Topic: Need more Evidence of our Criminal (two party) Regime?

The Crimes Act 1961 which is said to "Bind the Crown" (section 408) displays to us in part 10 Crimes against rights of property the legal definition of a crime resulting from the concealing of and/or the transferring of interests in property Section 243 Money Laundering (note the use of the term "without limitation") describes the process we have come to know as Privatisation almost to the letter.

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 June 2010), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Why would any Government commit an act which pre-existing legislation (said to Bind the Crown) defines as Criminal- like penning into creation new legislature/instruments (corporations) in which to conceal/transfer "OUR" interests in properties?

BECAUSE THEY CAN?- and you can't touch trust accounts(or can you?)

What point then in having a "Bind upon the Crown" and has the Crown therefore displayed that it cannot be bound by the Law of Contract?

Is that not like the Crown lacking Legal Capacity?

So come on you folk that trust law enforcement agencies shake your fkn mates up - the facts speak for themselves (more details available) while our Police are still busy chasing cars (which I managed to stop my dog doing)

In the absence of Honour- Do we actually NEED to adopt the Egyptian methodology of outing this (two party) regime?

The topic is serious!
I'll argee with you!

Originally Posted by polin

The topic is serious!
I'll argee with you!

In the absence of Honour- Do we actually NEED to adopt the Egyptian methodology of outing this (two party) regime?

What are you suggesting.?

Hi- Jich
I am suggesting we have a problem, which is that serious, that it really MUST be addressed

I am also suggesting that it is unlikely to be so addressed through conventional law enforcement or judicial practices- (we have a few years of evidence to support those suggestions)

I am unaware of any political party with the guts to ensure that the problems associated with this scale of theft are addressed according to "Rule of Law" and I am also unaware of any other form of conventional address which could be applied that has displayed its willingness or ability to function to protect either our interests in investments or "Rule of Law"- Therefore we need the "Unity of the People" (which was seen to be achieved in Egypt-) as Corruption should not be left unattended any more than other types of Criminal offending which effects all of us.

There are a variety of methods (that I am aware of) to address these problems peacefully without protesting to the offenders and their associates- but each would require the agreement of a significant proportion of the population

For example each of us uses Electricity- the Crimes Act defines Electricity as being property- OUR funding of facilitating structures either implies an interest or confers an interest.... we did not give that interest to corporations nor vote for a corporation to represent those interests (interests which jonkey would willingly relinquish, on, who's behalf?)

So- We could put new meaning in the term "Power to the People" by simply having the people pay their Power Bills into one bank account (unrelated to government or corporation) with clear intentions and "Open Accounting" (as a slightly different but assertive form of protest)- this would eliminate the GST factor from your bill because we could call the sum paid a "shareholders contribution" to maintenance of their Property or something similar that we can simply insist upon eliminating the GST factor from supplementing the "Criminal Regimes" notoriously overspent budget

Of course how the matter is addressed is not really my responsibility alone and there are others that are equally concerned?- I am not part of any group so I lack the ability to do more than share information where possible- The Media has clearly failed us on that

Note
I would not like to witness violence in New Zealand as the result of my actions or suggestions- I would however like to see the "family Jewels" restored to the family for the mutual (not selective) benefit- as was intended by the initiating investors- (those of honourable intent)... What better venue for Stability and Security within Unity?

There is merit in what you say, but as far as people power goes, it seems to me Kiwis are too laid back for their own good, as long as it's not affecting their life they don't care. Obviously life has been or is too easy for them.

Hi- Jich

Yes in older times it was called Apathy- but in all fairness to New Zealanders the Criminal activities were cleverly orchestrated so as to include such as Lawyers at the helm (G Palmer etc) and of course a Religious leader (P Reeves) just for a little more credibility because the Christian Bible states that the "laws that be- were ordained for God" or something similar so the (conditioned) trust people had for those institutions was enormous- (although clearly inappropriate)

On top of this the doors to this Nation were thrown wide open and a large portion of the "now" population would be unaware of the investments of previous generations of New Zealanders as they would only have known these instruments of laundering= Corporations

