Another repeat drink driver
December 1st, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarAnna Turner in Stuff reports:
The courts are not being “tough enough” on a man caught drink-driving for the seventh time, says his partner.
She’s right.
Shayne Kevin Gebbie, 47, was arrested in the early hours of October 28 while driving home drunk from a pub in Rangiora. The police pulled him over in Island Rd, near Kaiapoi, after he nearly hit the patrol car.
His breath-alcohol level was recorded at 1156mcg/L, more than double the legal limit of 400mcg/L.
It was Gebbie’s seventh charge for drink-driving.
If he has been caught seven times, I’d estimate he has driven drunk 700 times or so.
He said he had been drinking whiskey and thought he may have been safe to drive, even though friends told him he had had too much.
“Yes and no,” he said. “I guess I felt all right.”
So he ignored his friends. That suggests little chance of change.
Gebbie, who pleaded guilty in the Christchurch District Court on Wednesday, has been remanded on bail until March 8 for sentencing.
He is not allowed to drink alcohol within 12 hours of driving.
His licence should be gone for good, and he should be told if he is ever found behind a car wheel again he is going to jail. That may sound harsh, but better that him killing someone while driving drunk.
However, Gebbie did not believe he had a problem with alcohol, saying his seven convictions happened over a long period.
“I’m 47 years old. Those were over many years.”
Sad.
Related posts:
- Recividist drink drivers
- Drink Driving Blitz
- Was it a one off lapse?
- How about a permanent ankle bracelet?
December 1st, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Re: ‘Gebbie did not believe he had a problem with alcohol’
Sadly, until he believes he DOES have a problem with alcohol, nothing will change, and it may indeed take his causing a very serious accident and injury to someone else before he even begins to acknowledge that he actually has a ‘difficulty’.
It must be extremely hard for his family.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 1:58 pm
They courts aren’t tough on anything!
On your second offence you should get a jail sentence. These stupid judges just forbid people from driving – which when drunk is completely ignored!
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 2:01 pm
He clearly doesn’t have a problem with alcohol. He goes out, gets pissed and drives home; no problem!
Seriously though, he will have a problem when he kills someone whilst driving home pissed. The Courts have a duty to keep people like Shayne Gebbie off the roads, and they can only do that by imposing genuine deterrent sentences to repeat offenders.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 2:01 pm
All those convicted of serious driving offences should have to do school crossing patrol, with others in charge of course.
As an aside, my kids go to a small private school in QLD that has classes from kindy through to year 12. My observation is that the older children are more sociable towards the younger ones than are the kids who change schools when they are of a certain age.
To put aside the first ‘mistake’ that we all make when young, I then think that when these kids leave school they would not behave in the ‘repeatitive’ way that this driver did. Private school fees I believe benefit society as much as taxes do. A cost analysis in the future will prove it.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Yet another *soft-cock* judge. There doesn’t seem to be any other type.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 2:17 pm
The judge needs to do his job and lock the piss head up for 5 years.
Vote:Why are all of our judges limp dicks?
December 1st, 2012 at 3:39 pm
“More than double legal limit”!!!! More like closer to 3 times.
Whilst I think we could end up overdoing the response e.g. jail sentence on 2nd offence would also end up incarcerating someone who got caught at at .051 breath alcohol twice (probably less dangerous than texting while driving), we definitely do not appear to deal to very drunk drivers at an appropriate level. Being twice the legal limit (which is massively riskier than just breaking the limit and also very deliberate) receives typically the same punishment as just breaking the legal limit i.e. 6 months disqualification for a 1st time and a couple of hundred dollar fine. This is obviously ludicrous. At 3 times the limit one would normally be barely able to drive. That’s criminally negligent and should be treated as such. Make the punishment fit the intent and the danger.
Permanent or long term disqualification, more signficant fines, home detention and jail time being brought to play much earlier for the excessive drinkers would hit the riskiest drivers earlier.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Ordinary use of a public road is a common law right. The NZ civil government promotes the absurdity that this right is a privelege by using the ambiguous legal language of driver licencing. While the ostensible reason is road safety, the real effect is control by fraud and injury of the public right to freedom of movement.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 5:30 pm
UglyTruth (24) Says:
December 1st, 2012 at 4:15 pm
…er, what ?
