From: EMF [mailto:
enlightenmefree@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2014 10:52 p.m.
To: Lees, Robin
Cc:
Richard.Smedley@ah.co.nz;
chris.baldock@ah.co.nz; Melissa Genson
Subject: Settlement offer D E McCarthy – 13443177
Dear Robin Lees, (LSA).
As the primary stakeholder in this decision, I would like to add my input. I would also like to start with some questions:
What is the full appeal process?
How many levels of appeal are available to me?
How long is the full appeal process?
What are the criteria for the appeal process?
How much is the appeal process weighted toward the attorney’s recommendation?
In the appeal process, how frequently does a stakeholder’s opinion, like mine, win out over the attorney’s recommendation?
These answers are critical for my case, right now. I can’t have the appeal process drag out into my trial preparation.
I would like to add the following points:
The settlement agreement still involves my destroying critical evidence of illegal activities in the U.S., especially evidence of potentially large scale tax evasion and money laundering.
My attorney advises that I can proceed with a lawsuit against the plaintiff in the U.S. He advises that a New Zealand lawsuit would not be judged on verifiable evidence,
So it would be okay for me to destroy all of my evidence against the plaintiff, as required by the Settlement Offer.
However, a civil case in the U.S. would require evidence. I could not proceed with a U.S. lawsuit without evidence.
This fraud and illegal activities have been verified by my U.S. forensic accountant, Melissa Genson, CPA/CIA.
Since my settlement agreement is not confidential, does that mean that the interested parties in the U.S., including federal, state, and local law enforcement and tax enforcement agencies, can now be notified that the New Zealand government (LSA) forced me to choose between destroying critical criminal evidence needed in the U.S., and keeping my home?
Melissa Genson, CPA/CIA has researched and compiled a vast amount of verifiable incriminating evidence of fraud and illegal activities committed by the plaintiffs.
She is prepared to send you a summary of this evidence in the next couple days.
If you require further supporting documentation for your decision making, she is prepared to send you that as well—but she warns that it is voluminous.
Melissa GensonCPA/CIA
11210 180th Lane SW
Rochester WA 98579
USA
missygenson@gmail.com
360-556-7759360-556-7174
Melissa has also verified, through government agency responses, that the plaintiff was not even a legal entity at the time that I signed the non-disclosure agreement, which forms the basis of this lawsuit.
Plaintiff’s witnesses in this case against me are (1) her U.S. legal assistant, who has repeatedly committed perjury, conspiracy, and business fraud, as documented by verifiable external documentation, and (2) a couple of women in New Zealand who are RSE cult members, with no credibility.
That’s it. Plaintiff has a proven perjurer/fraudster and a couple cult members on her side, to testify for her—and no reliable documentation. That’s it. And no contract with me, as proven by government documents.
I have a mountain of solid criminal evidence on my side—most of which has already been verified by U.S. government agencies.
I also have an expert witness who will be here in New Zealand for the trial to testify to her research that proved the fraud and illegal activities,
that have a significant impact in the U.S.
So, why do you want me to settle? Because my lawyers say so? As they have admitted to me—they’ve never even looked at the real evidence.
According to what they have told me, they have essentially nothing to base their recommendations on.
But you are willing to accept their recommendations, anyway.
Would you please reconsider?
Regards
David McCarthy
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-------Original Message-------
From: EMF
Date: 4/9/2014 10:09:38 PM
To:
Richard.Smedley@ah.co.nz
Cc:
chris.baldock@ah.co.nz
Subject: Re: : Settlement offer
Dear Richard, Chris,
Thank you for your time looking into this.
I have considered your legal counsel very carefully and decline JZ Knights settlement offer for the same reasons already explained in my letter to the LSA.
Robin Lees suggestion...
"It is likely that a notice of intention to withdraw legal aid will be issued," is primarily based from your legal advice...
"that the offer is reasonable and the risks associated with going to trial".
I do not believe that destroying criminal evidence constitutes a reasonable offer from the plaintiffs.
This is exactly why JZ Knight wishes this material to be destroyed.
Would this not also destroy crucial evidence for a possible counter lawsuit?
What the plaintiffs are suggesting (and you are encouraging) is ethically WRONG and possibly illegal.
Essentially this would mean the plaintiffs will have won this lawsuit without having to fire a shot in court.
I can only repeat to the LSA that new evidence documented by Melissa Genson (as mentioned to my letter to the LSA) Has not been considered by Richard Smedley in his 'risk assessment' that is unfounded. I will write a more comprehensive letter to the LSA tomorrow morning.
And again request further funding to authorize Richard to review this material ASAP.
Needless to say, I will rigorously appeal if funding is withdrawn.
And I will have no part of destroying criminal evidence unless ordered by a Judge in a NZ court,
Furthermore, I am absolutely confident I can win this lawsuit and justly so.
