Employment Court judge Mark Perkins retired in November 2020. One of the last things he did was make an illegal order against Allan Halse, and leave it for his colleagues to sort out.
They are already in it up to their necks anyway. Christina Inglis and Bruce Corkill disgraced New Zealand in 2017 by supporting a illegal coverup of the corruption in Tauranga City Council, by bankrupting Geoffrey Brown and sending him to prison. Judge Corkill went on to threaten Allan Halse and Ana Shaw with the same in 2019 and 2020 and he's still doing it. Judge Holden had a go at Allan Halse as well.
What these judges think is that Kiwis will grovel at them because they're called judges, and won't even look at what they've done.
If you're not a lawyer, Perkins' order may look okay to you. But a real, legal order says what the facts are and how they relate to the law, and what the judge's powers are and where they come from. That's why Perkins doesn't say any of that. He is making it up and he knows it. That's what is illegal. It is illegal for judges to undermine the rule of law by abusing their position to favour someone when there is no legal reason or power to do it.
Judges have judicial immunity. Nothing can happen to them for a "wrong" judgment. They can make someone's life hell and destroy their business just for fun, and there will be no consequences for them.
What these judges forget when they cynically and triumphantly wave their judicial immunity around is that they are exhibiting themselves in public, and as soon as the public - maybe not even the Kiwi public - look at what they've done, they're gonna be toast.
The con trick run by Anthony Drake and Joanna Holden against Allan Halse and his staff saw another one run by Anthony Drake's big mate, Sam Hood of Hamilton, just behind it.
Anthony Drake had cooperation from Toby Braun, Allan Halse's lawyer, as well as Judge Joanna Holden. Sam Hood's practice was in competition with Allan Halse and he didn't mind involving his firm, Norris Ward McKinnon (NWM), in controversy. He ran his case with the cooperation of Member Rachel Larmer and Judge Mark Perkins.
Sam Hood and his staff member, Erin Anderson, conned Allan Halse into signing a settlement document with ambiguous wording. They then used it to claim a "non-identifiation order" and that Member Larmer of the Authority could fine Allan Halse whatever she wanted if he identified Hood's client, the Rangiura Trust Board. Then they claimed lots of money from the Rangiura Trust Board for the original settlement. The Chairman of the Board, Jos van Loon, admitted in open court before Judge Mark Perkins on 20 November 2019 that he knew that workplace bullying could be a criminal offence. It looked as though the operation had been sold to Rangiura by NWM as a way to cover up offences, and the attack on Allan Halse was Sam Hood and Erin Anderson running their own private game at Rangiura's expense.
Just in case you're wondering, there is no such thing as a "non-identification order" in employment law. The reason is exactly what happened in this case. You'd be able to cover up commercial fraud. That's what Sam Hood and Member Rachel Larmer did. They layered case upon case and order upon order. Sam Hood billed the Rangiura Trust Board thousands and thousands of dollars. Rachel Larmer collected thousands in salary and set out to destroy Allan Halse with orders that make you worry for her state of mind. See, a few hundred paragraphs in, where she orders a payment of $6,000 straight into the pocket of Sam Hood ... nice one, Rachel!
So what happened in that rehearing before Judge Perkins, on 20 November 2019, when Allan Halse's counsel said there was no such thing as a "non-identification order"?
Well, you need to know that before that, Judge Perkins had said the obviously corrupt order made by Larmer requiring Allan Halse to pay $6,000 to Sam Hood "cannot stand". Hood admitted he had hoped to pocket the money by saying "I didn't ask for it". He hadn't rejected it either. So Perkins did know he couldn't get away with backing up such blatant corruption.
Judge Perkins asked Allan Halse's counsel whether she realised there had been six previous Authority determinations and two previous orders by Judge Perkins. Allan Halse's counsel said there was no power to make "non-identification orders" and so no power to make any of the nine orders already made.
And then you need to know that when Perkins said he would show her the legal basis of all that, he found there wasn't one, and said:
Well, Mr Hood, I hope this is as much of a surprise to you as it is to me.
Of course Mr Hood said nothing. Mr Hood knew he had tricked the judge.
