https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300943815/the-secret-red-book-of-judges-perks-that-officials-dont-want-you-to-see

Transparancy, not here eh?

The point here is that the system needs to be totally transparent, the finanical benefit to the judges is another matter.

The fact that they do not want it released shows that it is embrassing at
best, totally shocking at worst.

So the Government is failing again at being transparent as it said it would
do at the last election or two. They have not even said we get the red book published. Just no.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2023 22:07:57 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300943815/the-secret-red-book-of-judges-perks-that-officials-dont-want-you-to-see

Transparancy, not here eh?

The point here is that the system needs to be totally transparent, the >>finanical benefit to the judges is another matter.

The fact that they do not want it released shows that it is embrassing at >>best, totally shocking at worst.

So the Government is failing again at being transparent as it said it would >>do at the last election or two. They have not even said we get the red book >>published. Just no.

Typical Andrea Vance. This does not appear to have anything to do with
the government - if they had made any changes to remuneration for
Judges Vance would have identified them, so this is just another
partisan report . . .

Typical Rich80105. Why would the government not release the requested information?

It does however illustrate the unseemly wealth engineered by many
lawyers - those that are prepared to become judges are often already a >partner in their law firm, and they are in a position to decline an >appointment unless they get paid very well . . . They know that by
keeping the number of judges down they will get paid more, and are a
major part of the backlog in cases. Finalyson knew of those problems,
and knows what they are paid; he was rumoured to have hoped for a
Judges role but he probably stayed a Minister for longer than he
expected.

What a nasty little troll you are. Envious and childish. Mosty eminent lawyers have worked very hard for their success and carried others with them. You?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5 Aug 2023 22:07:57 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300943815/the-secret-red-book-of-judges-perks-that-officials-dont-want-you-to-see

Transparancy, not here eh?

The point here is that the system needs to be totally transparent, the >finanical benefit to the judges is another matter.

The fact that they do not want it released shows that it is embrassing at >best, totally shocking at worst.

So the Government is failing again at being transparent as it said it would >do at the last election or two. They have not even said we get the red book >published. Just no.

Typical Andrea Vance. This does not appear to have anything to do with
the government - if they had made any changes to remuneration for
Judges Vance would have identified them, so this is just another
partisan report . . .

It does however illustrate the unseemly wealth engineered by many
lawyers - those that are prepared to become judges are often already a
partner in their law firm, and they are in a position to decline an
appointment unless they get paid very well . . . They know that by
keeping the number of judges down they will get paid more, and are a
major part of the backlog in cases. Finalyson knew of those problems,
and knows what they are paid; he was rumoured to have hoped for a
Judges role but he probably stayed a Minister for longer than he
expected.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, August 6, 2023 at 5:08:45 PM UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On 5 Aug 2023 22:07:57 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300943815/the-secret-red-book-of-judges-perks-that-officials-dont-want-you-to-see

Transparancy, not here eh?

The point here is that the system needs to be totally transparent, the >finanical benefit to the judges is another matter.

The fact that they do not want it released shows that it is embrassing at >best, totally shocking at worst.

So the Government is failing again at being transparent as it said it would >do at the last election or two. They have not even said we get the red book >published. Just no.

Typical Andrea Vance. This does not appear to have anything to do with
the government - if they had made any changes to remuneration for
Judges Vance would have identified them, so this is just another
partisan report . . .

So you're getting bitchy as usual and attacking the messenger! Typical of you and yout left whinge mates!

It does however illustrate the unseemly wealth engineered by many
lawyers - those that are prepared to become judges are often already a partner in their law firm, and they are in a position to decline an appointment unless they get paid very well . . . They know that by
keeping the number of judges down they will get paid more, and are a
major part of the backlog in cases. Finalyson knew of those problems,
and knows what they are paid; he was rumoured to have hoped for a
Judges role but he probably stayed a Minister for longer than he
expected.

Got anything to support this bullshit?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 05:14:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2023 22:07:57 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300943815/the-secret-red-book-of-judges-perks-that-officials-dont-want-you-to-see

Transparancy, not here eh?