Interestingly enough those under 40 years of age would also have little knowledge of the truth relating to the source of investments transferred, either as their education would have mainly fallen in those years where confusion was the dominant factor (utilised by those instrumenting the Criminal activities- from positions of trust) Or for the same reasons as our new fellow countrymen

The more recent events relating to the laundering of Ratepayers investments in infrastructure were resultant from the Local government Act 2002 I believe and in Auckland alone this amounts to the transfer of something like $60 billion worth of assets to Corporations- the only significant telltale (unless you had your finger on the pulse) was that your rates demand now no longer tells you which loans you are paying off. The Corporations are now the (Legal?) owners of your investments although you will be told that

"Council Assets are under the Stewardship of the council and accountable to ratepayers and residents for those assets"

Which sounds credible (on the surface) but Councils are simply the peoples representatives- They were working on behalf of the people in their communities when investing the peoples monies- so the assets were never or should never have been considered the property of the council in the first place - to so transfer ownership to corporations-(rather like the chauffeur "OWNING" the family car while the family pays for it and any maintenance?) on a related note... were you aware that your local council is a corporation? Try charging them with an offense as a body of persons and the court will chuck it out stating that it is a body of one- I have a current private prosecution against the Auckland Regional Council that has found that "Tie" to the judiciary in the protection of these corporations/councils from Criminal proceedings

Remember to laugh when you hear somebody state that "no body is above the law"
and consider the part the Media has played in this "trick of hand" (orchestrated) Criminal activity- small wonder the enormity of remuneration in that sector.

My suggestion for Electricity could start with very few members- even laid back characters would enjoy not having to pay GST on "their" use of "their" property

There is no excuse for apathy. People can and do become 'wiser' as to the legal or illegal goings on but that's where they leave it.
It's all about accountability, a word that has become lost over time.

Apathy? I'm not sure that is the appropriate call.. Organised Crime of this magnitude requires a great deal of complicity... so it would be fair to presume that a great deal of time has been put into engineering opinion and probably shutting up real opposition

I can still remember that old chap that egged Douglas in the face (he will take that egg with him to the grave)- a real hero there...

Where do we sign up?

.

Originally Posted by Farkin

Apathy? I'm not sure that is the appropriate call.. Organised Crime of this magnitude requires a great deal of complicity... so it would be fair to presume that a great deal of time has been put into engineering opinion and probably shutting up real opposition

I can still remember that old chap that egged Douglas in the face (he will take that egg with him to the grave)- a real hero there...

Where do we sign up?

.

I was speaking overall.
Although I am not a fan of Roger Douglas and believe his reforms were too harsh and too much too soon with no 'strategy' in place to replace what he demolished, he did the country a favour by doing away with subsidies, I've been farming all my life and we didn't receive a subsidy of any kind, so why should a few get what others couldn't, it also sorted out the wheat from the chaff.
The Railways were a very poorly run state owned enterprise, as well as the wharfies being over paid and under worked.
No heroship in throwing eggs.

The Railways were a very poorly run state owned enterprise?

The incompetence of the Ministry charged with the responsibility of maintaining a "Public investment" should have been addressed then

It was not the Governments investment that was sold to Rogers mates it was the "Public's" investment-

That Rogers mates stripped it of assets (all those railway houses) before running it further into the ground so forcing (on the surface ) Central Government to purchase it back displays a level of corruption you seem to have missed Jich

If central government had pumped as much money into the railways before it was stripped (privately by Rogers mates) then the sale of extra assets such as railway houses could have helped fund the improvements instead of lining private pockets at the expense of the taxpayer

Where are you NZLaws I want to see those Assets returned to the investors too - Instead of paying out executive bonuses a reduction in the price of electricity sounds good to me- I have had a gut full of corrupt Government too..... Where do I sign up "Open Accounting" surely is needed

The next few generations will have very good grounds to be outraged when they inherit enormous debts with little or nothing to show for it - while Fay, and Richwhites, leave the top of those pyramid style monopoly games- with their takings for foreign shores... who gets the best subsidies really- the productive sector or the manipulative sector

Lets not guess- the facts do speak for themselves

The Railways were a very poorly run state owned enterprise?

If you question that, I question your ability to know the true situation. As far as pumping money into the Railways, it was a bottomless pit.

