It’s not clear whether the Crown Law Office want the blog post taken down or whether they just intend to use its existence to try and deprive Johan (the former Barnardos’ counsellor) of his relentless advocate. I won’t explain more because an explanation might breach a suppression order (I think sometimes suppression orders are deliberately vague and not made in good faith).
I think it’s fitting to pay tribute to Johan’s relentless advocate Robert Lee who has spent thousands of hours at his own expense fighting for justice for Johan…
A message to those at the Crown Law Office –
You serve the Crown (the Queen) and she took an oath to cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all her judgements
Presumably you all took an oath similar to the following…
“I, [name], swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of []; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.”
To truly serve the Crown and do your duty you need to betray your colleagues that defy the Law and cause injustice.
Six notable authors, have just published a challenging new book about the way the Treaty of Waitangi has been twisted to be greatly in favour of Maori tribes in the last 30 years. These twistings include the rewriting o…f our history by political “historians”, the never-ending so called Treaty claim process, and privatising and giving away our foreshore and seabed, as well as our native flora and fauna, and the rorts that apply to our sea fishery.
If you are interested in these matters, then this book, “Twi$ting the Treaty – A tribal Grab for Wealth and Power” provides readily readable discussion on these topics. The Cover below.
Warning – the book is factual and is non-PC, one of its charms in my view.
The book is available at a retail cost of $40. It has 414 pages and 16 photo pages.
But with 16 self-contained chapters it does not have to be read all at once.
Where to obtain it:
1 Good bookstores throughout NZ or
2 Write to Tross Publishing, P O Box 22 143, Khandallah, Wellington, 6441 with your order and cheque
3 Also see our website, www.trosspublishing.co.nz for info and to order.
Enjoy your reading.
^^^^ Hat Tip: Tom Henry via Facebook.
Libertarians Tim Wikiriwhi and Guest Peter Cresswell On the New Freeland Radio Show.
Great to see Ex Libertarianz Party Leader Peter Cresswell listed as a Co Author of Twisting the Treaty!
Watch Here @ Eternal Vigilance for further commentary on this Book.
There is a bit of a back story which bidders need to know…
This fence was put up unlawfully on my Aunt’s cross-lease property by the other cross lease owner. He was told not to put up the fence, he knew he had no right to put the fence up and he knew it would make life difficult for my Aunt. My Aunt is 75 and has deteriorating mobility and health.
The fence is blocking my aunt’s access to her front door. The fence has to go and the co-owner won’t take it down.
I’ve checked with the Police and they are not interested in helping my Aunt nor are they interested in hindering the removal of the fence.
I’ve checked with a lawyer and they said it was fine to remove the fence – proceeds of this auction will go to the person who put the fence up.
If you buy this fence you really will be helping out someone in need.
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.
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.
This is happening in a Nation with heavy gun Laws, and bans firearms, esp hand guns for the purposes of self defense.
Don’t kid yourself that Gun controls protect woman.
Woman are Easy pickings in this country.
They are disempowered by Draconian laws and left exposed to predation by violent male offenders.
Don’t kid yourself that Gun control advocates care about the safety of woman more than those whom advocate Gun rights!
The reality is Gun controls greatly benefit violent criminals, not Law abiding citizens.
Mass killings are not demonstrative of lax Gun laws, but Gun restrictions.
They occur in places where guns are banned, and are perpetrated against groups of unarmed people.
The few Crazy people whom attempt mass murder in places where Gun rights are strongest are quickly halted in their tacks by individuals who carry the means of defending themselves.
Those are the facts.
And they contradict the poor logic, fanaticism, and Machiavellian opportunism of Gun control advocates whom use such atrocities as school shootings to lobby to remove against the rights to bear arms.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Judge Napolitano: The Right to shoot Tyrants, not Deer.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and a hallmark of personal sovereignty. It is specifically insulated from governmental interference by the Constitution and has historically been the linchpin of resistance to tyranny. Yet the progressives in both political parties stand ready to use the coercive power of the government to interfere with the exercise of that right by law-abiding persons because of the gross abuse of that right by some crazies in our midst.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, he was marrying the nation at its birth to the ancient principles of the natural law that have animated the Judeo-Christian tradition in the West. Those principles have operated as a brake on all governments that recognize them by enunciating the concept of natural rights.
