworn before me this    9th   day of       )
January     2008                                  )                _______________________
            Vincent Ross Siemer

___________________________  


CC: Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan
   Judicial Conduct Commissioner Ian Haynes
    Attorney General of New Zealand Dr. Michael Cullen
    Honourable Member of Parliament Rodney Hide
    Honourable Member of Parliament Lockwood Smith




[CENSORED BY
ORDER OF THE
NZ SOLICITOR
GENERAL]

Stiassny v
Siemer CIV2005
404-1808 or
Paragon
Services Limited
v Stiassny
CIV2006 404 593
at the Auckland
High Court on
Waterloo
Quandrant - both
of which are

public record
Our credo -
I have always wanted to
deal with everyone I meet
candidly and honestly.  If I
have made any assertions
not warranted by facts, and
it is pointed out to me, I will
withdraw it cheerfully.
 - Abraham Lincoln