Lets not guess- the facts do speak for themselves

No guessing here, the facts are as I speak of them. As for subsidies, a well run, productive enterprise doesn't need subsidies.

Originally Posted by Jich

The Railways were a very poorly run state owned enterprise
If you question that, I question your ability to know the true situation.

Very well
Firstly it was not a SOE as you portray- hence the question mark- it was a “Ministry” the significant difference is that when OUR Investments were transferred (by roger and his lawless mates) to Corporations without OUR consent "Rights in Property" were transferred including but not limited to disposition - which is a major Constitutional change and a Criminal act defined as Money laundering.

Legal ownership of the assets which the Corporations utilize was transferred to these Businesses without them having to invest. The myth painted for twits that the assets are state owned is really not accurate- The corporation might just as well be seen to be owned by our elected representatives if those elected representatives can sell the assets without needing to consult the original investors in those properties at all- roger needs (another egging?) to be behind bars but not as a barman- (I would have thrown something a little smellier than an egg)

If the “MINISTRY” was poorly run or poorly funded- so that it "appeared" poorly run who other than elected representatives could possibly be held responsible?
We would reasonably EXPECT that elected representatives would attend to that- not do the "launder to mates" trick then buy it back (after it was more rundown and now stripped as well) to inject public funds that were clearly required prior to the criminal "game play" that you seem to turn a blind eye to- rather than being outraged

Clearly the only bottomless pit is the “public purse” that these criminals like to dip into while either bluffing folk like you or getting support for criminal activities from blokes like you that seem to be easily led by their representations rather than you observing the facts- hope that answers your question

[QUOTE][/Firstly it was not a SOE as you portray- hence the question mark- it was a “Ministry” the significant difference is that when OUR Investments were transferred (by roger and his lawless mates) to Corporations without OUR consent "Rights in Property" were transferred including but not limited to disposition - which is a major Constitutional change and a Criminal act defined as Money laundering.QUOTE]
You're being pedantic. A 'ministry' is run and paid for by the goverment.

NZRC is a statutory corporation pursuant to the New Zealand Railways Corporation Act 1981, and a state-owned enterprise

Clearly the only bottomless pit is the “public purse” that these criminals like to dip into while either bluffing folk like you or getting support for criminal activities from blokes like you that seem to be easily led by their representations rather than you observing the facts- hope that answers your question

Public purse, a bottomless pit, that I agree with. I've been around and done too much with my life to be easily led by anyone, especially MP's, corporates and the likes.

from blokes like you

People come down to personalities when they are losing the plot.

Hi- Again jich

You seem to be getting a little flustered (But colourful)-

[quote]

[/Firstly it was not a SOE as you portray- hence the question mark- it was a “Ministry” the significant difference is that when OUR Investments were transferred (by roger and his lawless mates) to Corporations without OUR consent "Rights in Property" were transferred including but not limited to disposition - which is a major Constitutional change and a Criminal act defined as Money laundering.QUOTE]
You're being pedantic. A 'ministry' is run and paid for by the government.

You are being naive- a Ministry is funded by the public as is the Government - Each presumed to be serving in positions of trust to the public- [TO THOSE THAT FUND SUCH POSITIONS OF TRUST AND ELECT INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE IN POSITIONS OF TRUST]

The significant difference (that I see between the two) is that a Ministry is not necessarily there as a business while a corporation/enterprise is a Business Identity (Rather like the difference between a Home and a boarding house)

As I see it - It matters little how many individual pieces of legislation are created to instrument a criminal Act - what is a bother is the credibility of the "Bind upon the Crown" which would suggest that legislation would not be instrumented that can be seen to be Criminal when consideration is made for the Clear wording of pre-existing (apparently not so)Binding Legislation- Instrumented I might add without a mandate from the Investors and without genuine or informed consent [note "Hobson's Choice" does not qualify as consent]

Infrastructure funded by the People should be Owned by the People for the people. not minorities that assume an interest- [SO AS TO MILK THE WHOLE HERD]

from blokes like you
People come down to personalities when they are losing the plot.

