To compromise between right and wrong is to choose wrong.
To compromise between just and unjust is to choose injustice.
All posts by reed
It takes two to tango
I was speaking with a professional mediator/arbitrator tonight and he threw this supposedly wise saying into the conversation.
It takes two to tango.
The meaning of the saying is that whenever there is a dispute both parties are at least partly at fault. The saying is false. It is possible for one party to be entirely in the right but he has ruled out this possibility beforehand.
Where to find people who will judge righteously?
Treaty of Waitangi – sleight of hand
The Treaty of Waitangi is a contract signed between two parties – Maori Chiefs and Queen Victoria’s representative.
The contract was intended to bind Queen Victoria and her successors and to bind Maori Chiefs and their successors.
If Maori leaders believe that there has been any breach of the Waitangi contract then they should seek compensation from Queen Elizabeth. If any injustice has been committed by the New Zealand government she is responsible. Her representative, the Governor General, is the overseer of the government and she ultimately has the authority and a duty to ensure the New Zealand government does not act unjustly.
Currently Maori leaders effectively seek compensation from the New Zealand taxpayers.
District councils – Who are you?
I thought it might be important for dealing with the Rotorua District Council to find out precisely what the Council is… so I asked. It took a few weeks to get a considered response.
Dear Reed
My email below refers. Kathy confirmed that Council is a territorial authority. Below, please find an explanation.
Territorial authorities of New Zealand
Territorial authorities are the second tier of local government in New Zealand, below regional councils. There are 67 territorial authorities: 13 city councils, 53 district councils, and the Chatham Islands Council. Six territorial authorities (Auckland Council, Nelson City Council, Gisborne, Tasman, and Marlborough District Councils and the Chatham Islands Council) also perform the functions of a regional council and thus are known as unitary authorities. Territorial authority districts are not subdivisions of regions, and some of them fall within more than one region. Taupo District has the distinction of straddling the boundaries of four different regions (see below). Regional council areas are based on water catchment areas, whereas territorial authorities are based on community of interest and road access. Regional councils are responsible for the administration of many environmental and public transport matters, while the territorial authorities administer local roading and reserves, sewerage, building consents, the land use and subdivision aspects of resource management, and other local matters. Some activities are delegated to council-controlled organisations.I trust the above information answers your question.
Thanks
**** ******
Policy Planner
Their considered response was the same as their unconsidered response – which I’d already explained couldn’t be correct. Try again…
Thanks for that but it doesn’t answer the question I asked.
The Local Government Act 2002 states: –
territorial authority means a city council or a district council named in Part 2 of Schedule 2The Rotorua District Council must have existed prior to the existence of territorial authorities.
Territorial Authority is a title/role that has been given to the Council. This doesn’t tell me what type of organisation the Council is.The type of organisation that the Council is should be defined by its establishment.
When was the Council established and which Act was it established under?Cheers
Reed Robinson
And their response…
Hi Reed
I will investigate further and get back to you.
Regards
**** ******
Policy Planner
Sent today…
Hi ***
Can you please investigate these related questions at the same time.
1. Do the Rotorua District Council and Council employees have a fiduciary duty to Rotorua property owners?
2. If not, what duty do the Rotorua District Council and Council employees have to Rotorua property owners?I asked these questions in June 2011 and the following is a summary of Council’s response at the time…
I re-asked these questions in July 2011 and Council has not responded.
Cheers
Reed Robinson
I’ll post Council’s responses if I get any.
** Related blogpost from 2011 – Something stinks in Rotorua.
Arthur Allan Thomas should not have received government compensation
I’ve been thinking about the Bain case and whether David should receive government compensation or not and I had to conclude that even Arthur Allan Thomas (why all three names?) should not have received any government compensation.
Arthur lost ten (ish) years of his life, his loss was an injustice and the compensation he received was less than the damage he suffered – still, he should not have received any government compensation because he wasn’t wronged by the government. And the public, the owners of government money, are not responsible for the injustice that happened to Arthur.
The people responsible for Arthur’s unjust loss were the individuals that planted the evidence against him. Compensation should come have from them and they should go to prison for the same length of time that they intended for Arthur Allan Thomas.
Deuteronomy 19:15-21
A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother.
Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(This principle of equal punishment for false witnesses is sorely lacking from our justice system where even the police are willing to make stuff up to get the result they want.)
Regarding David Bain I’m still questioning whether he should be compensated; and if so, who should pay his compensation? Was he wronged by someone?
My report on Fisher’s Report on Binnie’s Report on the David Bain case
Judith Collins would have you believe that clever lawyers, like herself and Fisher, can see fundamental flaws in the Binnie Report.
From what I’ve read so far Fisher doesn’t demonstrate any flaws other than his own.