Kind Regards,
David
-------Original Message-------
From: Chris Baldock
Date: 4/9/2014 2:26:05 PM
To: 'EMF'
Subject: FW: Settlement offer
David
FYI – see below.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Anthony Harper is delighted to have been recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2014 for its expertise in banking and finance, corporate and M&A, intellectual property, real estate and construction and restructuring and insolvency.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
From: Chris Baldock
Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2014 2:25 p.m.
To: 'Lees, Robin'
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: FW: Settlement offer
Dear Robin
Please see our most recent advice to Mr McCarthy below.
We will come back to you with his response when we receive it.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Anthony Harper is delighted to have been recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2014 for its expertise in banking and finance, corporate and M&A, intellectual property, real estate and construction and restructuring and insolvency.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
From: Chris Baldock
Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2014 1:01 p.m.
To: 'EMF'
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: Settlement offer
David
Further to our telephone conversation today, I record our oral advice to you in respect of the recent settlement offer from the plaintiffs.
As discussed, we have considered the letter and have noted that it does not contain any confidentiality terms.
This means that if you were to accept the offer as it currently stands, you would not be required to remain silent about the fact of any settlement. In other words and by way of example, in all your future criticisms of them, you might be able to refer to the fact that the plaintiffs were forced to settle with you, rather than going to trial. You would also be able to post the various pleadings in this matter to a public forum, including your statement of defence.
In our view, while we understand your reluctance to accept the offer, the above might be seen as a victory for you. While you would not be able to disseminate video footage produced by the plaintiffs, you would be able to continue criticising them and referring to their reluctance to go to trial (whilst avoiding the risks and costs associated with a High Court trial).
As you are aware, we are obliged to pass on our advice and your instructions to the LSA, so we would be grateful if you could come back to us with your response to this email as soon as possible.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Anthony Harper is delighted to have been recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2014 for its expertise in banking and finance, corporate and M&A, intellectual property, real estate and construction and restructuring and insolvency.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This email from Anthony Harper is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential or subject to legal
professional privilege. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify the sender and delete the email.
-------Original Message-------
From: Chris Baldock
Date: 4/9/2014 12:34:15 PM
To: 'EMF'
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: FW: D E McCarthy – 13443177
David
Please see our recent email to Robin Lees below.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
From: Chris Baldock
Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2014 10:05 a.m.
To: 'Lees, Robin'
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: RE: D E McCarthy – 13443177
Dear Robin
Thank you for your email below.
We expect to have some further discussions with Mr McCarthy today in respect of his options surrounding the settlement proposal. We will advise you of these communications once we have had them at hand.
Please note that the Protest to Jurisdiction (on the grounds of forum non conveniens) did not proceed to a hearing in the NZ High Court. A concurrent court case in the United States, which had effectively named Mr McCarthy as an anonymous "Doe" defendant, was struck out. This undermined our key argument that there was a more appropriate foreign court that should have jurisdiction over the dispute. When the US proceeding was struck out, Mr McCarthy was forced to abandon the Protest to Jurisdiction and submit to the jurisdiction of the NZ High Court by filing a Statement of Defence. From that point in time, the case continued on as a standard civil proceeding in the High Court.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require further information.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Anthony Harper is delighted to have been recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2014 for its expertise in banking and finance, corporate and M&A, intellectual property, real estate and construction and restructuring and insolvency.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
From: Lees, Robin [mailto:
Robin.Lees@justice.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 April 2014 12:50 p.m.
To: Chris Baldock
Subject: RE: D E McCarthy – 13443177
Dear Chris,
Thank you for forwarding David's response. It is likely that a notice of intention to withdraw legal aid will be issued, given your advice to him that the offer is reasonable and the risks associated with going to trial. I will make a decision on that in the next few days.
Could you please provide a copy of the Court decision in relation to the forum non conveniens argument that was initially put forward.
Thank you for your assistance.
Regards,
Robin
Robin Lees
Grants Officer Civil | Legal Aid Services
Level 4, Zens Centre | 1135 Arawa Street | DX JX10551 | Rotorua
DDI: +64 7 343 1464 | Ext 67464
www.justice.govt.nz
From: Chris Baldock [mailto:
chris.baldock@ah.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 April 2014 9:59 a.m.
To: Lees, Robin
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: FW: D E McCarthy – 13443177
Dear Robin
Please find Mr McCarthy's response below and attached. You will see that he has confirmed his previous instruction to reject the settlement offer (which expires next Tuesday, 15 April).
We appreciate that the LSA will need to make an assessment in respect of further funding and look forward to hearing from you in this regard.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Anthony Harper is delighted to have been recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2014 for its expertise in banking and finance, corporate and M&A, intellectual property, real estate and construction and restructuring and insolvency.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
From: EMF [mailto:
enlightenmefree@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 April 2014 9:40 a.m.
To: Chris Baldock; Richard Smedley
Cc:
grantillingworth@southerncrosschambers.co.nz; Joshua Koltun
Subject: Re: D E McCarthy – 13443177
Thank you Richard, Chris,
Please find my letter to the LSA in response to JZK's recent settlement offer.