My remark was not intended as an insult- it seems to me that you are rather trusting of representations
For example SOEs are not really SOEs-> if elected representatives can sell infrastructure paid for by the public (reliant on that investment) without the informed consent of those investors then clearly we are now electing people to "OWN" our investments rather than administrate those investments-

Disposition- as in the Right to sell- is a right of Ownership.... lets play "guess which party transferred Disposition to a very small minority of people that were not previously serving in positions of ownership" [and were not elected into those positions by a majority of the investors- perhaps only a majority of those that vote]--- Big question there is "Who in their Right Mind would elect somebody to Own ones Investments" is there a presumption that the public are impaired, lack Legal Capacity? -These scoundrels insult our intelligence

So- two other potential ways of looking at the Criminal Activity
1/ Use of document/legislation for pecuniary advantage
2/ False statement/representations by SOE promoters
Maybe three?
3/ Criminal breach of trust

Don't take my comments personally jich you may not like the truth I am trying to paint with words- but look closer I might be on your side- I am clearly not supporting scoundrels that insult our intelligence- while stripping our investments though- I am not quite sure that it is "I" that has "lost the plot"- perhaps you might like to consider aiming that comment at our arrogant (two party) Criminal Regime.

roger Douglas did deserve more than an egg- our friendly egg thrower showed enormous restraint- I reckon throwing the book at roger and his associates- is still worthy of consideration.

.

Originally Posted by polin

The topic is serious!
I'll argee with you!

Regarding Lost Plot's

Answers.com - What is the meaning of honour
What is the meaning of honour?


Honour

While there are many meanings attributed to this "Word"- the following is possibly the least common meaning (which should be the most significant because it) applies to us all and is clearly the "Right" of any reasonable or "Right" minded person.

ADHERANCE TO WHAT IS "RIGHT" OR TO A CONVENTIONAL STANDARD OF CONDUCT

We have Laws which are our duty (to our ourselves, peers and descendants) to Fulfill- including issues of public safety- when an individual/group does not "Honour" the "Codes of practice"?- then it becomes a matter of "Honour" that "Law enforcement" is not apathetic and true to maintaining the (Honourable?)intention in the wordings of the Laws- Because the creation of laws is normally performed by Elected Representatives (the law makers) serving in positions of "Trust" [trust that they conduct their duties with "Adherence" to that which is "Right" or to a "conventional standard of conduct"] Ensuring there is no room for presumption that (the Laws could as easily have been written on tissues) the Laws are Less than of Honourable Intent- So Honouring the Word- So Honouring the Dictionaries possible relationship to the accuracy of the interpretation of the word -

Honour is therefore both a matter of a "duty in common", and an "anticipated standard of behavior/conduct"... Note- Ignorance of the Law is not a defense for any Crime committed

Cheers

Hi- Farkin
The Laundering does not just apply (to the relationship of Stewardship) to the public's investments in this Nations Geographically strategic Infrastructure formally administrated by Ministries- it also applies to the "Stewardship" of investments by Ratepayers in Regionally strategic Infrastructure.

Somehow (haha) when the Councils became Corporations themselves- the Ratepayers investments which were previously under the Stewardship of the councils became the property of the "Corporations" as in "OWNERSHIP" which is an entirely different legal relationship- as confirmed by the Minister for Local Government.
Makes you wonder why we bother to consider New Zealand as resembling a democracy- unless you consider a democracy as resembling- Six Cats and a Canary voting upon what to have for dinner.

"Rule of Law" only sounds good but without accountability or honour- (as seen in New Zealand) "Rule of law" simply does not apply- we really have an interesting situation that might resemble Pandora's box if addressed- which is an unlikely election option (DEMOCRACY?) from any of those bunches of thieves.... (piggies at the trough)

I liked that wiki reference but it makes one wonder if we could perhaps get the oxford dictionary changed so that Steward "A person employed to "manage" another's property" can be changed to become "A person employed to "OWN" another's property" we could then pretend that "Organised Crime" is not the kiwi way

I wonder if Mr g palmer knew anything about the English Language before professing to be an authority on "constitutional law" or if he still confuses "unbridled power" with serious Crime.... at least David Lange was honest with his qualifications- he was a "Criminal" Lawyer.
.