Judge Andrew and Prince Andrew: enforcing criminal coverups in NZ and the US / UK - by Kim Leighton

Associate Judge Andrew is a New Zealand High Court judge, who has agreed that bankruptcy proceedings can carry on against an employment advocate even though they are based on a tribunal finding that a coverup contract between two parties can mean the coverup operates against everyone.

In that case, the coverup was between Turuki Healthcare and a former employee. Turuki said Allan Halse breached it by reporting Turuki's financial dealings to a government Minister. They were supported by the employment tribunals and then the High Court, in the shape of Judge Andrew.

Prince Andrew is the Queen's son. He is dodging court proceedings that he says are "potentially unlawful" because they breach a coverup contract. That one was between Jeffrey Epstein (a paedophile who died in prison) and Virginia Giuffre, who says Prince Andrew sexually molested her when she was a teenager. Prince Andrew says that taking his conduct to court would be a breach of the Epstein coverup, which apparently specifically mentioned "indemnity" for him in the case of "prosecution".

Basically he is saying he got Epstein to arrange a Cull order for him.

Those are where lawyers arrange to hide evidence and agree to oust the jurisdiction of the courts. Whether that works depends on whether the courts will agree to abide by a coverup agreement or agreement to obstruct justice.

In New Zealand they do. The criminals and launderers carry on thieving and laundering, the lawyers cream off fees for arranging coverup contracts, and It's supported by the government, who can use the coverup contracts to obtain insurance money from overseas, even if they do eventually have to pay the launderers as well. By now, not just lawyers and judges but the New Zealand economy itself could not afford to give up corruption.

The New Zealand Supreme Court has said that you can't contract out of prosecution. However there is no comeback against individual judges for ignoring the Supreme Court, so they keep doing it. Many have to. They need the coverups personally as they are criminally compromised, usually by doing coverups for money, but we don't know whether Judge Andrew is one of those or just supporting his mates.

The original statement that a coverup of a prosecution works in New Zealand was by Graeme Colgan when he was Chief Judge of the Employment Court. He made money later doing an investigation of the corruption at Tauranga City Council, which was ... covered up. In the meantime, Judge Bruce Corkill sent Geoffrey Brown to prison as a warning about how the New Zealand judiciary will cover up for themselves and their mates.

So in New Zealand terms, criminal coverups can be and are enforced. The Supreme Court as yet is not compromised, but the other courts up to and including the Court of Appeal, as well as the employment tribunals, have publicly enforced criminal coverups.

In international terms, that is judicial corruption. In domestic terms, the position in New Zealand is probably hopeless now. Too many of the judiciary and government are compromised. MPs and Ministers come and go, but judges have a guaranteed job until they retire. The only protection is the Judicial Conduct system, which is run by the person who supports the judges when they were lawyers laying the foundations of the corruption. If the courts support the criminals, and punish whistleblowers, there is no way to deal with crime. Many judges are capable and honest, but they haven't been able to control the others. Where the Supreme Court is ignored, there is no way out.

It will be interesting to see whether the international architects of criminal coverups who are very active in New Zealand were in any way involved in the British Royal corruption coverup.

211 views0 comments