Clint Rickards

[doc]

Clint has just received his "Certificate of character" :no: allowing him to practice law, :confused: after a "Distinguished career in the NZ Police". :shit:

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger

[Fatt Max]

Yes, just read that.

Maybe OJ Simpson could use his services, if you know what I mean.....!

[imdying]

Why shouldn't he have? Because some cock loving whore tried to smear his name?

[Fatjim]

Why shouldn't he have? Because some cock loving whore tried to smear his name?

+1


10 char

[Forest]

The jury found him not guilty.

What more is the guy supposed to do?

[Headbanger]

They should make him a cop.:done:

[scott411]

Why shouldn't he have? Because some cock loving whore tried to smear his name?

could not have said it better myself, the PC brigade made it impossible for him to be a cop, so what should he do for the rest of his life???, i know if the police where trying to pin something on me i know who i would look up to defend me.

[MisterD]

The only sensible decision that could be made. Hands up who would like stuff they did when they were 20 brought up at a job interview 25 years later?

[pete376403]

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "Criminal Lawyer"

[Swoop]

I have to agree with the legal professionals...

Clint is a bit of a character.

[Goblin]

Because he was aquitted does NOT mean he's innocent!



Why shouldn't he have? Because some cock loving whore tried to smear his name?I cant help but feel pity for your mother and really hope you dont have any daughters.


+1


10 char


The jury found him not guilty.

What more is the guy supposed to do?FFS! He should be in prison! One of his pack raping buddies has recently been released after only serving only a fraction of his sentence. Justice is a joke!


could not have said it better myself, the PC brigade made it impossible for him to be a cop, so what should he do for the rest of his life???, i know if the police where trying to pin something on me i know who i would look up to defend me.And if your sister or daughter were to ever be raped would you want him to defend their rapist???


The only sensible decision that could be made. Hands up who would like stuff they did when they were 20 brought up at a job interview 25 years later?What if you were to employ someone? Wouldn't you want to know that he is a thug of the highest calibre. Like I said, just because he wasn't found guilty, doesnt mean he's not. The whole trial was a joke! Suppressed evidence, dewar since been found guilty of perverting the course of justice, trial by media.

Next he'll wanna be a judge. :2guns:

[MisterD]

Because he was aquitted does NOT mean he's innocent!

Yes it does. Under our justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty.

[Forest]

FFS! He should be in prison! One of his pack raping buddies has recently been released after only serving only a fraction of his sentence. Justice is a joke!

I'm privy to information that I can't discuss on this forum.

All I can say is that the case should never have gone to trial. The accusers were simply too unreliable for any reasonable jury to convict.

[Goblin]

Yes it does. Under our justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty.Yes...justice is an ass! Do you actually believe he didnt do it?

[Goblin]

I'm privy to information that I can't discuss on this forum.

All I can say is that the case should never have gone to trial. The accusers were simply too unreliable for any reasonable jury to convict.The trail is over. What do you know that we dont? And if the accusers were so unreliable then how did they get shipton shollum and that other dirty mongrel convicted? Once again, rikards is not innocent! There sould have been a retrail after dewar was convicted of botching the first one.

You guys who condone what those poor excuses for men did to all those young women ought to think about how you might feel if it was one of your loved ones raped by a bunch of police. It's sickens me that people actually think that's ok!

[imdying]

Because he was aquitted does NOT mean he's innocent!Yes it does...

Besides, she was a whore that couldn't keep her legs closed and got what she asked for... trying to misconstrue the facts decades after the events just makes her the worst kind of slut.

[McJim]

After what he allegedly did with a truncheon imagine what he could allegedly do with a bar :rofl:

[Goblin]

Yes it does...

Besides, she was a whore that couldn't keep her legs closed and got what she asked for... trying to misconstrue the facts decades after the events just makes her the worst kind of slut.
So if your daughter or neice or someone close to you was raped you'd call her a dirty whore who ask for it?
You're a winner alright.

[imdying]

So if your daughter or neice or someone close to you was raped you'd call her a dirty whore who ask for it?
You're a winner alright.Of course not... But she wasn't raped. She said she was, it was investigated, and a court said she wasn't.

[Goblin]

Of course not... But she wasn't raped. She said she was, it was investigated, and a court said she wasn't.It was never investigated. It was covered up! Next youll be telling us the other women who got the other rapists locked up werent raped either.

I hope I never meet you irl for fear of puking all over you. But you'd probably enjoy that.:sick::bash:

[Maha]

Of course not... But she wasn't raped. She said she was, it was investigated, and a court said she wasn't.

I was a Jury a few years, Class B drug case in Rotorua, we all knew this guy was a dealer but, they (the prosecution) couldn't convince us. Photos taken during the bust showed Snaplok Bags/small brown envelopes/scales/a few thousand dollars in cash and we let him go.

Oh he was a dealer, to two ways, but we were instructed by the Judge that, we were to reach a verdict based on the eveidence put towards us, that He was dealing at the time of arrest. They couldn't prove that.

[imdying]

It was never investigated. It was covered up! Next youll be telling us the other women who got the other rapists locked up werent raped either.Keep that tinfoil hat on tight :rolleyes:

[doc]

The only sensible decision that could be made. Hands up who would like stuff they did when they were 20 brought up at a job interview 25 years later?

Yep but it's the honourable copper who has to bear the brunt of it. It was pretty shady the whole episode.

Winston wasn't guilty of anything, but the public have said otherwise.

[jrandom]

Yes...justice is an ass! Do you actually believe he didnt do it?

Define 'it'. I'm sure Mr Rickards did in fact have sex with the female(s) in question. But did a doctor examine them shortly after the fact and find evidence of injury? Were there any witnesses to anything indicating that it was not simply a consensual act?


So if your daughter or neice or someone close to you was raped you'd call her a dirty whore who ask for it?

I very much doubt that any daughter of imdying's would be brought up to be the kind of young woman who associated with (and had sex with, and regretted it two decades later, etc) that group of Rotorua police officers.

Sorry, I know it's hard for women who really have been raped to face the subject objectively, but the fact is, there does need to be a minimum standard of evidence. You can't just have sex with someone, wait twenty years, claim that it was non-consensual, and then expect them to be convicted of rape.

The Law Society made the right call. The man was not convicted of a crime. And if people don't like Mr Rickards once he's admitted to the bar, y'know, nobody's going to force them to engage his services.

[Goblin]

I very much doubt that any daughter of imdying's would be brought up to be the kind of young woman who associated with (and had sex with, and regretted it two decades later, etc) that group of Rotorua police officers.Neither was Louise!!!


Sorry, I know it's hard for women who really have been raped to face the subject objectively, but the fact is, there does need to be a minimum standard of evidence. You can't just have sex with someone, wait twenty years, claim that it was non-consensual, and then expect them to be convicted of rape.

The Law Society made the right call. The man was not convicted of a crime. And if people don't like Mr Rickards once he's admitted to the bar, y'know, nobody's going to force them to engage his services.FFS! She was 13 years old when she was first raped by a police officer. That was covered up! She was groomed by rikards and his mates and repeatedly raped. That was not consensual. She didnt bring it up 2 decades later, she'd been fighting to have her case heard for decades.

The law society made the wrong choice here. The really sad part is that there are people out there who will pay for his services and believe he is an honourable person. The creep doesnt even deserve to be called a man.

[Goblin]

Define 'it'. I'm sure Mr Rickards did in fact have sex with the female(s) in question. But did a doctor examine them shortly after the fact and find evidence of injury? Were there any witnesses to anything indicating that it was not simply a consensual act?
All the bloody witnesses were bent cops who were just as guilty of rape! Covered it up by saying it was consensual.

[jrandom]

Neither was Louise!!!

Well, er... history kind of says otherwise, doesn't it? Where were her parents when all this was going on:


She was 13 years old when she was first raped by a police officer. That was covered up! She was groomed by rikards and his mates and repeatedly raped. That was not consensual.