The point here is that the system needs to be totally transparent, the >>>finanical benefit to the judges is another matter.

The fact that they do not want it released shows that it is embrassing at >>>best, totally shocking at worst.

So the Government is failing again at being transparent as it said it would >>>do at the last election or two. They have not even said we get the red book >>>published. Just no.

Typical Andrea Vance. This does not appear to have anything to do with
the government - if they had made any changes to remuneration for
Judges Vance would have identified them, so this is just another
partisan report . . .

Typical Rich80105. Why would the government not release the requested >information?

And there you go again - following Vance with a biased interpretation.
It was not the government that refused the information - just read the
url, it was officials! Now you may well ask why the information was
released - under the Official Information Act the department is
required to give a reason for not releasing the information, so Vance
would have known the reason, but has chosen for the purposes of the
article not to be open and transparent with readers of her article -
we all may wonder why . . .

Take one of the statements: "But they’re also entitled to things like chauffeurs, housing allowances, and even subsidised school uniforms."
Some of those items may relate to costs incurred in being required to
move residence to best suit the needs of courts around the country;
some may be limited in scope - for example it would not surprise me if
Supreme Court Judges are able to use parliamentary services chauffeurs
while temporarily in Wellington - the Court is not far from Parliament
and that may be cheaper than using taxis . . . Such benefits may not
even count as remuneration if they are legitimate expenses incurred in fulfilling requirements of the job . . .

But of course you would not think of such explanations - or that these provisions may not have changed since the previous National-led
Government - you were just looking for the most anti-government
interpretation possible - and that may well have been just what the
reporter Vance was intending. This is not journalism, it is gutter
reporting . . .

It does however illustrate the unseemly wealth engineered by many
lawyers - those that are prepared to become judges are often already a >>partner in their law firm, and they are in a position to decline an >>appointment unless they get paid very well . . . They know that by
keeping the number of judges down they will get paid more, and are a
major part of the backlog in cases. Finalyson knew of those problems,
and knows what they are paid; he was rumoured to have hoped for a
Judges role but he probably stayed a Minister for longer than he
expected.

What a nasty little troll you are. Envious and childish. Mosty eminent lawyers >have worked very hard for their success and carried others with them. You? Absolutely - I know a number of them quite well. I was at one time

involved in a legal case involving three sets of lawyers relating to distribution of a trust - as a Trustee I was able to see the costs
charged by each lawyer. One who had initiated the case on behalf of
one group of beneficiaries eventually took about $400,000 in expenses,
the second about $60,000 and the third $40,000. There were not
significant differences in the work required from each lawyer. The
first lawyer was stopped by the judge from charging any more - the end
result of the dispute was that in the wind up of the trust every
beneficiary ended up with less money than they had initially been
offered.

Finlayson was a good lawyer, but never near the top in any particular
legal discipline - his priorities had been for many years concerned
National Party issues - as an MP he was noted for his acerbic and
competitive debating style, which dated from University days, and as Attorney-General on being meticulous as well as devious in his release
of notices that a bill did not comply with human rights in various
forms. He came into his own however in following Michael Cullen as
Minister of Treaty Settlements, where he quickly recognised what had
been realised by those involved some years earlier that settlements
were no longer solely relating to property, but to other issues such
as long term environmental issues and the need to manage complex
systems. Finlayson continued work already done in developing the
concept of co-governance structures that met the needs of treaty
settlements without overriding crown sovereignty. So Finlayson did
work hard for his success, but his personal choice of relative
isolation even from his own colleagues does mean that he carried few
people with him. He is now an entertaining guest for radio, much as
Peter Dunne was a few years ago - good for entertainment, but no
longer taken seriously, even by his own party.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 05:14:36 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2023 22:07:57 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300943815/the-secret-red-book-of-judges-perks-that-officials-dont-want-you-to-see

Transparancy, not here eh?

The point here is that the system needs to be totally transparent, the >>>>finanical benefit to the judges is another matter.

The fact that they do not want it released shows that it is embrassing at >>>>best, totally shocking at worst.