Leighton Associates have seen the papers from this case. Sam Hood admitted that he knew he had asked Judge Perkins to make illegal orders. Allan Halse had explained to Member Larmer back in 2018 why there was no power to make a non-identification order. Sam Hood (supposedly a Law Society regulator) said he did fulfil his duty to bring all legal issues to the attention of the court, namely Judge Perkins . He put Allan Halse's letter in his papers ... ... where he knew Judge Perkins wouldn't bother to read it.
So Judge Perkins was caught out and shown up in public. Sam Hood made a fool of him in front of everyone.
Better still, Sam Hood got Judge Perkins to "fine" Allan Halse. He tricked him into thinking he had powers he didn't. Did Judge Perkins love that? It looks to Leighton Associates as though he did.
Perkins waved his judicial powers (that he didn't have) around in open court demanding to know how much of his fake "fines" had been paid. Except he had no power, so Sam Hood had taken him for somewhere between a crook and a fool.
When it was all explained quietly in the papers afterwards, did Judge Perkins step down gracefully and apologise for having let himself be tricked into "fining" Allan Halse? Did he make a complaint to the Law Society about the dishonest behaviour of Sam Hood?
Don't make us laugh.
Sam Hood's was a trick very suited to the personal predilections of Judge Mark Perkins. He particularly liked to wave his judicial immunity on the subject of "the searingly hot question of penalties". Wow was he hot hot hot on waving his judicial wotsit.
In 2019 Judge Perkins had talked about his hot powers at an Auckland conference about the "powers" that Judges Inglis and Corkill had recently used to stop Geoffrey Brown exposing corruption in the Tauranga City Council. Liz Coats, a partner at Bell Gully (another firm close to the centre of all this) said:
Judge Mark Perkins covered “the searingly hot question of penalties” (as it was described in the ADLS CPD calendar)."
Liz Coats also said June Perkins talked about
the interplay between penalties and pecuniary penalties (addressed in Parts 9 and 9A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, respectively) and the assessment of quantification of penalties. The judge also noted the possibility of penalties being ordered against people who are not party to the employment relationship but who have been instrumental in the relevant breach.
If Judge Perkins had not trusted Sam Hood but checked what he was told, he would have seen that Part 9 is about Personal Grievances and is there to protect the employee and that Part 9A is about employment standards and is there to make sure employers live up to their obligations.
But it seems Judge Perkins was hot hot hot on his own powers.
Nearly a year later, when Judge Holden was still playing balls with Anthony Drake and Toby Braun so they could bankrupt Allan Halse, and Judge Perkins hadn't come up with an excuse based in law yet, Allan Halse filed for a Judicial Review in the Court of Appeal.
What did Judge Perkins say? Leighton Associates have seen the message he sent. It was that he was not subject to control by any higher court. Leighton Associates understand that he and the other judges trying to take over the New Zealand legal system with coverups - Judges Inglis and Corkill, joined by Holden and Beck - actually refused to recognise the Court of Appeal.
Judge Perkins then gave a judgment which criticised Allan Halse's counsel for calling the "kickback" given by Larmer to Hood a "kickback". Apart from saying Allan Halse did not have to pay $6,000 of his "fine" to Sam Hood, made the same illegal orders that Larmer had made. He must have known he was abusing his power, because he didn't even try to claim he had a power to "fine" anyone. But perhaps he was just still hot hot hot on destroying Allan Halse, who really didn't like bullies and said so.
Mark Perkins retired soon after his outburst in September 2020. He will never be able to go back and take a different line. He has exhibited himself in public and it's forever. But it was his choice to abandon the law and root for Sam Hood and Erin Anderson instead. Like all the rest of them, he was taking public money to do it. He got plenty of careful discussion of how he had been fooled by Hood and Anderson, and he decided to support them.
Leighton Associates don't feel too sorry for him. He knew what he was doing.
Leighton Associates don't hear any apologies from these judges, only their sniggers of contempt for New Zealand's legal system. When New Zealand has nothing but contempt for this outfit, Leighton Associates will think it is about time.