That is, of course, if 'it' was in fact 'going on'.

You make these statements as though they're facts, but they're based on her word, with no other supporting evidence.

And, well, that's the point, really. No reason why you can't form whatever opinion you like based on what Ms Nicholas says, but the law requires something beyond uncorroborated hearsay if someone is to be convicted of a crime.

[jrandom]

All the bloody witnesses were bent cops who were just as guilty of rape! Covered it up...

Let me guess; you also think that the CIA blew up the World Trade Center?

Evidence is evidence, and regardless of how loudly and charmingly Ms Nicholas rants and raves, there was a complete lack of any in this instance to indicate that any laws were broken.

[Maha]

Let me guess; you also think that the CIA blew up the World Trade Center?



No, a plane or two flew into them, maybe a CIA agent was flying one of then though....:shifty:
If an agent was flying one of the planes and survived, I would have found him not guily.....Pilot era!

[Goblin]

Well, er... history kind of says otherwise, doesn't it? Where were her parents when all this was going on:



That is, of course, if 'it' was in fact 'going on'.

You make these statements as though they're facts, but they're based on her word, with no other supporting evidence.

And, well, that's the point, really. No reason why you can't form whatever opinion you like based on what Ms Nicholas says, but the law requires something beyond uncorroborated hearsay if someone is to be convicted of a crime.I do indeed believe her word.
You think people like to make this shit up for a laugh??
But just the sort of comments I'd expect to hear from someone who thinks Madonna is hot.:mellow:

[jrandom]

... just the sort of comments I'd expect to hear from someone who thinks Madonna is hot.:mellow:

You know you do kinda look like a miniature version of her, aye.

:msn-wink:

[Goblin]

You know you do kinda look like a miniature version of her, aye.

:msn-wink::argh::spanking:
Careful....I might puke on you too.:sick::puke:

[imdying]

You think people like to make this shit up for a laugh??Not everyone is as stable as yourself ;)

[Forest]

I do indeed believe her word.
You think people like to make this shit up for a laugh??
But just the sort of comments I'd expect to hear from someone who thinks

Yes I do think that some people make stories up.

Two minutes googling reveals the following NZ Herald articles:

Woman made false rape claim after jilted by lover (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10437561)
False rape complaints annoy police (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10339669)
Woman accused of false rape complaint gets name suppression (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10434471)
Police chase woman for false rape complaint costs (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10125430)
False rape complaints 'damaging to genuine victims' (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/edward-gay/news/article.cfm?a_id=341&objectid=10477914)

Please read these articles. For instance from the first one:


Before she went to a doctor to lay the false complaint May made numerous preparations.

Police said she cut her telephone line, pulled out clumps of her hair, rubbed her knees on the carpet until they bled and scratched her buttocks.

She also put a condom over a hammer handle and used it to create sexual attack trauma.

Or from the second one:


Senior investigators estimate that between 60 and 80 per cent of rape complaints made by women are false.

[Goblin]

Yes I do think that some people make stories up.

Two minutes googling reveals the following NZ Herald articles:

Woman made false rape claim after jilted by lover (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10437561)
False rape complaints annoy police (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10339669)
Woman accused of false rape complaint gets name suppression (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10434471)
Police chase woman for false rape complaint costs (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10125430)
False rape complaints 'damaging to genuine victims' (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/edward-gay/news/article.cfm?a_id=341&objectid=10477914)

Please read these articles. For instance from the first one:



Or from the second one:

All of which make it even herder for genuine victims to come foward and be believed.
One case recently here where a man was imprisoned for 10 months on false complaints. She got a measly 50 hours community service! I would like to have seen her get 10 months prison plus reparation for his loss of earnings and defamation. Wimen who make false allegations are no better than rapists but I still believe LN is telling the truth.

[doc]

Well, er... history kind of says otherwise, doesn't it?

Got to side with Goblin here :eek:. Isn't there something called the "Stockholm situation" Here where the victim takes the side of the offender after a period of time. Something that was found out during the 70's with hostage situations or something ? You obviously can find it out for us maybe, seriously.

[Creeping Death]

Jeeze Goblin,takin it a bit to heart arencha?"NOT GUILTY"so the guy should have a clean slate,weather you or I think he's guilty or not!:calm:

[Goblin]

Jeeze Goblin,takin it a bit to heart arencha?"NOT GUILTY"so the guy should have a clean slate,weather you or I think he's guilty or not!:calm:Not guilty in a court of law but he still did it. Would you want him to represent you in a court of law?:shit:

[jrandom]

Would you want him to represent you in a court of law?:shit:

Y'know, somehow I really doubt that he's planning on going into the litigation field.

Probably more likely to find himself a nice quiet office somewhere rubber-stamping conveyancing transactions or something.

[Creeping Death]

Not guilty in a court of law but he still did it. Would you want him to represent you in a court of law?:shit:

A Jury found him not guilty,so I'd have no problem with him representing me in court.Anyhows,I'd never stand before a Judge coz I'm :innocent:

[Goblin]

Y'know, somehow I really doubt that he's planning on going into the litigation field.

Probably more likely to find himself a nice quiet office somewhere rubber-stamping conveyancing transactions or something.
Doesn't matter what he does, the law society have welcomed him. What does this say about our legal system? They trust a thug who has gang raped more than a few women, lied about it and got away with it! Says to me that these people who we are supposed to trust, think its ok to rape!

[Creeping Death]

the law society have welcomed him.

That in itself should tell you something.Do you really think they wouldn't have?The fallout from NOT allowing someone with NO criminal convictions and NO reason not to be admitted would be far greater than the Law society could want or even handle.Especially with the applicant being Mr Rickards,former deputy Police Commissioner.

[Littlewheels]

yup hes a real big guy, wears his uniform into court to intimidate the witness and jury. thank god the days where the local cops got away with all sorts of shit is over. Not all cops are of the same cloth as Dickhard and his slimy mates!!

[tri boy]

Would like to hear him argue his first sexual assault case

[Goblin]

That in itself should tell you something...Hell yes! He's a cunning narcissistic prick who has hurt a lot of people and is still free to hurt more.

[riffer]

Doesn't matter what he does, the law society have welcomed him. What does this say about our legal system? They trust a thug who has gang raped more than a few women, lied about it and got away with it! Says to me that these people who we are supposed to trust, think its ok to rape!

You need to be very careful in the way you make these statements, I reckon. You are presenting your opinion as fact.

What you are doing is seen in the eyes of the law as libel. Potentially libel of a lawyer.

Might not be the best of moves Goblin.

[Creeping Death]

You need to be very careful in the way you make these statements, I reckon. You are presenting your opinion as fact.

What you are doing is seen in the eyes of the law as libel. Potentially libel of a lawyer.

Might not be the best of moves Goblin.

Agreed riffer....it's all "hearsay",the ONLY ones who know the truth are Rickards and Nicholas themselves.As long as a Jury with the evidence put before them comes to the conclusion they did,then who are we to say they got it wrong?Hell,Wayne Barnes in last years World Cup quarter final All Blacks vs France "got it wrong" but we can bleat and moan all we like,it dosen't change the fact we lost!The old saying "You can forgive but never forget"comes to mind.

[Goblin]

You need to be very careful in the way you make these statements, I reckon. You are presenting your opinion as fact.

What you are doing is seen in the eyes of the law as libel. Potentially libel of a lawyer.

Might not be the best of moves Goblin.Not stating opinion as fact, just stating an opinion. The example he and his ilk have set it's no wonder I have a problem with authority.

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

The Law Society is a crock of Shit - my personal experience - has anyone ever been successful at taking a lawyer to the Society and winning??? They look after their own.

[jrandom]

They look after their own.

... when confronted with hysterical accusations from females with issues who expected miracles at three dollars an hour?

Bastards.

[riffer]

Not stating opinion as fact, just stating an opinion. The example he and his ilk have set it's no wonder I have a problem with authority.