See attachment doc: David McCarthy - 1344317 response lsa re jzk's settlement offer 1344317
Please also include attached x1 document with my letter.
PDF : Order Dismissing Does wo Prej and McC with Prej
Regards
David
-------Original Message-------
From: Chris Baldock
Date: 4/7/2014 12:24:37 PM
To: 'EMF'
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: FW: D E McCarthy – 13443177
David
Please see the LSA's response below.
As the settlement offer expires next Tuesday and the LSA will need time to consider your response, we would be grateful if you could get your response back to us as a matter of urgency.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Anthony Harper is delighted to have been recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2014 for its expertise in banking and finance, corporate and M&A, intellectual property, real estate and construction and restructuring and insolvency.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
From: Lees, Robin [mailto:
Robin.Lees@justice.govt.nz]
Sent: Monday, 7 April 2014 12:19 p.m.
To: Chris Baldock
Subject: RE: D E McCarthy – 13443177
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your advice to David McCarthy in respect of the settlement offer. I will await confirmation of whether the offer is to accepted or rejected.
Regards,
Robin
Robin Lees
Grants Officer Civil | Legal Aid Services
Level 4, Zens Centre | 1135 Arawa Street | DX JX10551 | Rotorua
DDI: +64 7 343 1464 | Ext 67464
www.justice.govt.nz
From: Chris Baldock [mailto:
chris.baldock@ah.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 7 April 2014 8:45 a.m.
To: Lees, Robin
Cc: Richard Smedley; 'EMF'
Subject: D E McCarthy – 13443177
Importance: High
Dear Robin
Further to our discussion last week, please see the below correspondence with Mr McCarthy.
He has requested further time to prepare a substantive response to the letter (attached again for your convenience) and our advice (recorded below). The offer expires on Tuesday, 15 April.
Mr McCarthy's preliminary instruction is to not accept the proposal and to proceed to trial. We will pass Mr McCarthy's substantive instruction onto you when we receive it.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution / Employment
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
Anthony Harper is delighted to have been recommended in The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2014 for its expertise in banking and finance, corporate and M&A, intellectual property, real estate and construction and restructuring and insolvency.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
From: EMF [mailto:
enlightenmefree@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 7 April 2014 6:45 a.m.
To: Chris Baldock
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: Re: Settlement offer
Thank you Richard, Chris,
I need a few more days to prepare my comments to the LSA regarding the settlement offer and your advice.
What is the deadline?
Regards
David
-------Original Message-------
From: Chris Baldock
Date: 4/2/2014 3:32:14 PM
To: 'EMF'
Cc: Richard Smedley
Subject: Settlement offer
David
As you are aware, we are required to advise the Legal Services Agency ("LSA") of any settlement or proposal put forward by either party to the current proceeding. We are also required to record our advice and your instructions, so that the LSA can continually assess your access to legal aid. We have been asked by Legal Aid to do this in respect of the recent letter.
With the above in mind, we wish to record our oral advice to you regarding the recent settlement proposal from the plaintiffs.
From a legal perspective, the plaintiffs' offer is reasonable in that:
1. There would no longer be a claim of damages against you;
2. You would still be able to criticise the plaintiffs' activities;
3. You would avoid the risk and cost of going to trial; and
4. There may be room for negotiation, particularly in the breadth of any restraint agreed to.
We also note that if the plaintiffs win at trial and obtain a judgment that is better than what they are offering you now, they will be entitled to refer to the letter in an application for increased costs from you (in spite of your standing as a legally aided person).
That said, we appreciate that in agreeing to the proposal, you would effectively be allowing the plaintiffs to win by "gagging" you in respect of JZK videos. We understand that you consider the videos to be fundamental to your ongoing criticism of JZK activities and, for this reason, you are justified in disseminating them.
We are still of the opinion that your defence has a reasonable chance of success if the matter were to proceed to trial. In particular, for reasons already outlined to you, the plaintiffs are likely to struggle with the causes of action for breach of contract, breach of confidence and inducement to breach contract. This is further highlighted by their reference only to your weaker alternative defences in the settlement offer.
The cause of action in copyright holds the most risk for you. You have effectively admitted breach of copyright, but say that you are lawfully justified in doing so on the grounds of fair dealing (for the purposes of criticism). This defence has not been widely tested in the New Zealand courts and so holds an element of uncertainty.
We understand that you are preparing comments in regard to the settlement offer and look forward to receiving this. We will pass this onto Legal Aid when we receive it.
Regards
Chris Baldock
Associate - Dispute Resolution
|DDI: +64 9 920 6466 |
.
Level 8, Chorus House, 66 Wyndham Street, PO Box 2646, Auckland, 1140, Tel: +64 9 920 6400 Fax: +64 9 920 9599
Level 9, HSBC Tower, 62 Worcester Boulevard, PO Box 2646, Christchurch, 8140, Tel: +64 3 379 0920 Fax: +64 3 366 9277
www.anthonyharper.co.nz
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This email from Anthony Harper is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential or subject to legal
professional privilege. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify the sender and delete the email.