As we have been created in the image and likeness of God the Father, we are perfectly free just as He is. Thus, the natural law teaches that our freedoms are pre-political and come from our humanity and not from the government. As our humanity is ultimately divine in origin, the government, even by majority vote, cannot morally take natural rights away from us. A natural right is an area of individual human behavior — like thought, speech, worship, travel, self-defense, privacy, ownership and use of property, consensual personal intimacy — immune from government interference and for the exercise of which we don’t need the government’s permission.
The essence of humanity is freedom. Government — whether voted in peacefully or thrust upon us by force — is essentially the negation of freedom. Throughout the history of the world, people have achieved freedom when those in power have begrudgingly given it up. From the assassination of Julius Caesar to King John’s forced signing of the Magna Carta, from the English Civil War to the triumph of the allies at the end of World War II, from the fall of communism to the Arab Spring, governments have permitted so-called nobles and everyday folk to exercise more personal freedom as a result of their demands for it and their fighting for it. This constitutes power permitting liberty.
The American experience was the opposite. Here, each human being is sovereign, as the colonists were after the Revolution. Here, the delegation to the government of some sovereignty — the personal dominion over self — by each American permitted the government to have limited power in order to safeguard the liberties we retained. Stated differently, Americans gave up some limited personal freedom to the new government so it could have the authority and resources to protect the freedoms we retained. Individuals are sovereign in America, not the government. This constitutes liberty permitting power.
Yet we did not give up any natural rights; rather, we retained them. It is the choice of every individual whether to give them up. Neither our neighbors nor the government can make those choices for us, because we are all without the moral or legal authority to interfere with anyone else’s natural rights. Since the government derives all of its powers from the consent of the governed, and since we each lack the power to interfere with the natural rights of another, how could the government lawfully have that power? It doesn’t. Were this not so, our rights would not be natural; they would be subject to the government’s whims.
To assure that no government would infringe the natural rights of anyone here, the Founders incorporated Jefferson’s thesis underlying the Declaration into the Constitution and, with respect to self-defense, into the Second Amendment. As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court recognized this when it held that the right to keep and bear arms in one’s home is a pre-political individual right that only sovereign Americans can surrender and that the government cannot take from us, absent our individual waiver.
There have been practical historical reasons for the near universal historical acceptance of the individual possession of this right. The dictators and monsters of the 20th century — from Stalin to Hitler, from Castro to Pol Pot, from Mao to Assad — have disarmed their people. Only because some of those people resisted the disarming were all eventually enabled to fight the dictators for freedom. Sometimes they lost. Sometimes they won.
The principal reason the colonists won the American Revolution is that they possessed weapons equivalent in power and precision to those of the British government. If the colonists had been limited to crossbows that they had registered with the king’s government in London, while the British troops used gunpowder when they fought us here, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have been captured and hanged.
We also defeated the king’s soldiers because they didn’t know who among us was armed, because there was no requirement of a permission slip from the government in order to exercise the right to self-defense. (Imagine the howls of protest if permission were required as a precondition to exercising the freedom of speech.) Today, the limitations on the power and precision of the guns we can lawfully own not only violate our natural right to self-defense and our personal sovereignties, they assure that a tyrant can more easily disarm and overcome us.
The historical reality of the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer. It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us. If the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto had had the firepower and ammunition that the Nazis had, some of Poland might have stayed free and more persons would have survived the Holocaust.
Most people in government reject natural rights and personal sovereignty. Most people in government believe that the exercise of everyone’s rights is subject to the will of those in the government. Most people in government believe that they can write any law and regulate any behavior, not subject to the natural law, not subject to the sovereignty of individuals, not cognizant of history’s tyrants, but subject only to what they can get away with.
Did you empower the government to impair the freedom of us all because of the mania and terror of a few?
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/10/the-right-to-shoot-tyrants-not-deer/#ixzz2JWu8eli4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
NZHerald letter-to-the-editor 31/1/13 posted to the facebook page ‘Constitutional Reveiw’ for discussion.
My reply….
This letter displays many ‘all too common’ errors in that it starts off quite well, yet by the time it finishes, it has undone itself.