I'm not saying they were right or wrong in their decision at all. My opinion on the whole matter was never stated.

My point is that if someone is acquitted of a crime, continuing to say that they were guilty of it is a libelous action.

The difficulty here is separating personal feelings from legal process. There is no reason in legal process to prohibit him from taking up the law.

Lawyers are not generally regarded as the most honorable of people. I think he'll fit right in.

[candor]

I must say tsk tsk to some comments here. Isn't it going where angels fear to tread - slinging off at Nicholls, considering that unless you were there you can not know 100% the truth of what unfolded.


The fallout from NOT allowing someone with NO criminal convictions and NO reason not to be admitted would be far greater than the Law society could want or even handle.Especially with the applicant being Mr Rickards,former deputy Police Commissioner.

Events subsequent to the trial more than proved it was an extremely unsafe acquittal to the satisfaction of many intelligent folk who followed the matter. Seems some haven't been paying attention! Did they not notice the anti Rickards march on Parliament?

Admission to the bar or "good character" judgements should not be based solely on convicted or not convicted - that would set a very low standard... as the smartest scum never get convictions.

Nurses and Drs can lose or be denied registration sans conviction. If a vet that kills cats gets sacked from the SPCA (Close Up) with no convictions, why should an almost dead cert rapist get an honored position?

IMO the law society was wrong to only look at the transcript of the Nicholas trial, and should have checked out the other related trials too - to get a better picture. In not doing so it has clearly reached the wrong conclusion - one that is partial and not very logical, and is out of sync with public sentiment. In making that decision it has essentially said it doesn't believe Nicholas sworn testimony. It is not a jury. She should sue the bastards for making her look untruthful. Just goes to show that any woman or bloke who'd expect fair or sensitive treatment at or after a sex offence trial is dreaming. If she took a civil suit I'd expect a different outcome - as the weight of evidence is there like with that OJ case - they won civilly right?

As for the spin based comment made by the law society, of not holding "conduct" from 20 years ago against a man. That would be all very well - had he confessed, taken responsibility and either apologised to Louise in a restorative justice or just humanly decent manner, and perhaps done some time for the crime. Yet there has been no apology - just ongoing offending ie lies and denial around what occurred, which I'm convinced was probably rape, but at the least was certainly exploitation. These two things sometimes have a blurred dividing line.

That must be so distressing to the victim to whom I give most creedence, or victims (who knows if there were more).

Personally I don't believe any law society in any other country would have made such a fool of itself in the interests of PC or ?backcovering. Another of those fairly regular "freak things" that makes you ashamed to be Kiwi, was that spineless decision. Maybe he told the fools he knew where they lived :shit:, gaining compliance with no baton needed. Checks many boxes on the psychopathy list - both Mr R, and the organisation called law society if it truly was backcovering rather than just packed with bleeding heart morons.

[pritch]

I just finished reading Inspector Graeme Bell's book "Murder Mayhem and Mischief". (If there's any spelling or other errors in that pardon me I've given the book back.)

He says we don't have a justice system we have a court system. It's all a game and the game is designed to make money for the players.

A profession already low in public esteem just managed to take a significant downward leap...

[candor]

My point is that if someone is acquitted of a crime, continuing to say that they were guilty of it is a libelous action.
.


Where on earth do you get this. Juries do not define reality. If you saw your neighbour kill your mother but he fooled the jury do you think that makes him innocent. No - just not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt to at least one of 12 random individuals. ou get rotten apples in juries too.

But as it was explained by a lawyer to me it is still perfectly fine to call the murderer a murderer under the defamation and libel law of NZ, so long as you believe and have good cause to state that (witnessing the murder as with witnessing your rape would constitute that), and so long as there is no malice or intent to harm the murderer by stating that.

There is sufficient evidence about the place for people to truly hold the opinion Rickards has raped - or how come hundreds marched on Parliament claiming so? Were they all mad or stupid? These cases will never be adequately dealt with until all persons are equipped with forehead chips that videotape all their interactions.

[Fatjim]

And if your sister or daughter were to ever be raped would you want him to defend their rapist???


And if my son got falsly accused of raping some slapper I wouldn't want you on the jury.

[Thaeos]

Hmm ... when people say that things DID happen when the evidence points to the contrary ... and at the same time bring personal attacks into it ... sorry, but they lose all credibility.

[spudchucka]

FFS! He should be in prison! One of his pack raping buddies has recently been released after only serving only a fraction of his sentence. Justice is a joke!

It would be a bigger joke if it sent people to prison without evidence solely because your co-accused had previously been convicted of a similar offence, even though there was no suggestion that the accused had been involved in that previous offending.

The guy is a scumbag, no question in my mind and cops that turn defence lawyers have a special type of stink to them. He'll probably be in partnership with that creep Comeskey before you know it.

[riffer]

Where on earth do you get this. Juries do not define reality.
Sorry buddy. In this case the jury did define the reality. He was accused, tried, found not guilty. There's the reality.


If you saw your neighbour kill your mother but he fooled the jury do you think that makes him innocent. No - just not proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt to at least one of 12 random individuals. ou get rotten apples in juries too.
No evidence in the previous posters comments to indicate that they were at the scene of the alleged rape.


But as it was explained by a lawyer to me it is still perfectly fine to call the murderer a murderer under the defamation and libel law of NZ, so long as you believe and have good cause to state that (witnessing the murder as with witnessing your rape would constitute that), and so long as there is no malice or intent to harm the murderer by stating that.
And therein lies the rub. Can you really suggest there was no malice in Goblin's comments? Are you also suggesting Goblin was a witness to the events in question? Without these two pieces of the puzzle your argument is specious.


There is sufficient evidence about the place for people to truly hold the opinion Rickards has raped - or how come hundreds marched on Parliament claiming so? Were they all mad or stupid? These cases will never be adequately dealt with until all persons are equipped with forehead chips that videotape all their interactions.
Maybe, but I'd hate to live in that world. Face it - the jury system isn't perfect but its better than summary justice. Would you prefer the Judge Dredd scenario? Or Chinese or Arab Justice? If you take the emotion away from this you're left with the facts, and the justice system tells us that the jury has to convict on the facts. Anything else is heresay. Continuing to promote hearsay without any evidence to the contrary in a manner which could prejudice a person's future ability to provide for themselves clearly fits under the definition of libel.


It would be a bigger joke if it sent people to prison without evidence solely because your co-accused had previously been convicted of a similar offence, even though there was no suggestion that the accused had been involved in that previous offending. The guy is a scumbag, no question in my mind and cops that turn defence lawyers have a special type of stink to them. He'll probably be in partnership with that creep Comeskey before you know it.

Yes, he's obviously a dodgy bugger. Would make a perfect defence lawyer. My understanding was that he was more interested in dealing in Maori Restorative Justice-type work (ie Waitangi Tribunal hearings).

There's a certain irony there about the man working in a restorative justice industry.

[Clockwork]

Candor

I think you made some good points with respect to how other professional bodies may view matters of character and integrity but those organisations have the privilege of being able to take a "we know better than the courts" position. I can't really see how the law society to take that attitude and have either themselves or the system they represent retain any credibility

[MSTRS]

Hmm ... when people say that things DID happen when the evidence points to the contrary ... and at the same time bring personal attacks into it ... sorry, but they lose all credibility.

The evidence did not point to the contrary...it merely didn't point hard enough to the facts as presented by the prosecution. The fact that Louise spent 20+ years trying to get justice and eventually managed to 'out' Dewar and his particular shennanigans, is all the proof I need to believe her. That, coupled with the 'company' Rickards kept, and I know what went on at the house R occupied in Taradale at the time of the more recent trials, all paints the picture of a most unsavoury bastard who has skirted round paying for his particularly nasty conduct. At least the police wouldn't have him back - perhaps they know the truth, or no longer wanted to be associated with the taint he carries. I guess the legal profession couldn't care less about any such taint.
Oh, and 'hearsay'? Means what a second person tells a third of what a first person told the second. It does not mean what a first person says was done to them, but isn't believed.

