Thread: Richard Lincoln

Originally Posted by systolic

How many people have been charged with leaving a gun unattended in a car while paying for gas or having a piss?

As opposed to those who leave machine guns in their car overnight outside a motel and have them stolen, shotguns in the back of the ute most of the evening in the pub carpark after duck shooting and have them stolen, or left permanently in the boot of the car because they can't be arsed putting them away properly and have them stolen.

I hear what you are saying, and I agree completely. The problem identified here however is the law, about having laws that make sense. It is desirable to not have to rely on police discretion for our personal safety from prosecution and conviction when acting reasonably. Richard Lincoln acted unreasonably by following current law. Ain't good.

Originally Posted by Rock river arms hunter

Hi Team

So...........

Richard Lincoln has recently become a lawyer. As someone who knows him I can only speak of his passion which many will know anyway.

Contact Richard on: 0211525527 or you can email him on: rlincoln@cit.net.nz

Be clear here. Is he a Lawyer who has been Admitted to the Bar and has a practicing certificate, or is he simply someone with a law degree who is giving legal advice as a para-legal?

And to be fair... none of you appear to know much about the situation at all. And all of you ought to be dismayed that the courts seem reluctant to hold the police to the same standard that the public are held to.

The Rule of Law is the legal principle is that all are subject to the law, including the police and given that the police would not prosecute their own errant member/s in this case, a private prosecution given the chance to proceed would have at least coveyed the general message that the courts were impartial irrespective of the final outcome.

In so far as Mr Lincolns comments to the policemans wife - I would have thought that was on the minor end of what could have been said given the totally unacceptable way the the police acted in this case. And that has been verfiied by the findings of the court after the police doubled down and prosecuted him for totally unsubstantiable reasons.

Personally I don't understand the findings of the Law Society - and I wouldn't be surprised that on appeal that decision gets changed. There is more to this that that alone... and clearly some have made decisions that would seem hard to justify on this basis alone.

Its entertaining anyway..

The law society doesn't want him (and no wonder), so he tries it on in court and gets shot down big time by the judge.

Now he wants people to give him $100 000 for him to have another go? Talk about throwing good money after bad!

I'm sure he will be as transparent with how the funds are used as he was with money given to the NSA. (is that still even a thing?)


Gun lobbyist and law graduate ruled unfit to be barrister and solicitor

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/108...-and-solicitor

Lincoln targeted Senior Constable James Manning, who was one of three officers who arrested him near Dunsandel, south of Christchurch, He posted derogatory messages about the constable on the NSA Facebook page calling him a dangerous criminal and providing the constable's wife's Facebook page.

He also sent a Facebook message to Manning's wife that included the prediction her husband would probably serve time in a "nice cold prison cell" and asking: "How did you ever wind up marrying a lowlife scumbag thug?"

Lincoln had an enduring frailty of character that had not altered with age or legal training and "he is not someone who will always deal responsibly and dispassionately with those whom he considers have wronged him"

The conduct was not a "one-off" resulting from a "complete brain meltdown" as the posts required considerable planning, she said. The messages were designed to intimidate and threaten and had occurred after Lincoln finished his legal training.

"However Mr Lincoln showed little appreciation of this," the judge said.

Lincoln only apologised to the constable's wife when he realised his behaviour put his admission to the bar at risk.

She (the Judge) was particularly concerned Lincoln had resorted to bullying and threats to challenge behaviour by individual police.

"In my view the public history of his dealings with the police would reflect poorly on the legal profession as a whole if he were admitted into practice. Indeed, I accept the Law Society's submission that the admission of someone who has behaved in this way would risk undermining public confidence in the legal profession."

And a bit after the charges against him were thrown out:

Lincoln then filed a private prosecution against the senior constable alleging several crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perverting the course of justice.

The District Court declined to accept the filing of the charges saying Lincoln was using the criminal law to extract revenge.

"he is not someone who will always deal responsibly and dispassionately with those whom he considers have wronged him"

And who IS like that, except for Jesus? I wonder is this judge taking her Lithium?

Lincoln then filed a private prosecution against the senior constable alleging several crimes including aggravated assault, kidnapping and perverting the course of justice. The District Court declined to accept the filing of the charges saying Lincoln was using the criminal law to extract revenge.

Is that not what criminal law is for? Are we now meant to use other means of exacting revenge, a.k.a. getting justice?!?

She (the Judge) was particularly concerned Lincoln had resorted to bullying and threats to challenge behaviour by individual police.

Correct. He ought to have taken the cop to the District Court instead. Fine example of circular thinking by the legal profession's finest.

I've donated to him, he can test it a little further to my mind if hes spend 7 years studying and has a job offer on the table.
Give him a go, if he does anything silly again they can pull it, won't be first or last to be disbarred.