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 5:34 pm
That’s 4:15 contribution is out of the blue.
Sorry, Ugly, nobody has any “right” to freedom of movement on the roads that puts in jeopardy the personal safety (even the lives) of innocent members of the public.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Yes, that’s correct. You have the right to use public roads.
But that doesn’t mean you have the right to drive a car on one. That’s quite a different matter.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 5:43 pm
I’ve always advocated that it’s not just violent crime that should have a escalation. Seems that 7 times should be more than enough to attract a very serious sentence when it comes to drink driving.
So why not treat repeat drink driving as potential manslaughter. The same way you can be charged for attempted murder.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 6:35 pm
“If he has been caught seven times, I’d estimate he has driven drunk 700 times or so.”
Not if he mostly does it on Friday or Saturday nights. I get pulled over for a breath test just about every time I head out.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 7:08 pm
calendar girl, I think we agree that careless use isn’t the same as ordinary use. The point I’m that I’m trying to make is that the system currently employs fraud to bring a prosecution.
scrubone, you have the right to use a car when it constitutes ordinary use. Driving is a legal term that relates to a vehicle, and because of the ambiguity of the terms people think that using a car to travel somewhere is the same thing as driving a vehicle.
Vote:There is case law that makes it clear that ordinary use of a car is a right and not a privilege.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:43 pm
“The point I’m that I’m trying to make is that the system currently employs fraud to bring a prosecution.”
Can’t agree in any way with that proposition. Where’s the fraud? This kind of prosecution is brought on the basis of statutory provisions passed into law by the Parliament, without secrecy, in a very public legislative process. For example, a provision that you may not drive a car with a blood-alcohol level greater than X. As Parliament is supreme in our constitutional and legal structures, the relevant statutory provisions cancel (make irrelevant if you prefer) any contradictory “common law right”.
Semantic arguments relating to the multi-faceted word “drive” are irrelevant. Most of us know which of the word’s different shades of meaning is being used in describing the actions of a person causing an automobile engine to propel a motor vehicle along a public road.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 9:37 pm
calendar girl,
The fraud is the misrepresentation by the body politic that it is sovereign, or that the elected representatives (MPs) are honourable, combined with the injury of rights which occur when the body politic assumes that people are obliged to obey their rules. NZ statutory provisions are not law any more than the resolutions of a corporation are law. The NZ body politic utilizes the civil system, and as such it has no claim to statutory authority which may have existed under English common law.
NZ parliament is not supreme because the NZ government was founded on lies and lawlessness, and it attempts to justify its existence through deception. Statute law does not override common law for the same reason as why a contract with unlawful purpose in unenforceable.
Sematic arguments are relevant for two reasons: firstly that licences, as contracts, are interpreted against the interests of the issuing authority (contra proferentem), and secondly, that ambiguous legislation is interpreted according to the principles of common law (eg Baron Parke’s rule). Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but in this case the ignorance is both widespread and extensive.
To elaborate, the legislation is binding only upon persons, and legal contests concerning the legislation occur within personal jurisdiction (also called jurisdiction in personam). In personal jurisdiction the contesting parties (called persons) owe an obligation to the state, so in this context the assertion that the people of NZ are persons is defamatory when no obligation actually exists.
Vote:December 1st, 2012 at 11:39 pm
UglyTruth: I wouldn’t know where to begin with you. So many basic errors wrapped up in sweeping assertions of a conspiracy. And then, for comical value, we have your incorrect assertion that common law trumps statute law. Clearly you’ve been studying law from the wrong books. Wait – you’re Benjamin Easten, aren’t you?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:48 am
Nostradamus: Bring it, bozo.
I did not mention conspiracy, you did.
The reason that “statute law” appears to trump common law in NZ courts is due to the religious prejudice of members of the body politic which arises from their oath to the “supreme governor” of the church of the religion of Westminster. Religion and law have been intertwined since before the advent of the Westminster system.
In contrast to faith, the common law is very much based on reason, and the common law can not bring forth a system which operates in conflict with itself. Absurdity is rejected by the common law due to it’s obvious incompatibility with reason.
The agreement of the parties cannot make that good which the law maketh void. ~ Coke
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 9:53 am
*Yawn*
So name one NZ judge who agrees that common law trumps statute law. One name. Or are all our NZ judges being hoodwinked too?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 10:31 am
Did you mommy let you stay up too late, bozo?