[Murray]

The evidence did not point to the contrary...it merely didn't point hard enough to the facts as presented by the prosecution. That, coupled with the 'company' Rickards kept, and I know what went on at the house R occupied in Taradale at the time of the more recent trials, all paints the picture of a most unsavoury bastard who has skirted round paying for his particularly nasty conduct.

Totally agree and don't forget what went on at the house at Rotorua. What chance did she have against 3 big cops in uniform (and she wasn't the only one) when she was still at school. Talk about intimidation!!!!!.

And the justice department says he had an exemplerary record. Should have seen the Henry interview on the TV, boy did he make them squirm!!!!.

[Goblin]

And if my son got falsly accused of raping some slapper I wouldn't want you on the jury.Read post #34 again.
If your son is hanging around with "slappers" he'd probably get what he deserves.

[Goblin]

It would be a bigger joke if it sent people to prison without evidence solely because your co-accused had previously been convicted of a similar offence, even though there was no suggestion that the accused had been involved in that previous offending.

The guy is a scumbag, no question in my mind and cops that turn defence lawyers have a special type of stink to them. He'll probably be in partnership with that creep Comeskey before you know it.


Sorry buddy. In this case the jury did define the reality. He was accused, tried, found not guilty. There's the reality.


No evidence in the previous posters comments to indicate that they were at the scene of the alleged rape.


And therein lies the rub. Can you really suggest there was no malice in Goblin's comments? Are you also suggesting Goblin was a witness to the events in question? Without these two pieces of the puzzle your argument is specious.


Maybe, but I'd hate to live in that world. Face it - the jury system isn't perfect but its better than summary justice. Would you prefer the Judge Dredd scenario? Or Chinese or Arab Justice? If you take the emotion away from this you're left with the facts, and the justice system tells us that the jury has to convict on the facts. Anything else is heresay. Continuing to promote hearsay without any evidence to the contrary in a manner which could prejudice a person's future ability to provide for themselves clearly fits under the definition of libel.Here is my problem. There was never a fair trail in the first place. So much evidence was suppressed and dewar has been convicted for his part in covering it up. As Pritch said, we have a court system, not a justice system. Its all a game to them. Keeps their money-go-round spinning.

FYI Riffer, No I was not at the scene of any rape but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that what went on was wrong. Police using their position of authority to intimidate young women into sexual acts they did not want to be involved in. If people enjoy group sex then thats fine with me, it's when there's voilence and intimidation involved then my blood boils! Just because he made it to Ass Police Commisioner doesn't make him a good person. He always was a bully and always will be. I think psycopath sums him up nicely.

[JimO]

He always was a bully and always will be. I think psycopath sums him up nicely.

and yet he was found not guilty and now has been accepted by the law society, perhaps you should be venting your spleen at them

[Goblin]

and yet he was found not guilty and now has been accepted by the law society, perhaps you should be venting your spleen at themI have!!!!!

[alanzs]

So that whacked chick you and a mate boned 30 years ago while fucked up now says it was rape, what can you do? The statute of limitations has its place and for a reason. :woohoo:

[MSTRS]

So that whacked chick you and a mate boned 30 years ago while fucked up now says it was rape, what can you do? The statute of limitations has its place and for a reason. :woohoo:

Correct. But not in this particular case.

[Murray]

So that whacked chick you and a mate boned 30 years ago while fucked up now says it was rape, what can you do? The statute of limitations has its place and for a reason. :woohoo:

And what if she was 13,14, or 15 at the time. Does that make no difference????????

[alanzs]

And what if she was 13,14, or 15 at the time. Does that make no difference????????

What if you were 13, 14, 15 at the time? Does that make no difference? :devil2:

[Jiminy]

I find some of the comments on this thread really scary.

I strongly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. There was not enough evidence to prove the man guilty, therefore I must consider him as innocent, no matter what my opinion is.

If the trial wasn't fair, then that's what needs to be questioned for now. If you can prove it, then, and only then, can you question again the man's innocence.

I'm sure the legal system does make mistakes some times, but I'd rather have a few mistakes from that system rather than rely on public opinion for justice. Did the court get it wrong this time? I don't know and it's not mine to say.


Read post #34 again.
If your son is hanging around with "slappers" he'd probably get what he deserves.

Now that's even more scary. You can't condemn someone based on who he is hanging out with. Otherwise I would start asking my friends their police records.

[Goblin]

I find some of the comments on this thread really scary.

I strongly believe that one is innocent until proven guilty. There was not enough evidence to prove the man guilty, therefore I must consider him as innocent, no matter what my opinion is.:slap:


If the trial wasn't fair, then that's what needs to be questioned for now. If you can prove it, then, and only then, can you question again the man's innocence..See the trail wasn't fair! Dewar made well sure of that! That has been proven in court but you still think rikards is innocent?


I'm sure the legal system does make mistakes some times, but I'd rather have a few mistakes from that system rather than rely on public opinion for justice. Did the court get it wrong this time? I don't know and it's not mine to say.Public opinion is what our court system is based on. 12 jurors heard only what the cops wanted them to hear and came the the conclusion that there was reasonable doubt. C'mon! Do you really believe rikards is a nice, genuine, decent bloke that deserves to hold another position of responsibility?!?!




Now that's even more scary. You can't condemn someone based on who he is hanging out with. Otherwise I would start asking my friends their police records.Sleep with dogs n you'll get fleas.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Because he was aquitted does NOT mean he's innocent!



In fact, what it means is exactly that. Or do you think that a presumption of "innocent till proven guilty" doesn't apply to people with some occupations, or some skin colours, or for some alleged offences? If so, please continue, your proposed radical reformation of our criminal justice system has my full attention.

[HenryDorsetCase]

:Public opinion is what our court system is based on. 12 jurors heard only what the cops wanted them to hear and came the the conclusion that there was reasonable doubt. C'mon! Do you really believe rikards is a nice, genuine, decent bloke that deserves to hold another position of responsibility?!?!





You are either very naive or very stupid. Or both.

Lets break it down:

Rickards was accused of a criminal offence (IIRC in fact, more than one). He was tried and the jury found that the offence was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Because of that, and the presumption of innocence he has done nothing wrong.

as to your assertion as to what the "cops wanted the jury to hear"..... You're right. And given their resources and the best efforts of the Crown they still couldnt establish that what was alleged had occurred.

Faced with that, and the legislative framework which governs lawyers, and fitness to practice, the question is not "How could Rickards be given a certificate" but "How could he NOT"?

And as for whether or not he is a "good guy". I have an opinion about that, but its completely irrelevant in this context.

[Goblin]

In fact, what it means is exactly that. Or do you think that a presumption of "innocent till proven guilty" doesn't apply to people with some occupations, or some skin colours, or for some alleged offences? If so, please continue, your proposed radical reformation of our criminal justice system has my full attention.Great! Another rikards supporter.

What is it that makes you guys think it's ok for cops to gang rape young women?

[jrandom]

... cops to gang rape young women?

Are you intentionally trolling?

Have you seriously missed the meaning of all the comments in this thread about evidence?

There was no evidence that Rickards did anything of the sort. That is why he was not convicted.

What you're saying here has as much substance as me claiming that you held a gun to my head and took my wallet at the last trackday. I could even write a book about how harrowing the experience was, y'know. Maybe I should?

:msn-wink:

[Goblin]

You are either very naive or very stupid. Or both.Maybe.

This all proves to me once and for all that it's still the "old boys club". They all band together and cover for each other.

A lawyer once told me that you cant expect common sense in law....and it was true!:clap:

[Goblin]

Are you intentionally trolling?No. I havn't reached your level of :bs: yet.
:msn-wink:

[Storm]

Yeah, with this thread full of your personal opinions and attacks on all and sundry, you've FAR exceeded his "level"


I'd say something about your attitude, but you clearly arent listening and will just abuse me anyway, so meh.

