http://techliberty.org.nz/r-vs-internet-first-session/
http://techliberty.org.nz/r-v-internet-panel/
http://techliberty.org.nz/r-v-internet-third-session/
http://techliberty.org.nz/r-v-internet-final-panel/

That was my first attempt at “blogging while attending” and I am now in even more awe of David’s prodigious blogging output.

Like Political Busker I have a deep suspicion around the Siemer case. All is not what it may appear to be. The Fardell so called suicide has never been explained and there are other shady characters around the fringe of this case.

The many attempts to prevent disclosure and transperancey lead any reasonable person to ask Why. Some of us can only determine there is a cone of silence to protect important persons from facing the legal system ( its not a justice system far too flawed to be called that)

Why it that you presume Mr Siemer’s comments are not true? Surely they need to be tested because they are reasonably worded and weighted allegations.

Another example – I would ask you note that the present AG is aware that New Zealand’s constitution was seriously abrogated by the 2003/4 then AG the Honourable Margaret Wilson. These matters contain hidden facts that no one wishes to engage because of what they bring – reconstitution – so we let injustice roll along with the active support of its bureaucrats, administrators and media.

Mr Siemer was bankrupted and put into jail – it is because of his tenacity and outright courage that issue like that of Justice Wilson is pushed into maturity. Without Mr Siemer I very much doubt such necessary exposure to bring New Zealand to justice would have ever commenced. You, as is New Zealand are indebted to him for his prosecution of facts that would otherwise be left to rest.

I have included correspondence below I have had today with another challenge on how some things will be protected to rest under the surface layer of supposed legal sovereignty and application of natural justice in law.

From: Political Busker
Date: Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: Transparency International New Zealand AGM 2009
To: “Transparency International (NZ) – Paul Browne”

Thank you Paul,

declining my request is of considerable concern, given that the Attorney General houses information about the abrogation of New Zealand’s constitution. The argument I present is not denied by the Attorney General’s office but is additionally not prosecute because of its impact relative to the future.

I can only presume where my request was neither combative, nor intended in any form to constitute threat or demand that the matters of my interest that I represent do not fall within the portfolio or interest of your membership, which would be a statement in the ridiculous. The reasons you give me in reply are not apparent nor obviously how the Attorney General would cover fact transparent.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
The Political Busker
LAOS New Zealand

— On Wed, 12/2/09, Transparency International (NZ) – Paul Browne wrote:

From: Transparency International (NZ) – Paul Browne
Subject: RE: Transparency International New Zealand AGM 2009
To: “‘Political Busker’”
Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 9:28 PM

Tena koe Mr Easton

Your request has been considered and, on this occasion, has been declined. As I am sure you will understand, the Annual General Meeting is a meeting which is principally for the benefit of the members of Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc.

Yours

Paul Browne
Executive Officer,

Transparency International New Zealand.
PO Box 5248, Lambton Quay, Wellington
P: +64 4 894 9114
M: +64 21 202 6479
E: executive@transparencynz.org.nz

From: Political Busker [mailto:the_political_busker@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, 3 December 2009 10:10 a.m.
To: executive@transparencynz.org.nz
Subject: Transparency International New Zealand AGM 2009

Tena koe Paul,

Transparency International New Zealand

It has been brought to my attention that your organisation has an Annual General Meeting in Wellington on 9th December 2009. I note that on your website you provide an opportunity for non members to attend and that your guest speaker is the Attorney General the Honourable Chris Finlayson.

As a non member I request the opportunity to attend this meeting. I have considerable interests in the matter of transparency in New Zealand and am directly engaged in matters spanning, legislative, executive, judicial and commercial effect where I would seek greater, if not urgent provisions of access to information for the benefit of the public good. I fundamentally question how our adopted and constituted Westminster system could be in full justiciable function, where present practices and their operation are not limited to and by such necessary purpose of transparency.

I await your reply with interest and would appreciate an early reply as my diary is particularly full through next week.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton
The Political Busker
LAOS New Zealand

FFS………. Political editor!
The only saving grace is that national radios 12 listeners are probably all left voters anyway.

Final paragraph:

In summary, these people know a lot about why they wish to support the principles of contempt, but I don’t think any of them really understand that their opinions may not actually matter in the face of the Internet.

That explains a lot.

I always oppose cameras in the courtroom, especially TV cameras because then some idiot repeater will want to give their take on what is going on for the viewer. However, I agree completely with Rob about the idea of a static camera in courtrooms, both List courts and trial courts, with broadcast over the internet. I would even pay a (reasonable) fee to be able to do it, although I suspect you would get a lot fewer people logging on if that were so.

The only drawback is that I might never get any work done again!

[DPF: And thanks for the suggestion of Robert - he was excellent. I told him that he was recommended by an anonymous commenter ]