So the Government is failing again at being transparent as it said it would >>>>do at the last election or two. They have not even said we get the red book
published. Just no.

Typical Andrea Vance. This does not appear to have anything to do with >>>the government - if they had made any changes to remuneration for
Judges Vance would have identified them, so this is just another
partisan report . . .

Typical Rich80105. Why would the government not release the requested >>information?

And there you go again - following Vance with a biased interpretation.
It was not the government that refused the information - just read the
url, it was officials! Now you may well ask why the information was
released - under the Official Information Act the department is
required to give a reason for not releasing the information, so Vance
would have known the reason, but has chosen for the purposes of the
article not to be open and transparent with readers of her article -
we all may wonder why . . .

Take one of the statements: "But they’re also entitled to things like >chauffeurs, housing allowances, and even subsidised school uniforms."
Some of those items may relate to costs incurred in being required to
move residence to best suit the needs of courts around the country;
some may be limited in scope - for example it would not surprise me if >Supreme Court Judges are able to use parliamentary services chauffeurs
while temporarily in Wellington - the Court is not far from Parliament
and that may be cheaper than using taxis . . . Such benefits may not
even count as remuneration if they are legitimate expenses incurred in >fulfilling requirements of the job . . .

But of course you would not think of such explanations - or that these >provisions may not have changed since the previous National-led
Government - you were just looking for the most anti-government >interpretation possible - and that may well have been just what the
reporter Vance was intending. This is not journalism, it is gutter
reporting . . .

You are a total fool.
Vance is absolutely correct. Government sets policies for officials, do some research for a change and stop your whinging.
And while I am at it - all you ever do is attack people, people who post here and people who are by far your betters like Vance. One day you might actually address some content but I doubt it.
I do not look for things to criricise about this government, this government provides those things itself every day.

It does however illustrate the unseemly wealth engineered by many
lawyers - those that are prepared to become judges are often already a >>>partner in their law firm, and they are in a position to decline an >>>appointment unless they get paid very well . . . They know that by >>>keeping the number of judges down they will get paid more, and are a >>>major part of the backlog in cases. Finalyson knew of those problems,
and knows what they are paid; he was rumoured to have hoped for a
Judges role but he probably stayed a Minister for longer than he >>>expected.

What a nasty little troll you are. Envious and childish. Mosty eminent >>lawyers
have worked very hard for their success and carried others with them. You? >Absolutely - I know a number of them quite well. I was at one time

involved in a legal case involving three sets of lawyers relating to >distribution of a trust - as a Trustee I was able to see the costs
charged by each lawyer. One who had initiated the case on behalf of
one group of beneficiaries eventually took about $400,000 in expenses,
the second about $60,000 and the third $40,000. There were not
significant differences in the work required from each lawyer. The
first lawyer was stopped by the judge from charging any more - the end
result of the dispute was that in the wind up of the trust every
beneficiary ended up with less money than they had initially been
offered.

So what, do you really think those laywers did all the work themselves? No chance of that, gthey have researchers, paralegals and others t]o assist them. Seeing the costs does not mean you understood them.

Finlayson was a good lawyer, but never near the top in any particular
legal discipline - his priorities had been for many years concerned
National Party issues - as an MP he was noted for his acerbic and
competitive debating style, which dated from University days, and as >Attorney-General on being meticulous as well as devious in his release
of notices that a bill did not comply with human rights in various
forms. He came into his own however in following Michael Cullen as
Minister of Treaty Settlements, where he quickly recognised what had
been realised by those involved some years earlier that settlements
were no longer solely relating to property, but to other issues such
as long term environmental issues and the need to manage complex
systems. Finlayson continued work already done in developing the
concept of co-governance structures that met the needs of treaty
settlements without overriding crown sovereignty. So Finlayson did
work hard for his success, but his personal choice of relative
isolation even from his own colleagues does mean that he carried few
people with him. He is now an entertaining guest for radio, much as
Peter Dunne was a few years ago - good for entertainment, but no
longer taken seriously, even by his own party.

Completely off topic. This is nothing to do with Finlayson or Dunne, or for that matter - your "case".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)