[Her_C4]

This thread reminds me strongly of other court cases I have been involved in where the accused and their lawyer managed to (quite skilfully sometimes) convince the jury of an innocence that had dissipated many many years prior.

In a number of instances a rather shocked jury has learnt AFTER the verdict of prior history in a similar vein, and I have felt deeply for them as it cannot be an easy job.

The role of the prosecutor is after all, to provide evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is in fact guilty. Being found guilty on anything less than that is a miscarriage of justice.

New evidence could mean a new trial, and possibly a different outcome.

[scumdog]

:
Public opinion is what our court system is based on. 12 jurors heard only what the cops wanted them to hear and came the the conclusion that there was reasonable doubt.

No fair, the cops did not tell the jury what they 'wanted' them to hear, in reality the prosecution gave all they could legally do so, nothing was held back, the fact Rickards was not found guilty was nothing to with any old boys club, in fact I got the distinct impression they were out to hang Rickards.

And the system that allowed Rickards to walk is the same one that allowed many other 'innocent' defendants to walk free, regardless if they WERE innocant..

[Forest]

No fair, the cops did not tell the jury what they 'wanted' them to hear, in reality the prosecution gave all they could legally do so, nothing was held back, the fact Rickards was not found guilty was nothing to with any old boys club, in fact I got the distinct impression they were out to hang Rickards.

They most certainly were out to get him.

It was a politically motivated prosecution.

[Fatt Max]

Just a quick observation but...

If you type his name in capitals, ie CLINT and move the I a it closer to the L, what does that give you?

Or, if your eyes are 'cattle trucked' like mine, just move closer to the screen, same effect.

[Virago]

FLICKED if I can get it to work...

[Fatt Max]

FLICKED if I can get it to work...

Oh well done......

[candor]

There was no evidence that Rickards did anything of the sort. That is why he was not convicted.
:

Doh - trials are not bought if there is "no evidence" - deposition hearings root out weak cases. You are making a great leap or assumption to imply no or perhaps you meant insufficient evidence is why Rickards wasn't convicted.

Lawyers spend a lot of time learning how to influence juries by using tactics entirely unrelated to the evidence, ones carefully crafted to diminish the sway evidence has over a jury. And do it with much success.

Rodney King...
Despite a video tape of the crime a jury (of apparently normal IQ and no certified nutters) was convinced not to even believe their own eyes, through use of manipulation of political beliefs like we should support the Police etc.

Rapist defenders (accessories after the fact) usually appeal to the "crazy untrusty woman" prejudice which also entails "objectifying" (reducing ability to relate to). But I suppose in the Rickards case they had a double whammy strategy available, as they could also appeal to the "cops are upstanding" belief system oftyen held by the old codger types who make selves avail for jury service.

I think it has been scientifically proven that the male voice is believed more than a female one. Thats why dog trainers recommend a deeper tone. It explains Helen Clarks persona, and that weird woman in Labours ad pre election intoning in a butch voice that Key shouldn't be trusted.

As far as I'm concerned the jury system is archaic and only as strong as its weakest link. Fancy taxpayers putting millions into trials when it only takes one dickhead on a jury to hold out for innocence. To say a jury found Rickards innocent is weird - who knows - the majority may not have. But juries aren't democracies are they. And some just want their dinner so will eventually back down to the stubborn and perhaps dumbest link. Re "Archaic" - anyone know where they decided the number 12 from - prolly some scientific mideaval reference to the signs of the zodiac or some such hocus pocus.

[Clockwork]

- anyone know where they decided the number 12 from - prolly some scientific mideaval reference to the signs of the zodiac or some such hocus pocus.

I was under the impressioni t has some thing to do with the number of Christ's disicples

[jrandom]

I was under the impressioni t has some thing to do with the number of Christ's disicples

Wikipedia has a useful overview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury). No commentary on what people might have been thinking a thousand or so years ago when twelve became the traditional number, though. You could well be right.

[Newblade]

What should be noted here is that if you ask enough people that have had any dealings with those scum Rickards,Shipton and co.You will see very quickly just how honourable the fuckers are not.
I personally observed Shipton and others,during a house search throwing a womens panties between each other to "check these out".and making shocking comments,to the point that I was dropped by an officer for my protests concerning there behaviour.
Wouldn't doubt anything bad I hear about these Fucken Mongrels

[RT527]

I do indeed believe her word.
You think people like to make this shit up for a laugh??
But just the sort of comments I'd expect to hear from someone who thinks Madonna is hot.:mellow:

yup People do indeed make it up because relationships sour so how can I get back at this bloke...oooo I know Ill say he raped me and drag him through the court system....ultimately more innocent blokes are charged than let off....I`m not saying this happened in this case , but it could have happened.

The other ladies are believed, on a hearsay sometimes and the bloke is convicted, has happened b4 and will continue to happen.

Goblin while it may be wrong in your eyes it still doesnt mean that he did it any other way than consensual , unless you were there no one will know, .....you wernt there were you ?.

[Goblin]

yup People do indeed make it up because relationships sour so how can I get back at this bloke...oooo I know Ill say he raped me and drag him through the court system....ultimately more innocent blokes are charged than let off....I`m not saying this happened in this case , but it could have happened.

The other ladies are believed, on a hearsay sometimes and the bloke is convicted, has happened b4 and will continue to happen.

Goblin while it may be wrong in your eyes it still doesnt mean that he did it any other way than consensual , unless you were there no one will know, .....you wernt there were you ?.Go back and read the thread again. I've already said I wasn't there and what I think of wimen who make false rape complaints.

[jrandom]

I've already said I wasn't there...

That line speaks for itself.


... what I think of wimen who make false rape complaints.

But presumably you have a magical truth-o-meter that can detect when women are making false complaints and when they're not?

You could probably rent it out by the hour, you know. Be a great little money-spinner.

[Goblin]

That line speaks for itself.



But presumably you have a magical truth-o-meter that can detect when women are making false complaints and when they're not?

You could probably rent it out by the hour, you know. Be a great little money-spinner.So what point are you trying to make here? You trying to say that you belive rikards never raped anyone and is a good upstanding citizen who well deserves to be in yet another position of authority? LN has been making up stories to ruin his career?

I personally know of 2 guys who have done time for raping the same skank. I belive both were innocent but the jurys didnt. Another old friend of mine was charged with rape after his "victim" climbed on the back of his bike NAKED and forced herself on him at his house! Lucky for him he was found not guilty. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not. But I will still always believe this LN case reeks of cover-up.

[jrandom]

But I will still always believe this LN case reeks of cover-up.

A little bit, aye.

Problem here is, though, that the Law Society can't stop Rickards from practicing as a solicitor based on that smell. They had no option but to give him the green light. Ranting about that just doesn't make sense.

[Goblin]

A little bit, aye.

Problem here is, though, that the Law Society can't stop Rickards from practicing as a solicitor based on that smell. They had no option but to give him the green light. Ranting about that just doesn't make sense.
Yeah, it's a sad day when our law society has to say yes to such an untrustworthy applicant. Problem is that he's so cunning and manipulative and knows his way around the legal system that they have no choice. Even sadder when he gets the go ahead to practice and people will employ him.

[Gubb]

Yeah, it's a sad day when our law society has to say yes to such an untrustworthy applicant.
But...but...but... they're all lawyers. They are ALL untrustworthy.

Problem is that he's so cunning and manipulative and knows his way around the legal system that they have no choice.
He'll fit right in then.

Even sadder when he gets the go ahead to practice and people will employ him.
No-one is forced to employ him, the people that do so know who he is, and choose to do so on their own free will. It's not like he can go round and say "Hire me, or i'll stick a baton in ya".

[RT527]

Go back and read the thread again. I've already said I wasn't there and what I think of wimen who make false rape complaints.

