Topic: Auckland Ratepayers Investments being Laundered?

Crimes of deceit by groups serving in positions of trust have been part of our Culture in New Zealand now since 1984 but The recent example in progress is the investment/interests of several generations of ratepayers

Until recently the ratepayers had rights associated with their investments such as a democratic? vote to choose who administrates their investments and the type of administration-

As these councils were elected to serve in positions of trust it probably wouldn't occur to the ratepayers that the council now "Owns" or has been made to be seen to "Own" The various assets accrued that supply water, dispose of sewage etc

To transfer interests in property one must normally either "Own" the properties or have the consent of the Owners/investors in those Properties

In most cases relating to the Auckland region the properties are being transferring to Businesses- The Ratepayer/investors in the properties are to become Customers (big drop?) and there is no Vote for those that were investors/ratepayers

The Crimes Act 1961 Section 243 money laundering outlines that there is a variety of tangible or intangible interests in property that if concealed or transferred- is an action considered as being a serious Criminal Offense -

One would anticipate that as that act was binding upon the Crown as per section 408 of the Crimes Act 1961-that later legislation such as the Local Government Act would protect the interests of the investors in property rather than being able to be used as an instrument to conceal ratepayer/investors interests with the intention of transferring those interests

In considering the Criminal Activity afoot we need to ask two questions in relationship to the investors interests

1/Did the Ratepayers/investors that paid off loans in relationship to
construction of or improvements to various investment properties have an
interest in those properties/investments - rather than just their elected
representatives
2/Have those interests been concealed or transferred as the result of a
Crime of Deceit by individuals serving in positions of trust or by any other
instrument

Its one thing to point this legal issue out but the costs in pursuing legal redress makes it out of any one individuals means- How very fortunate for Organized Crime (NZ)
Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 08 December 2009), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation - DLM330289

Having Communicated the above concerns to the Auckland Transition Authority ... I have been assured by a legal adviser to that Authority that the Ratepayers have NO Interest in their/these investments

How do you feel about that little gem Ratepayers?

I don't feel strongly one way or the other regarding the super city and the passing over of assets to the super city.

I do see your point regarding the legality of it. So your point is that each council should have taken a vote of its residents whether or not to join the super city?

Does our vote for the mayor/councillors give them the right to vote for us on such matters?

I have issues with the speed with which the supercity is going ahead and the lack of planning involved. My view comes purely from my husband is involved with a water company that is being merged into Watercare with the rest. And I see things happening and while they appear to be planning - there seem to be serious holes in their planning.

But firstly WTF is it doing being merged into watercare? They have seperated Telecoms, and seperated electricity, and here they are doing the opposite with water? Its not even like Watercare was setup for billing at all - let alone on the scale that they need to be, or has any inhouse expertise at anything past what they do.

It done now and its all being set up, but it is just one of the things that just doesn't make sense.

I worry about services our Manukau coucil provides that are specifically designed for the lower socio-economic climate of Manukau - such as free swimming pool entry - giving those families something fun and good for them to do with their families, the dedication they have to removing grafetti as soon as it appears, I have seen an area which this is dealt to swiftly and the fence has stopped being tagged, the community gyms allowing more people access to gear to help their fitness - they aren't free but cost something like $600 a year.

But I suppose we shall just have to wait and see what will happen.

I would have thought more people would be concerned especially now that a couple of former Ministers of Justice have recently "exposed themselves in public"

as individuals that are not above making false or misleading statements while similarly displaying a lack of concern (other than grab) for others investments

I think that greedy/shady characters will always have their eyes on others property or investments but here is an interesting truth that allows us all to see through the lies that become encrusted in our constitution so that some can draw pecuniary advantage at the expense of all..

Any Interests in the Properties of concern are resultant from public and/or Ratepayers Investiture- How those Interests are Promulgated or Regarded by Individuals or groups of Individuals “Serving in positions of Trust” to those Investors in Properties- is a matter of Honour (as is Adherence to Rule of Law rather than manipulation of same)

From this we can draw the obvious conclusion that Privatisation was/is a new name given to Money Laundering as per (and almost word for word) The Crimes Act 1961 section 243
As this act is stated as binding upon the Crown (s408) - we can presume this to mean that the Crown? or perhaps just those sleezy political representatives are full of ____ because that bind appears to mean Constipate?