They’re not hoodwinked, they’re aware that the system can be fraudulent and are sometimes complicit in this fraud.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
Oh – a mummy joke. Aren’t you witty? So no name to back up your assertion then?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 11:32 am
Yes, I have a name. Do you deny the complicity?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 2:22 pm
Oh dear – more weasel words from you?
Let’s try one last time: so the name of the NZ judge who thinks common law trumps statute law is…?
*crickets chirping*
If you can’t back up your bluster with beef, then no burger for you!
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 2:52 pm
So you are now backtracking because you won’t deny that the judiciary can be complicit in the fraud, right?
If the issue was simply one of judicial admission of the priority of common law (it isn’t), the why would you ask if the judiciary were being hoodwinked?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 2:56 pm
But there is no valid argument to show that the statutes of the NZ parliament are not binding on people here.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 3:19 pm
mikenmild,
The argument is that the legislation doesn’t bind people because it doesn’t have a sovereign source. Persons, on the other hand, and bound by obligation to the state; this is the basis of personal jurisdiction used by NZ courts.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Because you personally don’t accept the sovereignty of our parliament?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 3:21 pm
Wow!
So you don’t have a name to back up your assertion, and you accuse me of backtracking? As I said earlier, no beef=no burger!
Oh, and tossing around fancy words like “contra proferentem” and “in personam”, which you appear not to fully understand, don’t assist your argument – assuming you actually have one.
But anyway, now that we’ve established that you have no substantive point to make, and simply want to hide behind word games, have a nice day!
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Because your parliament lies about it’s own sovereignty. It claims that it is sovereign because it is accountable to the people, but one of the qualities of a sovereignty is being accountable to no-one.
Another reason is that the civil government was never lawfully constituted, rather its existence was “deemed necessary”.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 3:27 pm
All of those points have been refuted many, many times. You wouldn’t be one of those scamsters selling fake ‘Aotearoa’ passports and driving licenses, would you?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Nostradamus:
I do have a name to back of my assertion of complicity, but you haven’t denied that the complicity exists.
If you think that I don’t understand the language, then why don’t you show how my use of such language is inconsistent with the meaning of the words?
Ambiguity isn’t a game, it is the basis of a legal bait and switch which is used to deprive people of their rights.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
You can’t refute the facts.
1. The NZ body politic is not sovereign in any sense of the word.
Vote:2. Deeming is the process by which a legal fiction is created.
3. Necessity has no law.
4. The phrase “deemed necessary” is used in the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to the acquisition of sovereignty.
5. Hobson lied about the acquisition of sovereignty.
December 2nd, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Because you don’t accept the legitimacy of our constitution does not make it illegitimate.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 4:13 pm
mikenmild:
If you could refute the facts like you said that they have been, then you wouldn’t have to resort to a blatant straw man argument.
The issue is the fictional nature of the sovereignty of the nz political system, not my acceptance of anything.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:06 pm
You have spewed out a few random quotes as though they meant something. I am assuming that you are basing an argument on the assertion that the Parliament of New Zealand cannot make laws affecting some or all of the people in this country. Naturally enough, our courts have repeatedly reject such assertion.
Vote:I’d be quite happy to consider the merits of an argument that spelled out why the New Zealand Parliament is not the sovereign authority in this country. You have not made such an argument.
December 2nd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
My argument was made in my post of 3:19pm.
I’ve also pointed out why the courts reject arguments against sovereignty in my post of 7:48 am.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:16 pm
MM
?????????
There is a chance that Ugly T is from this bunch
http://www.noconfidence.org.nz/nz-flag-lawful-jurisdiction/16-the-constitutional-history-of-nz?start=2
http://www.noconfidence.org.nz/
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:18 pm
At 3.19pm you said:
Vote:‘The argument is that the legislation doesn’t bind people because it doesn’t have a sovereign source.’
That’s not an argument as to why the New Zealand Parliament is not sovereign. It’s just a statement that it isn’t.
Your 7.48am is just a confused ramble about some of the differences between statute and common law. It doesn’t demonstrate WHY the New Zealand parliament is not able to make law.