Yeah I know Goblin...was just reinforcing that shit happens..., you just got to learn that what happened is not a personal affliction to all women, there is probably just as many women who could be defined as a clint rickard but lets not even go there, generally we never hear of the women who may force a young fella to bed an would he be believed 20 years on ? would you even want to own up to being molested by a women......
Clint Rickard gives me the creeps just looking at him as with Chris Comensky.
Im not entirely against what you have to say Goblin and can sympathize with what you are saying.

Ps just read the post above ...for some reason it did not show earlier...the one about the skank.

[Swoop]

After what he allegedly did with a truncheon imagine what he could allegedly do with a bar :rofl:
Or a gavel...

In a number of instances a rather shocked jury has learnt AFTER the verdict of prior history in a similar vein, and I have felt deeply for them as it cannot be an easy job.
I have been right there.
Walking out of court and bumping into the crown prosecutor, who added a lot of very important information that was not permitted to be part of the case. Thankfully we, as a jury, made the correct decision.

It makes me wonder what information was "bought" in the pre-trial dealing process...

[Goblin]

But...but...but... they're all lawyers. They are ALL untrustworthy.

He'll fit right in then.Damn straight!


No-one is forced to employ him, the people that do so know who he is, and choose to do so on their own free will. It's not like he can go round and say "Hire me, or i'll stick a baton in ya".Hey...he's clint rikards! He'll do whatever he damn well wants!

[Fatjim]

Read post #34 again.
If your son is hanging around with "slappers" he'd probably get what he deserves.

I'm not seeing the connection or the logic. And I mentioned nothing about who he hangs around about. The statement was actually about your bias, and I thought that was clear and unequivocal.

[Goblin]

I'm not seeing the connection or the logic. And I mentioned nothing about who he hangs around about. The statement was actually about your bias, and I thought that was clear and unequivocal.My bias toward what? I already told you that I think wimen who make false rape complaints are no better than actual rapists. Where's the bias in that?
Of course your son would never get himself in a situation to be accused of rape would he?

[imdying]

They'll both have to answer on the day judgement, and that'll burn a lot more than anything that can be done in this life, I'm happy with that.

[Creeping Death]

Blardy hell Goblin...you still bangin on about Rickards?Jeeze,get over it,pull ya head in and take a few deep breaths.Theres NOTHING you can do to make it otherwise,NOTHING!Chrissake man!:angry:

[jrandom]

They'll both have to answer on the day judgement, and that'll burn a lot more than anything that can be done in this life, I'm happy with that.

You're mostly in the 'Christian' biz for the hellfire part, aren't you?

:lol:

[Goblin]

Blardy hell Goblin...you still bangin on about Rickards?Jeeze,get over it,pull ya head in and take a few deep breaths.Theres NOTHING you can do to make it otherwise,NOTHING!Chrissake man!:angry:Piss off! I'll rant about it til the cows come home.:argue:

[jrandom]

Piss off! I'll rant about it til the cows come home.:argue:

Moooooooooo.

[Creeping Death]

Piss off! I'll rant about it til the cows come home.:argue:

You are just quoting from "hearsay",nothing more.What difference is your OPINION ever gonna make?

[Goblin]

You are just quoting from "hearsay",nothing more.What difference is your OPINION ever gonna make?None what so ever...but hey, this isn't called rant or rave for nothing! I'm as entiltled to vent as the next person. You dont like it? Dont read it!

[candor]

It makes the difference of defending LNs honor, and might also have the side effect of reminding any newcomers to NZ or non news junkies of just which ex cops or lawyers one would be prudent not to use as babysitters or walk down dark alleys with. Its a sistahood code you may not know about!
A bit like the brothahood code also rearing its head on this thread.

Maybe 2 threads are needed - like anotha one to express fears about false rape complaints; based on a discovered case. I too would support the prosecutions of such villains - problem is that this would only encourage persistence of any liar. I know a guy falsely accused who had to leave the country it so messed things up even after she admitted it, and another guy who suicided over a fake accusation from an ex. She admitted it when cops told her of the suicide.

Something people aren't getting is that it is not peoples choice whether or not to hire Rickards. He could well use his legal nous to say if he is not employed as a crown prosecutor that he is being discriminated against. Then your female relative could be depending on the likes of him to nail her rapist. How luverrrrrly. Or as a defender he could be grilling or gorilla-ing a victim.

Perhaps the best penance though would be for him to go out and nail many rapists - he might even see this as a strategy to strengthen and uphold the camouflage mask. Sometimes the negative energies of ordinarily dangerous types can be channelled into good acts - as they do only seek power and recognition! But with corporate flavour psychopaths / driven types we have found more regulation was needed, to restrain their excesses. I hope the law society will maintain a vigilant watch to keep Rickards on the straight n narrow.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Yes it does...

Besides, she was a whore that couldn't keep her legs closed and got what she asked for... trying to misconstrue the facts decades after the events just makes her the worst kind of slut.

You're a sad cunt mate. She's got more balls than you'll ever have.

[Creeping Death]

Fair enough,but I'm sure Rickards will be making somewhere in the realms of $140-$180 an hour,around what he was payed as deputy Police Comissioner.

[Patrick]

Whats the difference between a catfish and a lawyer?

One is a scum sucking, bottom feeding, cellar dweller surviving in the murky depths of its world... The other is a fish.

[candor]

From the same source I think - what do sperm and lawyers have in common - only one in a million becomes human. Apparently lawyers were the butt of the first jokes, though lawyer jokes rarely work as lawyers don['t like them and others normally just think they are real.

I think like with the Police its the bad eggs who share the spotlights that give them a bad name - like the criminal defenders, :2guns:Judges and suchlike. I mean seriously, what kind of upbringing could turn you into such a disgrace to the race? Is it some burning ambition to land up in hell or something - cos reptiles need the heat. How would you tell people thats how your child evolved :sick:But not all are abominations - had dealings with a good one today, but she was a :innocent:resource management one.

Q - The phrase "criminal lawyer" demonstrates what feature of English language? A - Tautology style redundancy.
Similar to : "an added bonus", "end result", "free gift", "future plans", "safe haven", "false pretense"

[Creeping Death]

From the same source I think - what do sperm and lawyers have in common - only one in a million becomes human. Apparently lawyers were the butt of the first jokes, though lawyer jokes rarely work as lawyers don['t like them and others normally just think they are real.

I think like with the Police its the bad eggs who share the spotlights that give them a bad name - like the criminal defenders, :2guns:Judges and suchlike. I mean seriously, what kind of upbringing could turn you into such a disgrace to the race? Is it some burning ambition to land up in hell or something - cos reptiles need the heat. How would you tell people thats how your child evolved :sick:But not all are abominations - had dealings with a good one today, but she was a :innocent:resource management one.

Q - The phrase "criminal lawyer" demonstrates what feature of English language? A - Tautology style redundancy.
Similar to : "an added bonus", "end result", "free gift", "future plans", "safe haven", "false pretense"


Too many fuckin fancy "quotes" in there for me brutha!:mellow:

[spudchucka]

I He could well use his legal nous to say if he is not employed as a crown prosecutor that he is being discriminated against.

He won't ever be a crown prosecutor, QC maybe but not crown prosecutor.

[Clockwork]

From the same source I think - what do sperm and lawyers have in common - only one in a million becomes human. Apparently lawyers were the butt of the first jokes, though lawyer jokes rarely work as lawyers don['t like them and others normally just think they are real.

I think like with the Police its the bad eggs who share the spotlights that give them a bad name - like the criminal defenders, :2guns:Judges and suchlike. I mean seriously, what kind of upbringing could turn you into such a disgrace to the race? Is it some burning ambition to land up in hell or something - cos reptiles need the heat. How would you tell people thats how your child evolved :sick:But not all are abominations - had dealings with a good one today, but she was a :innocent:resource management one.

Q - The phrase "criminal lawyer" demonstrates what feature of English language? A - Tautology style redundancy.
Similar to : "an added bonus", "end result", "free gift", "future plans", "safe haven", "false pretense"

Sorry but I think your observations on Lawyers are a bit like others observations on the Police.
"They're all a pain int the arse until you need them". (But then the Police don't send you a bill... yet)

[candor]

Too many fuckin fancy "quotes" in there for me brutha!:mellow:

Me too.