I personally wouldn't have done what he did and it was kinda asking for trouble walking around with black gun to toilet....but we've all needed a piss and jammed rifles under seat or something and I guess if we get busted they will throw the book at us unlike the crims we see often getting not much.

Post him getting arrested he was treated pretty bad, his firearms fiddled with to bring more charges against him. Can understand anyone would get a little wound up and vindictive when the Police pulling these sorts of tricks on you.

Again.. you don't know anything about this other that relying on stuff articles. And they are just such a reliable source.

By the way - never have I known that the use of the law to extract a pound of flesh was not lawful. Its certainly not grounds for denying the progress of a private prosecution. In fact it is a constant dirge from the victims of any crime that their sense of justice must be met. To deny that when the alleged offender is a policeman is plainly a double standard.

And the descriptor used for that particular police officer is polite frankly.. if you want to bother finding out what what the judge said about the activites of the police and how they handled Lincoln... go and read the original case.

The cause of that situation was in the response to it. The author of that was well described.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Again.. you don't know anything about this other that relying on stuff articles. And they are just such a reliable source.

By the way - never have I known that the use of the law to extract a pound of flesh was not lawful. Its certainly not grounds for denying the progress of a private prosecution. In fact it is a constant dirge from the victims of any crime that their sense of justice must be met. To deny that when the alleged offender is a policeman is plainly a double standard.

And the descriptor used for that particular police officer is polite frankly.. if you want to bother finding out what what the judge said about the activites of the police and how they handled Lincoln... go and read the original case.

The cause of that situation was in the response to it. The author of that was well described.

This is indeed dire, Sidney. I read your two posts above knowing that you usually tend to defend our legal system.

I happily donated! The direction the law is taking Re firearm ownership in NZ and SOME police taking the law into their own hands by devious interpretation, we need as many Lincoln's as we can get. Your hobby depends on it.

Originally Posted by omegaspeedy

I happily donated! The direction the law is taking Re firearm ownership in NZ and SOME police taking the law into their own hands by devious interpretation, we need as many Lincoln's as we can get. Your hobby depends on it.

Indeed. What do we pay for 20 cartridges without a second thought.

Originally Posted by omegaspeedy

I happily donated! The direction the law is taking Re firearm ownership in NZ and SOME police taking the law into their own hands by devious interpretation, we need as many Lincoln's as we can get. Your hobby depends on it.

Same. The situation is oppressive, just can't walk by on the other side of the road.

sidney old chap -I often dont seem to agree with you ver often -but in this case you alone make this crystal clear,and thanks so much -at least to me .could you please(if able)tell me about the part of this cowboys&indians saga where the boys in blue attempted to detain lincoln under the ?auspices of the mental health act.
IIRC I did read about it at the time along with a lot of the other you hint at, but my memory sometimes gets overloaded.
the Justice Mallon judgement I did down load (all33pages of it)and i found her verbal arsekick of the blue brigade quite blunt and plain leaving all legal component in no doubt whatsoever as to where their roles lay.
Mind you Gundoc gave a performance even Rumpole of the Bailey would raise a glass of port to in salute ,and even more so given the crown couldnt rebbut!

Originally Posted by kotuku

sidney old chap -I often dont seem to agree with you ver often -but in this case you alone make this crystal clear,and thanks so much -at least to me .could you please(if able)tell me about the part of this cowboys&indians saga where the boys in blue attempted to detain lincoln under the ?auspices of the mental health act.
IIRC I did read about it at the time along with a lot of the other you hint at, but my memory sometimes gets overloaded.
the Justice Mallon judgement I did down load (all33pages of it)and i found her verbal arsekick of the blue brigade quite blunt and plain leaving all legal component in no doubt whatsoever as to where their roles lay.
Mind you Gundoc gave a performance even Rumpole of the Bailey would raise a glass of port to in salute ,and even more so given the crown couldnt rebbut!

What do you do when you realise that you have overplayed your hand, behaved unlawfully and need to discredit your potential accuser?

Allegations were made in the hearing of a lack of mental stability, but without any actual evidence being presented and was treated as such by the Judge.

Generally this stuff is considered corruption, but instead the disaffected are not allowed to proceed against the police because "he was using the law for revenge."

What?

Originally Posted by Sidney

What do you do when you realise that you have overplayed your hand, behaved unlawfully and need to discredit your potential accuser?

Allegations were made in the hearing of a lack of mental stability, but without any actual evidence being presented and was treated as such by the Judge.

Generally this stuff is considered corruption, but instead the disaffected are not allowed to proceed against the police because "he was using the law for revenge."

What?

if as you state then law were or are using"allegations "as fact is that not very dangerous and shifty ground to be dancing on?

Do any of the forum members know this guy personally and can vouch for him.
We all can "read" up on what happened but really for me to support him would need a few on here to back him.