You are much more up with the play than I am.

What about this Judge?;

Judge Jan Walker is still sitting on a case involving an Orewa pensioner Margaret Taylor taking a civil claim against David Cunliffe, Helen Clark, the Police and the Labour Party. (NZ Truth Magazine 20/09/07 & 06/09/07)

There couldn’t be a clearer case of bias than this case and she wont step down and Chief District Court Judge Russel Johnson(left too??) supports her.
Judge Walker is a life long Labour loyalist, an unsuccessful Labour candidate,a Labour Party office holder and rumour has it according to ‘Truth” a lesbian or well known member of the “dykocracy”.

So, you have the Govt, the law, the right Judge and how can the poor constable refuse to act.

The suggestion that the bill lowers the threshold at which search warrants may issue for illegal practices below that which applies to other offences doesn’t bear scrutiny. Not least because the new search warrant rules don’t apply to corrupt practices. You would have to find a judge who, on reading this section would interpret it as allowing search warrants on mere suspicion for illegal practices like accidentally over-spending, but only allowing search warrants on belief for corrupt practices like deliberately over-spending.

This cannot be, and is not, correct.

The legislation is not only selfish in its conception, it is is also imposing a major encumbrance on the democratic process which the next generation will find itself incapable of shedding.

Poor sleepy old New Zealand! Still in the 1980s in its attitudes: ‘It could never happen here” has long been the mantra of the ‘do nothing’ spirit, and guess what, it could, and it will. only last week someone blogged on here admonishing DPF for interrupting his desire to live a quiet life and get his lawns mown on the weekend…. poor sleepy little new Zealand!

It’s nice now, we are all great chums and the good old spirit of fair play seems to pervade our attitudes. But tomorrow and tomorrow, you will only need one switched-on, media -savvy party who is able to bully, buy or cajole its pathetic oppositon into submission, and the EFB will be a free ticket to perpetual power.

If New Zealand wants a bloodless revolution to bring it into a single-party state, the EFB will probably be lauded as the second great milestone in this process. The first? retrospective legislation over election spending.

I find it astounding that there are people who are so partisan in their political viewpoints that htey are seriously supporting this legislation, but there it is, it is their right to say what they want. They support it because they are stupid enough to believe that the political climate will always favour their views and so and anti-democratic measure, designed to suppress free speech will not affect them..

Like smokers who ignore the warnings on cigarette packets because cancer is something that other people get…. Until they find themselves diagnosed with it then gosh they wish they’d listened to all those health warnings! It is only then that they are chastened that they laughed at those who told them it was bad for them. Such is the selfish spirit in which this Bill is conceived, and such is the selfish and short-sighted attitudes of those who support it.

So trollers and EFB defenders, kick back, light another cigarette, ignore the health warnings, after all they are directed at every one but you , aren’t they?-

Once the genie is out of the bottle, and all that.

Clauses 27, 28, 77, 96 and 116. All state; “If the Chief Electoral Officer (In some clauses this is Electoral Commission) believes that a person has committed an offence specified in this subpart, the Chief Electoral Officer must report the facts upon which that “belief” is based to the NZ Police.”
That is why Section 121 (1)c is specifically added to lower the bar for the Police from ‘suspicion’ to simple wide open ‘belief’.

i.e. The Nat’s have a defector who tells the Chief Electoral Officer a story he has heard discussed at HQ to do with supporting Kyoto Forest Group actions. He (the Chief Electoral Officer) only has to believe that a person has committed an offence and report it to the Police who have been given special powers under section 121 (1) c to get a search warrant if they “believe” an offence was “intended”to be committed.
And further to ensure that the Police act over and above the Summary Proceedings Act the following was added Section121(2) to make it watertight that they will act.

LOOK OUT NATS they’re coming thru

And LOOK OUT GREENS this will be used against you if you are planning stronger climate change action with Forest and Bird etc.

You can download it here:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Papers/Evidence/4/d/3/48SCJESCEvidencefA3014_A3507-Transparency-International-New-Zealand.htm

The Electoral Commission are giving advice to the Select Committee on the Bill. So is the Ministry of Justice (which includes the CEO). Thus, they, like MPs, can have their say without presenting a formal submission.

So NZers won’t just be restricted in what they say in election year, but if they are politically active will have to be very careful as to who they are seen to be associating with.

This would require a police officer to adduce sufficient admissible evidence such that a reasonable person looking at it would believe that an offence was intended to be committed. Suspicion would not be enough. You need belief.

As for Reg’s example – which differs from Castafiore’s – it would depend on a few things – the similarity of the campaigns etc. But yes, you could probably get a search warrant for that.

I should round the question off. Where is Transparency International (NZ)? Remember they stated that if the Validation Bill was passed it would affect our World Standing on Transparency. It certainly has. We are firmly at the top of the Non Corruptibility Stakes despite this blatant attack on Our Democracy.

People are dying today in old Burma fighting for the right to have a democracy? We simply don’t value ours!

Where is the submission of any MP? That of the Chief Electoral Officer, The Electoral Commission? In all irony you have The Minister of Justice defending this breach of our Bill of Rights!
I ask again why is it mainly the hoi polloi that is left to debate the merits or otherwise and make their submissions?

So he is well out on a limb from the Law Commission view, and has been at pains to use stong langauge against other opponents of the bill.

Only successful if you have a corrupt Parliament that can pass a law validating an unlawful action that was to their advantage, and disadvantaged everyone else!

The Forestry lodges an appeal, or complains, and the warrent is revoked.

The computers and goods are returned …. eventually
with delays blamed on buerocratic errors, etc…

Act enables politically motivated suppression, and seizure but ‘Human Rights’ are upheld under appeal, so no harm done….
In the meantime, the election is over…

Is this scenario a possibility -if the EFB passes- and if not why?

Lee C – pending a decision on what? Whether the grant to warrant that has been sought? No.

A holder of public office does some act knowing they do not have the lawful authority to do it and could reasonably have anticipated harm would result.

You then sue them.

Darnton VS Clark shows the futility of such action.

But thanks for the clarification all the same.

Re “Does not disclose a suspected offence”. COUld you please elaborate on what you mean?

Section 121(c) provides power to issue search warrants “in respect of an illegal practice that constitutes an offence under this Act that
…
…
“[c]is believed to be intended to be committed. ”

Are you saying that the cases given are insufficient to disclose a suspected offence under section [c], or do you actually mean sections [a] and [b]?

Remember they were going to send their recommendations to the Electoral Committee after their “Comprehensive investigation” into their complaints, and found numerous breaches, but decided not to prosecute on the grounde that there were so many offences that, that excused them all (or something like that?).

They didn’t use the hoary, old excuse of not being in the public interest!