Hey I did vouch for 1 lawyer in there. So not slamming them cos don't need them, altho not planning on doing any teen gang rapes meself at this stage.

So.... what could he get up to next as a QC :crazy:

[Patrick]

He won't ever be a crown prosecutor, QC maybe but not crown prosecutor.

I would doubt he would even make it to QC....... Too many skeletons...

[spudchucka]

I would doubt he would even make it to QC....... Too many skeletons...

I know, it was a tongue in check comment.

What about district court judge?:crazy:

[jrandom]

I'm still not sure why y'all seem to think he's so certain to go into the litigation field. I'd say the majority of lawyers in NZ almost never see the inside of a courtroom.

[riffer]

Besides, with $300K in his back pocket he hardly needs to go into big money lawyering...

[The Stranger]

Yes it does...

Besides, she was a whore that couldn't keep her legs closed and got what she asked for... trying to misconstrue the facts decades after the events just makes her the worst kind of slut.

Apparently rikard was found innocent (according to some). I thought he was found not guilty. I understood the test the jury applied was beyond reasonable doubt. Were the jury asked to decide his innocence?
He is presumed innocent until proven guilty, not guaranteed innocent by a decision of not guilty.

I regularly speed, in fact I did so tonight on the ATNR.
I didn't get caught, or convicted, so am I innocent or guilty of speeding on tonights ATNR?

Finding him not guilty doesn't mean he isn't guilty of committing the crime in question, it may well mean only that the prosecution failed to prove their case adequately.
A court does not guarantee that the truth will be found. Evidence may be lost, burried, concealed or simply unavailable or undiscovered. Does it follow that a person automatically innocent in such circumstances?

Should he be held accountable in any way for the actions he was found not guilty of? That is a different question and not one which I am arguing. In the eyes of the law, he must be treated as if he were innocent, however to say simply that he was found not guilty by a court therefore he is innocent is naive in the extreme.

[Forest]

Besides, with $300K in his back pocket he hardly needs to go into big money lawyering...

He'll have to pay income tax on that $300k. That will drop make $100k of it disappear.

[riffer]

By the sounds of the news this morning he'll have a new job next week with Waipareara Trust. It will be interesting to see if he can use his undoubted skills to help young fellas who are going off the rails or if he'll just end up getting some bad little shits off some nasty charges.

[imdying]

I regularly speed, in fact I did so tonight on the ATNR.
I didn't get caught, or convicted, so am I innocent or guilty of speeding on tonights ATNR?Schrödinger's rapist? :rolleyes:

[doc]

Latest update.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/7195459/disgraced-ex-cop-starts-work-as-criminal-court-lawyer/



:shit: Just wait till he is a judge.

[Crasherfromwayback]

He's New Zealands biggest cunt in my opinion.

[Foxzee]

He's New Zealands biggest cunt in my opinion.

Well he does seem to like them...............

[Pussy]

He's New Zealands biggest cunt in my opinion.

He's pondscum, Pete!.....

[Genie]

Somehow that just seems all wrong...whatever happened years ago will never be fully known...but to now be able to go and defend others in a court of law doesn't seem right.

Though in all fairness why shouldn't he have a new career seeing the other went down the toilet.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Well he does seem to like them...............

Bullshit! He has no respect for the pussy!

[Crasherfromwayback]

Though in all fairness why shouldn't he have a new career seeing the other went down the toilet.

It went down the toilet because he hangs with rapists, and abused his position as a police officer in many ways. He also showed his true colours when he came out of court spitting vile insults towards LW and doing his best to make her look bad. In my opinion he should be locked up with some of the nastier guys he put away in his day.

[Genie]

It went down the toilet because he hangs with rapists, and abused his position as a police officer in many ways. He also showed his true colours when he came out of court spitting viles insults towards LW and doing his best to make her look bad. In my opinion he should be locked up with some of the nastier guys he put away in his day.

I wasn't there and I am in no position to judge another....if it is to be believed that there is a God then clint rickards and his ilk will met their maker and be judged accordingly.

There are many 'bad' people in the world and some do change..who's to say this man hasn't, do you know him personally???

He may well do some good in this new career, maybe this is his way of giving something back and changing who he is and making some atonement for the crap he may have dished out!!!

All are worthy of forgiveness...all are worthy of the chance to change.

[Crasherfromwayback]

There are many 'bad' people in the world and some do change..who's to say this man hasn't, do you know him personally???

He may well do some good in this new career, maybe this is his way of giving something back and changing who he is and making some atonement for the crap he may have dished out!!!

All are worthy of forgiveness...all are worthy of the chance to change.

I don't hang out with people of his 'ilk' as you put it. All of my mates treat women like the gorgeous creatures they are. They respect them and love them. So do I.

Have you ever wondered why old sayings came about? Ones like leopards and spots etc? Have you noticed it's near on impossible to rehabilitate a peodophile? Do you think a guy that has such a low opinion of women is ever gonna see them differently?

[doc]

Somehow that just seems all wrong...whatever happened years ago will never be fully known...but to now be able to go and defend others in a court of law doesn't seem right.

Though in all fairness why shouldn't he have a new career seeing the other went down the toilet.

Thats the problem I have with this whole situation.

One of the requirements to be admitted to the bar is that you "Are a fit and proper person" to be admitted. WTF ?

[Mudfart]

many people in tauranga know the guys history. he was attemptedly thrown to the wolves over the pack rape as that was the most likely charge to get him. but it didnt.....stoopid jury of 'tards. they couldnt see the wood for the trees.

[rustic101]

Doesn't matter what he does, the law society have welcomed him. What does this say about our legal system? They trust a thug who has gang raped more than a few women, lied about it and got away with it! Says to me that these people who we are supposed to trust, think its ok to rape!

I sincerely hope you are able to back this up????

Please be aware the internet does not protect you from being prosecuted if someone wished to do so for defamation...

[rustic101]

[QUOTE=

I regularly speed, in fact I did so tonight on the ATNR.
I didn't get caught, or convicted, so am I innocent or guilty of speeding on tonights ATNR? .[/QUOTE]

You have openly admitted your guilt not only that but posted it in writing ;) Were you under duress? ;)

[SS90]

The thing that no-one here seems to be mentioning is that neither Mr Rickards OR Miss Nicholls are of "high moral character", and while it is clear to any one with half a brain that she is a liar (I have personally spoken to 2 guys that have "had a gangbang" with her, and heard some of the stories about her sexual activities......), and, any Doctor will tell you that such behaviour in a women generally stems from low self asteem.

Mr Rickards, by all accounts, is a manipulative controlling ego maniac (some would say common in the Police force) that likes "a gangbang" (I have no problem with that), but also we all hear stories painting him in a picture of a perverted narcisist who likes to control women (that I have a problem with)

Meh, they are as bad as each other, and, like minds attract.

[Genie]

Your post is just damn scarey...fuck!

Judgements are reserved for ...........oh yeah I remember the ones that live in glasshouses!

[MIXONE]

Hey Genie have you seen the guy at all?
He's got as much chance changing from his arrogant ways as I have of sleeping with Jessica Alba.
Absolutely none!

[munster]

All are worthy of forgiveness...all are worthy of the chance to change.

Gotta disagree. I live daily with the results of a repetitive sexual offender. I dare you to try to forgive after seeing what it does to your loved ones.

[Indiana_Jones]

<img src="http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2009/09/21/4951_902365116050_13925068_53939256_6968233_N/495190236511605013925068539392566968233n.jpg">

-Indy

[candor]

I sincerely hope you are able to back this up????

Please be aware the internet does not protect you from being prosecuted if someone wished to do so for defamation...

Defamation requires not believing your words are true and malice - and that your words have materially provably ill impacted the target eg they lose a job.