Here’s Fisher’s explanation of one alleged flaw and an example of the alleged flaw…
84. Differently expressed, there is an assumption throughout the Binnie Report that an item of evidence should be disregarded entirely unless it is established that on the balance of probabilities, that item of evidence would be incriminating in itself. That is the ultimate effect of his approach. No room is allowed for the possibility that something which is consistent with innocence in isolation might nevertheless increase the odds in favour of guilt.
85. Take David’s fingerprints in blood on the rifle. It is common ground that whoever he was, the murderer was engaged in a struggle with Stephen, that much blood was spilt, that some of that blood is likely to have finished up on the murderer, and that the murders were carried out with a particular rifle. Most people would think that in those circumstances evidence that David’s fingerprints were found in unidentified blood on the very rifle in question would increase the odds that David was the culprit. Yet Binnie J dismissed that item from further consideration. His explanation for his dismissal is that “[o]n a balance of probabilities I conclude that the prints are not in human blood and that David Bain is entitled to succeed on this issue as well”
And here are relevant excerpts from the Binne Report…
293. Dr Geursen, the defence expert, tested part of the blood sample obtained by Dr Harbison’s laboratory and concluded that “the only reasonable explanation is that the DNA extracted from the fingerprint on the rifle is not of human origin.” The Crown says Dr Geursen was inadvertently provided with contaminated material and therefore his tests were not valid.
…
299. The 2009 jury eventually heard all the evidence, as envisaged by the Privy Council, including cross‐examinations. An acquittal followed. I agree with the Court of Appeal’s observation that David Bain’s fingerprints – if they had been shown to be in human blood – would have been highly probative of David’s guilt. However, the DNA testing is inconsistent with that conclusion.
…
302. I find it inexplicable that the defence expert Dr Geursen was provided with a contaminated sample on which to do his work. We will never know what Dr Geursen’s test would have shown had he received an uncontaminated sample.
303. The evidence of Dr Harbison and the Victoria Forensic Science Centre is the best we have. Despite its frailties, Dr Harbison’s work in particular, holds that no human DNA was detected in the actual fingerprint blood. The fact her second test was compromised is not David Bain’s fault. I must rely on the best evidence I have. On a balance of probabilities, I conclude that the prints are not in human blood and that David Bain is entitled to succeed on this issue as well.
How stupid is Fisher?
Binnie had to decide what this gun blood print evidence actually is “on a balance of probabilities” because according to the Crown’s own testimony this evidence was handled incompetently by the Crown.
Furthermore, Binnie’s argument is very different from Fisher’s claim that “there is an assumption throughout the Binnie Report that an item of evidence should be disregarded entirely unless it is established that on the balance of probabilities, that item of evidence would be incriminating in itself.”
I think you will find the fundamental flaws are in Fisher’s formulations – elaborately knitted together like a bad Bain Jersey.
But don’t take my word for it. Read the reports. Binnie’s report is well written, it’s long (193 pages) but it’s straight forward. Fisher’s report is also long (80 pages) but it is not straight forward – you will need to check the context of his quotations.
My challenge for you, the reader, is to find one serious flaw that Fisher identifies in Binnie’s Report.
Rotorua District Council is Stealing Land (Update)
Update to: Rotorua District Council is Stealing Land
I did decide to do some investigation… I’ve spent a couple of hours on the phone with Council staff but I still haven’t figured out precisely how Council intends to take away existing property rights from land owners. My questions probably seemed stupid to Council staff but everyone I spoke with was pleasant and helpful.
I figured out enough to put a question in writing so, I sent this email on Monday…
Hello
I have spoken with several Council representatives concerning the Proposed District Plan – in particular I have been enquiring about the proposed rural road designations.
Most recently I was advised by Council that the statutory authority being relied upon was the RMA (sections 166 to 186) and that Council will be seeking the designations in its capacity as a network utility operator under the Act.
This explanation doesn’t make sense and it contradicts an earlier explanation I was given by Council. The earlier explanation I was given was that Council was seeking to correct rural road (or road reserve) widths; that Council considered some roads too narrow and was seeking to widen roads (or road reserves) from 15m to 20m as part of the District Plan.
Can you please clarify the following points…
1. Is the Council proposing these designations in its capacity as a local authority or in its capacity as a network utility operator?
2. For what purpose is the Council proposing these designations?
3. What statutory authority is the Council relying on to propose these designations?Regards
Reed Robinson
At this point I am trying to establish if there is an unjust law that allows Council to take away land owners rights or whether the Council is acting illegally.
As I understand the law (corrections welcome), for the Council’s (or any government agent’s) actions to be legal they must :-
1. have a law (statutory authority) that explicitly enables the action; and,
2. act according to the intention of the law.
I suspect there is no law that is intended to allow councils to widen road reserves in this manner. If my suspicion is correct (that the Council is acting illegally) then Council recognising the illegality should be sufficient to stop the Council from proceeding.
Justice for false witnesses
Deuteronomy 19:15-21
A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother.
Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.
Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
State rapes former Barnardos counsellor
My friend Johan’s story is on stuff today – well a small part of his story.