December 2nd, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Yes Griff, there’s quite a long history of nutters claiming that the courts and parliament have no lawful authority over them. For some reason, it crops up particularly in traffic cases.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Sovereignty is implied with the consensus that voting in the democratic process is how we form a government
A group that claims a prior historic sovereignty with no process or mandate from the present taxpayer has a no valid claim to sovereignty
Ya pay the piper ya call the tune
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:36 pm
No, the argument was about the _source_ of the fictional sovereignty.
In my 3:25 post I then talk about how parliament lies about that source, and also the unlawful source itself.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:38 pm
No, it isn’t.
http://thelawdictionary.org/sovereignty/
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
You would need to produce an argument or a source to support the assertions in your 3.25pm.
Vote:Other wise it is just “I say our parliament is sovereign” versus “no, it isn’t”.
December 2nd, 2012 at 5:45 pm
UglyT
From your link
As I stated the fact that more than fifty percent of those deemed to be eligible to vote do so gives our government sovereignty
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:50 pm
You said that they had been refuted (3:27pm), but you have not been able to show that any such refutation exists.
The sources are the NZ Parliament website, Black’s dictionary of law, and the preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi.
What are the sources for the refutation that you say exists?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 5:58 pm
My sources would be pretty much any NZ Court decision that follows R vs Mitchell (CA68/04), which shows the fictional basis of these assertions.
Vote:Sovereignty over New Zealand was acquired by the United Kingdom in the 19th century – not solely by the Treaty of Waitangi, but also de facto and de jure by established principles of international law.
December 2nd, 2012 at 6:03 pm
No, you previously made no mention of fictions (deeming implies the creation of fictions). Also the dictionary invalidates your idea of NZ sovereignty because parliament, as “human superiors”, are in the habit of obedience to another by virtue of their oath of alliegence.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:14 pm
An oath of allegiance to the Queen of New Zealand does not mean the New Zealand Parliament lacks sovereignty. Constitutionally, our Queen is part of that Parliament.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:17 pm
NZ courts cannot address the issue of sovereignty without prejudice. The prejudice is religious in nature and arises from the oaths taken by the judiciary. Oaths are acts of religion, and the religion involved assumes judicial authority consistent with sovereignty. If you can show how the argument of R vs Mitchell is unaffected by judicial prejudice that would be exceptional.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:21 pm
According to the definition used by Griff, it does mean that. Allegience is a master/servant relationship, and a servant is never a sovereign.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:29 pm
You are relying on Griff to prove your argument?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:37 pm
duplex et reciprocum ligamen; quia sicut subditus regi tenetur ad obedientiam, ita rex subdito tenetur ad protectionem; merito igitur ligeantia dicitur a ligando, quia continet in se duplex ligamen Calvin’s Case 1608
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:42 pm
No.
Incidentally R vs Mitchell doesn’t help you at all. 2012 NZ EmpC 190 ABC01 Ltd vs Dell says that the issue of fictional sovereignty is for public and political processes and not judicial ones.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Why do you think that Calvin’s Case is relevant, Griff?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:48 pm
R vs Mitchell presents the actuality of sovereignty in New Zealand, rather than your absurd assumptions. And I think you will find the Employment Court of rather limited use in advancing your constitutional arguments.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:54 pm
UglyTruth, your argument is nothing new and is getting a bit worn and tired now days. However, the Judges still get a good laugh out of it, so take it to Court.
Please don’t do any real research and ignore anything that does not support what you want to believe, or you will ruin the fun
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Really? Who told you that?
I wasn’t using it to advance my argument, I was using it to tear down yours.
The Employment Court was referring to R vs Mitchell when it said that the fictional sovereignty is not a judicial issue.
The point is that I’ve given you the sources for my argument for fictional sovereignty, and your “refutation” is nothing more than a judicial “no comment”.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Really? Where have you seen the argument of religious prejudice applied before?