I'd say its very defensible to say you believe CR is a rapist, as Louise most certainly would have got an ACC payout and counselling over it so a Govt Dept likely supports it post the trial atop Crown Prosecutions supporting it. And anyway it may not be defamatory to be known as a rapist in all circles either! It could be a good look for a defense layer seeking rapport with clients. "I understand, no I really do".
No objection to him being a defense lawyer, but it is poor form for any agency to employ him in his victims workplace - unless of course she was consulted and consented to this imo.

So what if Nicholas may have consented to gang bangs on occasion, does not mean she consented to one with CR. Thats like saying that because a woman has consensual sex with her husband she must be lying in saying another man raped her. Theres a green light and a red light and they don't always stay the same. Why do some always class females as madonnas or whores not as versatile?

[SS90]

So what if Nicholas may have consented to gang bangs on occasion, does not mean she consented to one with CR. Thats like saying that because a woman has consensual sex with her husband she must be lying in saying another man raped her. Theres a green light and a red light and they don't always stay the same. Why do some always class females as madonnas or whores not as versatile?

Please don't think that I a "closet rapist" or some such thing, but we have to temper any judgement we may have for either of the parties concerned with the realities of life.

Women routinely "lead men on", "just for kicks", and anyone who dissagree's is a friggin moron.

That, in itself is "a fact of life", but in a scenario such as this, "being pressured" into such acts is not far from "being submissive".

Miss Nicholas, it would seem partook in this lifestyle before, AND after these events took place....... would a normal reasonable person not go "oh, hang on, my lifestyle choice has just lead to me being pack raped by 3 coppers, and, during which one rammed a batton up my hoohoodilly..... I didn't like that, so, I am going to change my lifestyle"

She tried to get this to court for decades? Huh? what a load of shit. It would only take one trip to her local Woman's refuge, and it would have been on the front pages in 24 hours.

In the meantime, she continued her "gangbang, promiscuous lifestyle"

Victim? I don't think so.

I'm not championing either party (far form it) He life choices led to her being in this situation, and he is a piece of shit, and, to be honest, he will fit right in with Lawyers!

[tigertim20]

Yes it does. Under our justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty.

tell that to david bain. if you were right he would have been handed a govt cheque for millions momments after the verdict. Goblin is correct in this instance. after an acquittal, there are other rather long and intrusive procedures one must go through to actually prove their innocence. just like david bain is in the process of doing

[Winston001]

One of the requirements to be admitted to the bar is that you "Are a fit and proper person" to be admitted. WTF ?

I'm in total agreement. The NZ Law Society dropped the ball on this one and many lawyers are outraged Rickards was admitted to the bar. His application should have been opposed but because he wasn't convicted of anything and had been a senior police officer, the odds of stopping his admission were poor. Even so it would have been far better for a judge to make that decision and who knows, he could have been knocked back.

[Genie]

Gotta disagree. I live daily with the results of a repetitive sexual offender. I dare you to try to forgive after seeing what it does to your loved ones.

I personally live daily with the effects of a sexual offender and your dare is worthless for forgiveness has been given.

[Grubber]

I have the unfortunate title as having known Mr rickards. I know him through a close friend, whom Mr Rickards was in his wedding party. I can assure you, there is more to Mr Rickards than meets the eye. My friend (the wedding man) used to work closely along side CR in the 80's and i met him some time during that period. My friend and his wife including myself have nothing to do with CR anymore. There is a good reason or 2 as to why and most of it doesn't involve just this one issue that went to court. There is a lot more that could be said, but well you know the story with legal issues that could arise. As for Ms Nicholas, you choose your path and it attracts the demons. Not always a good place to file complaints from, no matter how true they may be.

[candor]

Women routinely "lead men on", "just for kicks", and anyone who dissagree's is a friggin moron.

That, in itself is "a fact of life", but in a scenario such as this, "being pressured" into such acts is not far from "being submissive".

Miss Nicholas, it would seem partook in this lifestyle before, AND after these events took place....... would a normal reasonable person not go "oh, hang on, my lifestyle choice has just lead to me being pack raped by 3 coppers, and, during which one rammed a batton up my hoohoodilly..... I didn't like that, so, I am going to change my lifestyle"

!

I'm a friggin moron because noone I know leads men on for kicks. There is often a dynamic for a bit of meaningless flirtation. Sometimes this is just conditioned into behaviour. The guys are exoected to put on the red light and play stud. The chicks are a bit culturally conditioned to pander to men ie to be nice. I think it goes back to wartime when men got "big saviour" status. This can be mistaken for sexual interest when it's not. Could just be nurturing behaviour ie warmth.

"Being pressured" - pressure is indicative of predatory, "being submissive" can be a survival response to predation. I don't think submission of the other is the aim of sexual conquest in the human kingdom. Any man seeing submission/ relenting should have real concern this is not consent per se. Many women coming from dysfunctional back grounds eg child sex victims may more easily "submit" to pressure which does not equate to genuine consent. It matters less if you submit to buying a vacuum cleaner from a door to doo salesman but sex salesmen need more principled conduct. Consent is wanting to do something and agreeing wilfully.Teens need to be taught this stuff about human relations.

You said her "lifestyle choice has just lead to (her) being pack raped by 3 cop would a normal reasonable person not go "oh, hang on, my lifestyle choice has just lead to me being pack raped by 3 coppers, and, during which one rammed a batton up my hoohoodilly..... I didn't like that, so, I am going to change my lifestyle" but I disagree. It may have contributed by making herself an easy target situationally or reputationally as predators will go "choice noone will believe this target", but what led to her being raped was the rapists actiion not hers. She did not make people rape - unless you subscribe to the popular theory men have no control over their trouser pack! Men do, its childish prats of the offending type who don't. Men can walk away from temptation just like fights.

So yeah, having heard your 5 cents I'll adjust to say there is red, green and consent orange which you've termed submission under pressure. This is probably where a lot of contested rape claims come from. Judge Heron once advised a jury its not twhether a knife was used at the womanss throat you must considr but whether she then consented! F-wit. But it's rape is submission under pressure and guys need to learn about orange. Sub under pressure can be the point of giving up physical resistance out of fear for the bash, and of no longer saying no because your crying interferes with speech. That is submitting but should it be a permitted score!
Loose women who get victimised are just as much victims as Nuns and maybe moreso as they tend to be revictimised, you say - would a normal reasonable person not go "oh, hang on, my lifestyle choice has just lead to me being pack raped by 3 coppers, and, during which one rammed a batton up my hoohoodilly..... I didn't like that, so, I am going to change my lifestyle".

Maybe but not everyone gets to a nunnery over a bad experience. Why would a woman with psychological issues that express in a promiscuous lifestyle suddenly be cured by being raped, I'd say from everything I've ever seen the issues are just likely to get worse. More alcohol and drug abuse and thereforemore reckless behaviour. Ever heard of post traumatic stress - Vietnam vets etc show it by going into risk situations in peace time/places. Traumatised people often have a need to keep repeating bad situaions to stare deat in the face and see if they can find something different about it or in themselves. Adrenalin can become a need.

[peasea]

Hey Genie have you seen the guy at all?
He's got as much chance changing from his arrogant ways as I have of sleeping with Jessica Alba!

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[munster]

I personally live daily with the effects of a sexual offender and your dare is worthless for forgiveness has been given.

Good for you. I can't do that.

[scumdog]

While we're bagging lawyers here how about the NZ one mentioned on this mornings new with 36 conviction he failed to mention....?

And this is the sort of person who people want to defend them from corrupt cops...it's a twisted old world...

[peasea]

While we're bagging lawyers here how about the NZ one mentioned on this mornings new with 36 conviction he failed to mention....?

And this is the sort of person who people want to defend them from corrupt cops...it's a twisted old world...

They'd probably know the score better than a 'straight' lawyer. (If there is such a thing.)

[Blackflagged]

Gees reading all of this , theres some nasty venomous, people on here.. Shocking