There are a few bits I’d like to comment on…
A former Barnardos counsellor is trying to sue police and Child, Youth and Family for defamation after they contacted his employer about unproven allegations that he touched some girls he was counselling.
Johan Aarts, 46, of Rotorua, says his career was destroyed when Barnardos was told of the allegations in 2006.
He has been fighting to clear his name ever since.
But Aarts suffered a setback in his attempt to sue the Crown departments last week, when a High Court judge in Rotorua granted a temporary stay of proceedings, mainly on the grounds that the case was still before the Employment Court.
Hmm… it’ll be interesting to see if any charges result from that last paragraph.
Aarts has gone public with his story because he wants to send a warning to other men in counselling and teaching positions that police or CYF will contact employers even when investigations have found no evidence of inappropriate behaviour.
In 2006, two sisters, aged 12 and 13, alleged that Aarts had touched their legs, put his hand in one’s lap, cuddled them and put his head against theirs during domestic violence counselling sessions two years earlier.
It’s not clear if the children actually made these allegations – in fact the evidence that’s been released so far indicates that the Police and CYF made up these allegations after Barnardos decided to keep Johan on as an employee. One CYF document states “the children did not disclose any inappropriate behaviour”.
Aarts denied this, saying the only touching was the occasional pat of encouragement on the shoulder. CYF called police, who conducted an investigation.
In June 2006, Detective Matt McLeod wrote to Barnardos to say that, while there were “no disclosures from the girls in respect to criminal offences”, the girls had felt uncomfortable and scared.
He said police considered Aarts’ actions to be “very inappropriate” and he had warned Aarts that he needed to be careful about placing himself in situations where such allegations could be made.
Documents obtained under the Official Information Act by Aarts and his supporters show that CYF staff originally referred to Aarts as “the perpetrator” and the incidents as “substantiated sexual abuse”, until police advised that the alleged incidents did not amount to such. One internal document said: “It may be that he has not committed any crimes yet, but his behaviour has all the hallmarks of grooming and without a conviction and without advising any professional body, he could easily get a job elsewhere as a counsellor”.
CYF wrote to Barnardos, which it funds, reminding it of its responsibilities to protect children and asking what action it planned to take.
CYF said in the letter: “You will be aware that the police do not consider that Mr Aarts’ behaviour constitutes a criminal act, however this does not reduce the level of concern that CYF has.”
A Barnardos regional manager wrote back to say that Aarts had had regular supervision, no concerns had been raised about him previously and “like the police report, we were unable to prove any inappropriate behaviour took place. Johan continues to deny he has done, or would ever do, anything wrong”.
However, Barnardos no longer had confidence in “Johan’s professional boundaries” and his continued employment “could put children at risk”. Aarts was then sacked.
It was only after CYF threatened Barnardos’ funding reminded Barnardos of their responsibilities that Barnardos lost confidence in Johan.
Aarts took a case for unjustified dismissal to the Employment Relations Authority last year, but it was ruled that it was lodged too late. He appealed to the Employment Court, which will rule in March.
It took a long time to figure out what happened and there’s still more to figure out. State employees have been obstructive the whole way.
Obstruct… obstruct… obstruct… obstruct… obstruct… sorry you are out of time.
His defamation action also comes out of time, and he has asked the High Court for leave for it to be heard.
Crown lawyer Antoinette Russell said in submissions that if leave was granted, a qualified privilege defence would be run, which afforded protection to a person acting in good faith and without improper motive making a defamatory statement.
“There is a clear public interest in New Zealand police freely and frankly communicating with the employer of a counsellor who was alleged to have acted inappropriately towards children . . . and in CYF ensuring the bodies it funds . . . are meeting service standards.”
The Crown lawyer is arguing that what the Police say to your employer about you is “privileged” i.e. it should be kept secret from you. What the Crown Lawyer is arguing would deny people the opportunity to defend any accusations that the Police (or any state employee) made to an employer. Disgusting.
Aarts has been fighting for the release of the videotaped interviews with the children, because he believes they will show that the police did not provide an accurate account of what was said. Police have refused to release the tapes on privacy grounds.
The privacy grounds is BS. At one point Police National Head Quarters ruled that Johan could view the interviews then the Police District Commander prevented the viewing from happening. Now everybody is trying to prevent the viewing.
“Why is it that the police can contact my employer, make damaging statements about me, causing me to get sacked, but they don’t have to provide any evidence?”
When is suppressing speech justified?
The only decent justification for suppression of speech that I can think of is self defense (or similar) e.g. speech that would reveal the location of a protected witness should be suppressed.
I guess there is also preventing fraud or public pornography which might be considered suppressing speech but that’s not what I’m aiming to discuss.
What I am wanting to discuss is that in New Zealand the courts and judges regularly suppress speech and make it a punishable offense to discuss cases. This seems grossly unjust.
For the most part, it is unjust for the courts or judges to suppress speech. (I can think of some examples of unjust suppression but I’m not free to share them.)