And in case you were referring to the fictional sovereignty argument, how is it that everyone has been talking like it doesn’t hold water, and yet nobody has been able to refute it?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:02 pm
You have referred to the preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi, but not stated how you think that constrains the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament. New Zealand judges quite properly reject arguments that our parliament is not sovereign because that sovereignty is actual and real. Your other argument about oaths of allegiance is simple nonsense, as the oath is to our own hereditary head of state, whose sovereignty is exercised by her lawfully constituted government.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:06 pm
I guess this is what is meant by topic drift, huh?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Luc, It’s about priority. If the vehicle licencing system is fraudulent like I say it is, then the issue of severity of punishment for a repeat DIC offender is superfluous.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:13 pm
Why is it that so many of the the constitutional cranks get fixated on road rules?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:24 pm
All your arguments fall within the general sovereignty challenge. You have produced nothing especially original, though the religious aspect is usually only claimed by the most unhinged conspiracy theorists.
To refute your claims I will not need to resort to obscure bits of law, taken out of context. I don’t need to use any Latin either.
The Government can make any law they like in NZ. It is backed up by force, if needed. How much force? Reasonable force. That is another way of saying: as much force as it takes.
It really is that simple. I have seen your arguments advanced in real Courts. It does not work. You will be forced to comply. Get your head around it. The answer is not written in Latin, it is written in blood. That is how nations are made and governments rule.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:29 pm
It’s the only way they can honestly justify their stupid arrest and conviction for ignoring both road laws and common sense
Vote:All the law is wrong and I am right whilst avoiding cognitive dissonance
December 2nd, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Because something that does not exist cannot be constrained.
I outlined the relevant facts (2-4) in my post of 3:42. I’ll repost.
2. Deeming is the process by which a legal fiction is created.
3. Necessity has no law.
4. The phrase “deemed necessary” is used in the Treaty of Waitangi in relation to the acquisition of sovereignty.
In other words, the preamble says that the acquisition of sovereignty wasn’t necessary, but was treated as if it were. This treatment implies the abandonment of law, which is inconsistent with sovereignty.
So you say. However, actual court findings tell a very different story. Is the reason that you can’t quote anything that supports your position due to you just repeating hearsay?
The NZ government was never lawfully constituted, that’s the whole point of my argument about it being “deemed necessary”.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:38 pm
If you want to start with the name-calling, “pointy-headed muppet” would be a good start.
“road rules” are simply a euphemism for the injury of the fundamental right of freedom of movement. I’m talking about licencing here, not traffic lights and stop signs.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Hay Ugly… go break some road rules (they are all illegal anyway remember) and try this out on the Cops. You can do the same with the Judge tomorrow.
And no… the Judges/Police don’t get all confused, like in the silly stories you have read on the internet conspiracy sites. It is way simpler in real life.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Better just STFU before you make more of a fool of yourself. Or perhaps you have some insight about Calvin’s Case that you would like to share?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Been there, done that. And it’s not a simple as you think by a long shot.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:52 pm
So, a preamble to a Treaty in 1840 mentioned that the Queen deemed it necessary to appoint Capt Hobson to treat for sovereignty. Big deal. Of no consequence then, and of no consequence now, to the actual transfer of sovereignty to the British Crown and thenceforth to our present government.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Wrong. They can’t make law that binds people who have no obligation towards them.
Mob rule, nothing more.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Playing Routh ugly
As I pointed out the majority in this country accept the right of the government to govern / to exercise sovereignty on our behalf
Unless you can raise a majority to overturn this you are fucked
Calvin’s Case determined that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King
Do you understand this concept ugly? We are under new Zealand law by extension of the same concept. Sovereignty as held by government = the right to make law
Not by solely by keas force. Just because everyone says so#. Its called democrocy.
# Except for a few Nutjobs !!
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 7:59 pm
The reason it has consequence is that you can’t transfer something that you don’t have. Hobson lied about the acqusition of sovereignty, and nothing makes that lie lawful.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:05 pm
I agree that the government has authority by consent of the population. Sometimes.
But when it comes right down to it, force is what backs it up. Want proof? Put down legal documents and read a news paper or watch the news on telly.
It is just as simple as I have said it is. The evidence is right under our noses.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:08 pm
The majority have been misled by parliament’s lie that they are sovereign.
Success isn’t dependent upon being part of the majority; the majority can be wrong.
No. What do you mean by persons?
Wrong. NZ government is based on the civil system, not on hereditary right.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:11 pm
‘Hobson lied about the acquisition of sovereignty, and nothing makes that lie lawful.’