By this I mean that the writer is correct when they say that a constitution which embodies the false (separatist) treaty principles would exacerbate our already intolerable system of inequality, yet the writer fails to appreciate that the “Government interventions via regulation” as the solution to inequality… is in fact a continuation of the status quo!… ie these interventions and regulations are fundamentally the politics of favoritism, and oppression!
The purpose of a constitution is not to empower the state or parliament to pass any legislation it deems advantageous to achieving it’s political agenda, but to limit the powers of parliament to upholding the Principles of justice while protecting individuals and minorities from Mob rule, and arbitrary power.
Lady Justice is blind to Race, Creed, sex, Wealth, etc.
She holds the balances which are true. Ie the fulcrum is so positioned as not to flavor anyone.
These are principles of justise and they determine what it means to be governed by the rule of Law as opposed to the rule of whim.
Governments which write laws in contravention of these principles are establishing injustice!
A proper Constitution forbids the generation such unjust legislation.
So many people have been duped by years of socialist democracy into mistaking the mandate of the majority as being the rule of Law.
It is no such thing. Without constitutional restraints which embody universal principles of justice (such as equality before the Law), the mandate of the majority is purely arbitrary and oboundless…. only dependent upon the whims of the biggest Mob.
It is surprising to me that so many people whom are actively attempting to End treaty separatism fail to understand that we got into the current Apartheid mess because of the unchecked mandate of the majority… not because of the treaty.
It was not the minority of Maori radicals whom created the current apartheid state, but the Predominantly/ majority Pakeha parties…. Full of socialists whom believe all the anti-western, and anti-capitalist doctrines of intervention and indigenous rights.
Having swallowed all the anti-British colonization Myths and doctrines which teach Maori suffered a holocaust at the hands of invaders and were cheated and dispossessed of their lands in violation of the treaty… They began to dance to the Beat of the Maori Radicals.
Being free to simply Ignore the principles of Equality before the Law, It was the Majority parties, National and Labour whom perpetuated the lies of the treaty principles which sever our Nation racially in twain… all in the face of the fact that the treaty granted all the peoples of New Zealand equal rights as Brittish subjects, and that Hobson declared to each chief upon signing the treaty “He Iwi’ Tahi Tatou”… “We are now one people”.
This institutionalized racism demonstrates the evils of not having an ironclad constitution which would nullify any and all laws which are unequal … even if it is the will the majority to create them!
It was New Zealand shamefully childlike refusal to cut the final cords from Mother England and establish ourselves as a republic, in spite of the fact that England had granted us self government many generations ago!
Foolishly many believed remaining in the commonwealth was a form of protection, when in reality it left us exposed to popular Machiavellianism.
It’s true to say that the separate electorol rolls have proved the evils of Racist institutions… though like their modern ‘closing the gaps’ counterparts were created by ‘socialists’ seeking to improve justice, yet ultimately it was the ‘liberty’ to ‘wheel and deal’… which allowed the Majority to pander to the separatists whom held the ballance of power.
Yet so many whom oppose the treaty graveytrain which resulted, actually fear shacking parliament… you hear them talk of ‘activist judges’. Yet Activist judges are a consequence of the status quo. ie of not having clearly defined principles enshrined in a constitution.
Those whom propagate such fears are slippery devils whom covet political power and dont want limits set for parliamentary power and the gullible and fearful believe their ruse..
I could go on to talk about why the separatists are now busy seeking to dominate all discussions about forming a New Constitution, yet I will leave that for another time.
It is suffice to say that the majority of people involved in this constitutional review… on both sides of the treaty debate, don’t understand what the Rule of Law really is, or how to differentiate it from social arbitrary power.
I support those people whom have actively spoken out about the injustice of Waitangi racism, yet there has been no real discussion of any caliber in the public arena, in respect to what is necessary to remedy it, or what a Constitution needs to embody to function as a defense against unjust law and Government power.
I mean no offence. This issue is far too important for pettiness. I offer my services to the people of New Zealand to see that this most vital of subjects get proper debate and the real issues are presented to the public mind.
The Treaty of Waitangi is a contract signed between two parties – Maori Chiefs and Queen Victoria’s representative.