Vote:Even if he did lie, which he didn’t, the government of the United Kingdom obtained sovereignty in New Zealand through a mixture of consent from Maori and the application of force. The reality of sovereignty is unchallengeable, and recognised by subsequent jurisprudence. This is shown by the acceptance of the legitimacy of our government, both within this country and internationally.
The only people who don’t accept this area few deluded Maori sovereignty fans (Tame Iti, etc) and the kind of cranks who probably feels that the populace have been brainwashed by fluoride in the water.
December 2nd, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Maybe, but possession is a powerful force!
It’s a shame you aren’t in the US. Stephen Colbert would love to have you on his show.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Ugly You are a bonehead who talks shit
As such its not really worth trying to debate your fantasy any more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand#Government
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:27 pm
At law force isn’t what defines government, authority (i.e. the right to govern) is. The body politic will typically claim that it is the government in order to appear legitimate, but that can be about as meaningful as Jimmy Saville’s childcare advice.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Because you didn’t take my advice to STFU and not make more of a fool of yourself over Calvin’s Case?
Good luck with that.
Perhaps you can explain how NZ’s government can be a constitutional monarchy when Victoria instituted it as a civil system?
… Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government …
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-treaty/english-text
P.S. Never rely on Wikipedia for anything important.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:41 pm
On your variety of specious arguments, there is probably no government on earth that you would consider legitimate.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 8:56 pm
By specious arguments, do you mean the argument that you tried to refute with a judical “no comment”?
Vote:Or the one that you couldn’t refute beacuse it was too “nutty”?
December 2nd, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Your arguments are founded on a wilful misinterpretation of the effect of the preamble to a Treaty that, by itself, did not effect a change in sovereignty in NZ anyway.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 9:13 pm
No, I didn’t misinterpret the preamble. To deem something is to create a fiction, and to treat something as necessary implies a state of lawlessness, i.e. necessity has no law (Bracton’s maxim). Deeming something necessary (eg in the treaty) is simply legalese for acting unlawfully.
On the other hand your argument against fictional sovereignty was apparently only based on hearsay, and actual court records didn’t support it at all.
The point is that the NZ political system is fraudulent and without honour, and it should come as no surprise that a constitutional review is currently underway.
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 9:22 pm
A constitutional review is a good thing, but your claim that the preamble to the Treaty of Waitangi makes the present government illegitimate surely means that anything that comes out of their review is also illegitimate. I’m presuming that you believe that the NZ parliament has no actual power to implement any change to the constitution.
Vote:I trust you have made a lengthy submission to the constitutional review though – I’m sure they could use some light relief.
December 2nd, 2012 at 9:25 pm
… because fraud and dishonour are such a source of amusement for the pollies, eh mike?
Vote:December 2nd, 2012 at 9:32 pm
You must realise that your argument leads nowhere. Even if you had established that transfer of sovereignty in 1840 was illegitimate due to defects in the preamble to the Treaty (which you haven’t, btw), you would need to show how, in practical terms that leads to anything that can cure that alleged defect. In the real world, of course, even if a transfer of sovereignty is achieved by illegal means, that does not necessarily prevent the successor government from acquiring legitimacy in other ways. To examine changing sovereignty in any other way leads you into a gall of mirrors where you are forced to turn the clock back on any such change. That can happen – East Timor for example – but good luck extending that back to 1840 because in practical terms that is as likely as unseating the British government because it derives its legitimacy from the illegal acts of William of Orange or even William the Conquerer.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 3:44 am
How credible are your assertions when the best you can do is to try to rebut my argument with a case which refuses to comment on the issue (of fictional sovereignty)?
Where the argument of no lawful source of sovereignty leads is to present day where parliament lies about its sovereignty (per my post of 3:25pm).
You are, however, correct to say that without a remedy all of this means very little. To this end I refer you to the website http://www.actsinjunction,info, which describes a remedy for the judicial fraud that can occur when this issue is brought to the courts.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 6:42 am
Parliament does not need to lie about its sovereignty because it is sovereign. It is pointless to cite cases to you because your argument must necessarily mean that if judges do not agree with you then it is because the courts lack the same legitimacy as parliament, the courts being a creation of that parliament. You get yourself into a mirror-maze of illogicality.
Your link above does not work, but I doubt it provides anything helpful.
Can I summarise your argument?
1. You say the preamble to the Treaty of Waitangi was legally flawed because in it:
‘Her Majesty…deemed it necessary…to constitute and appoint a functionary…to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of…Sovereign authority… – being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government’
2. By a piece of legal woo you imagine that the terms ‘deemed’ and ‘Civil Government’ in the preamble mean something other than a statement of the British government’s intentions.
3. You follow this up by saying that the British government established over New Zealand from 1840 had no legal basis.
4. Therefore, according to you, no acts of a government purporting to exercise sovereignty over New Zealand since 1840 can have any legal effect.
5. Thus you are free to drive intoxicated whenever you choose.
Have I got it yet?
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 8:54 am
mikemild,
Your faith in parliament is misplaced, they all swear allegiance to a monarch whose church has a history of involvement in some of the most evil acts committed on the planet.
The point of citing cases is to show facts, evidence, or opinion which supports your position. Your cite does not support your position because the court refused to comment (judicially) on the issue .
Sorry about the comma in the link, it is http://www.actsinjunction.info
1. Legally flawed, meaning unlawful and void.
2. The meaning of the document is determined from its actual language, not what you would think it should mean. Bracton’s maxim is not legal woo, it is a legal doctrine that originated before the treaty and is still in use today.
3. It has no lawful basis. Legal and lawful are not the same thing.
4. Legal effect, meaning force in law.
5. No, there is a common law duty of care.
You won’t get it until you know what it actually means to deem something necessary.
“when X is “deemed” to be Y it is ordinarily conceded that X is not Y, and is known not to be Y” ~ Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen
Bracton’s maxim states: ‘that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity’.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 3:48 pm
mm: The only people who don’t accept this area few deluded Maori sovereignty fans (Tame Iti, etc) and the kind of cranks who probably feels that the populace have been brainwashed by fluoride in the water.
Close. Looking at UglyThruth’s website I see it has a section on chemtrails!
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 6:25 pm
chiz,
Good to see you’re holding your own with a solid ad hominem.
If you like chemtrails, you’ll love this little number:
Vote:
December 3rd, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Nutjob
Vote:chem trails
do you do lay lines as well?
December 3rd, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Chemtrails eh, and I was sure he’d be an anti-fluoride kind of nutter.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Nice try boys, but it’s not an ad hominem unless you connect it to the subject matter. Please take a look at chiz’s post to see how a real professional does it.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Oh well, back to King Arthur and the origin of the common law eh. Or was it King Alfred?
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Very droll, MM.
King Alfred’s “dooms” were a fusion of parts of the Judaic law, Christian belief, and Anglo-Saxon custom. The earliest reference to common law I’ve found was by one of his sons. The common law contains a number of references to “God”, but it isn”t clear if this is a reference to the Christian trinity, the singular Judaic deity, or just a reference to deity in general.
Alfred’s doom-book gave pre-eminence to Judaic law, and tended to side with the Hebrew sect led by James the Just rather than the Christian sect led by Paul. The significance of this is the cultural gulf between the Hebrews and the Romans, which played out during the 19 year winter as a conflict between the Roman/civil law and the English common law, with the church naturally favouring civil law due to it’s Roman roots.
And for all you freaks, kooks, and nutjobs out there, Alfred’s name (Aelfred) meant elf council. So there you have it; the most highly regarded of the English kings was named after a meeting involving aliens or mythical beings.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Don’t you mean ‘aliens or other mythical beings’?
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Yeah, in this mind bogglingly huge universe, only this planet ever supported intelligent (cough) life.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 8:33 pm
While there is almost certainly intelligent life on other planets; unfortunately there is no evidence that aliens have ever visited this planet, let alone instructed Alfred the Great on the mysteries of the common law.
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 9:31 pm
No evidence except for the Phoenix Lights, the Rendlesham Forest incident, flight JAL-1628, Minot AFB (1968), the Gulf Breeze UFOs, the Belgian UFO wave (1989-1990), the Kecksburg UFO, Shag Harbour (1967), witness testimony from the disclosure project, Betty & Barney Hill, Travis Walton, the Starchild skull, the Cholula skulls, the Andahuaylillas skull…..
Vote:December 3rd, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Thank you, Agent Mulder.
Vote: