General Debate 26 May 2013

May 26th, 2013 at 8:00 am by Kokila Patel
Tags:

229 Responses to “General Debate 26 May 2013”

  1. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    First? At this hour of the morning? Where is everybody?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    Appears Muslim……….again.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330749/French-anti-terror-soldier-throat-slashed-jihab-wearing-maniac-North-African-origin-patrol-Paris.html

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Megatron (188 comments) says:

    “The Green Party will bid in a tender for oil and gas exploration to try to protect New Zealand waters from a Gulf of Mexico-like oil spill disaster. Applications will be evaluated, not on who is the highest bidder, but based on a number of criteria, including the applicants’ corporate standing, technical and financial capability, risk management practices, operating experience and proposed work programme.”
    Hey Clint, do we have any corporate standing?
    Hey Clint do we have any technical and financial capability?
    Hey Clint risk management practices?
    Hey Clint do we have any operating experience ?
    ……what a bunch of muppets?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    Hey Clint; why do you keep suggesting these stupid publicity stunts that make us look like even bigger pillocks than we already are?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Mobile Michael (451 comments) says:

    I was in the air over Caroline Bay. Just seen Jenny Shipley at Christchurch airport, it’s been 14 years since she was Prime Minister! Back to Wellington soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yvette (2,808 comments) says:

    The Green Party will bid in a tender for oil and gas exploration to try to protect New Zealand waters from a Gulf of Mexico-like oil spill disaster.

    Will any ‘call for tenders’ be for oil and gas exploration rather than NOT to explore, so does any proposed Green application not consist of a straight out lie, open to legal action?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Some notes on bail;

    I was talking to a Police Officer yesterday about this and he told me that the Police do not routinely oppose bail. The reason is that the form they need to fill out in order to oppose bail is several pages in length and takes over a couple of hours to fill out correctly. What this means is that if the Police DO oppose bail, it is because they have very good reasons to do so, reasons that justify a lot of extra work and hassle.

    I had the impression, reinforced by discussions on here, that it was a simple matter for the Police to register their opposition to bail, and that they routinely did so out of habit or because it was just the usual process to follow. This is not so.

    Therefore I now take my original position on bail, that if both the Police and victim and/or family oppose bail, then it should not be granted.

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (8,813) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 8:23 am
    First? At this hour of the morning? Where is everybody?
    ————————————

    Church

    I’m back early cos I don’t have as many sins as everyone else to apologise for. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. All_on_Red (1,581 comments) says:

    Congratulations to NZer Mitch Evans. Came third in both GP2 races at Monaco overnight. Fabulous achievement for the young man and kudos to his sponsors Mark Webber, Giltraps and the Mad Butcher for stumping up with the not inconsiderable amount of money to support him.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    2 FBI Agents Involved in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Arrest Have Been Killed During a Training Exercise

    According to a statement from the FBI, two FBI special agents were killed last Friday during a training exercise off the coast of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Special Agent Christopher Lorek and Special Agent Stephen Shaw were members of the FBI’s elite Hostage Rescue Team, part of the Critical Incident Response Group based at Quantico, Virginia. The cause of the incident is under review, the FBI said.

    Prison Planet reports that, last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.

    Yesterday, I reported that a man, who knew Boston bombings suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot dead by an FBI agent Tuesday night in Orlando.

    People surrounding the Tsarnaev brothers are dying at a faster than rate those who were somehow connected to the JFK assassination.

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/05/2-fbi-agents-involved-in-dzhokhar.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/410839/parents-in-norway-jailed-for-incest

    OSLO—A Norwegian court Thursday sentenced a couple to 17 years in prison for violence, rape and incestuous relations with their three sons, calling it the country’s worst sexual abuse case.

    The article doesn’t tell you they are Somalians. That must be irrelevant. Don’t upset the data sets.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    I’m back early cos I don’t have as many sins as everyone else to apologise for.

    That is why I like Christian girls, they need sins to forgive and only jump out of bed early on Sundays to bother God ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    laworder (206) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 8:51 am
    ——————————-

    I agree that if the police oppose bail, and can provide very good reasons for that, then it should be granted.

    However, I don’t agree with the families etc unless they have some quantitative evidence (which would have been provided to the police anyway). The fact is that the police are making a rationally based decision. The others are making an emotionally based decision, which may not necessarily be based on the actual truth, but rather just their interpretation of it.

    The fact is, the police collect all the evidence and if there is a good reason why the victim/family etc oppose bail, they will put forward that argument anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Reid (16,441 comments) says:

    Peter J

    Peter, my position is that the person who grants the bail should be made to live right next door to the person deemed most at risk of re-offending and it goes down the scale so the person next at most risk of reoffending who was granted bail gets to live right next door to the closest relative of the person who granted that person bail and so on and so forth until, eventually, one of the family members of the person who granted the bail in the first place gets attacked by one of the poor innocent darlings and then lo, for ever after, the person who granted the bail to all-comers suddenly for no apparent reason never ever grants bail to dangerous people ever again.

    And this is repeated up and down the country and politicians aren’t excluded, either, since its them who sets the bail laws, starting with the Minister for Justice.

    That’s my policy. What do you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. I think you are funny, Judith. I gave your box a tick. Hope it doesn’t take too much blood… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne, I would not allow a Somalian in the country.

    Somalia has been fractured and broken for so long you can hardly call it a country. The social norms and general behaviour is totally incompatible with our society. Sure they may not all be like that, but the risk is too great.

    One thing people forget is that many refugees bring with them the very same values and ideas that they are seeking to escape.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Tauhei Notts (1,711 comments) says:

    I was surprised to see on Russian Tv last night that there had been a big protest about Monsanto in New Zealand.
    Has anybody here hheard of that protest?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. All_on_Red (1,581 comments) says:

    “That is why I like Christian girls, they need sins to forgive and only jump out of bed early on Sundays to bother God ;)

    Its also a good way to get rid of them so you can get on with your day.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,188) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:01 am
    —————————————
    Good Morning Dennis :-)

    I really think you will be struggling to prove your argument that this type of severe sexual offending is race or ethnicity based.

    There are similar cases, Joseph Fritzl from Austria, for example, in which the perpetrators are very ‘European’.
    Pedophillia and incest are not a discriminatory behaviours based on colour.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    It was reported that ” hundreds” had protested across NZ. Based on previous instances, they will have reported “hundreds” because they couldn’t spell “handful”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    All_on_Red (358) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:11 am

    Its also a good way to get rid of them so you can get on with your day.
    ———————-

    Unless they are good wee girls like me and don’t have much to confess :P Barely worth leaving the house!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    I really think you will be struggling to prove your argument that this type of severe sexual offending is race or ethnicity based.

    It is nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It is the cultural norms of the place they come from.

    Our media seldom reports on the horrific brutality that occurs daily in Africa. It is simply beyond belief. To report it would be racist, of course. I will not sour every ones Sunday with examples… even I can not spend much time on reading about it, as I find it too upsetting.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. You miss the point. The point is the casual reader would assume they were Norwegians. As intended.

    I have a sense of deja vu. Never mind. Yep, the people from Somalia make great immigrants. Just like the Dalmatians, Poles, Dutch. Don’t look at the data, look out the window. (Must dash, got work to do.)

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,190) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:28 am

    You are right, I did miss that point – yes it was a good one – I would have thought the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. OneTrack (3,088 comments) says:

    “Never mind. Yep, the people from Somalia make great immigrants”

    Yes, they add to the “diversity” don’t they? And that, according to the progressives, is the most important thing.

    “The article doesn’t tell you they are Somalians. That must be irrelevant. Don’t upset the data sets.”

    Of course. That sort of information might scare th horses. Control the progressive message – we will tell the prols what to think.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kea (4,584) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:27 am

    ————————————-

    I agree with you. Cultural norms that find some sorts of behaviour ‘normal’ to one group, but disgusting to another, are problematic when one cultural group immerses with another in a different geographical situation.

    The violence in Africa is horrible, and extremely upsetting to read about – for us. For those that live it, it is almost a way of life.

    I usually get shot down in flames for saying this, but Africa would have been one country better off left to its own devices, than having the ‘good missionaries’ interfere (historically). To me it appears a culture/s that is in turmoil. Unable to live to their old values, and not evolved sufficiently to live to global cultural values.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. All_on_Red (1,581 comments) says:

    “Unless they are good wee girls like me and don’t have much to confess ”

    Hmm, more like its bad girls who are good is what I am after..
    Just kidding-v happily cohabitating with gorgeous partner and two beautiful sons .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. hj (6,991 comments) says:

    “I can’t say for sure, Minister, but one or two of our people in Beijing – and one or two of us here in Wellington, for that matter – are of the view that the Chinese government may be sending us a little message.”

    “Message? What on earth do you mean? What sort of message!”

    “Well, you know the Chinese, Minister. Their messages can be very subtle – oblique even.”

    “They’re not the only ones, mate! So, come on, that’s enough beating about the bush, what message are the Chinese trying to send – and to whom?”

    “We think there may be a number of intended recipients, Minister. First and foremost there’s the Government. And, after the Government, we suspect there’s the whole primary production sector: dairying, meat and wool, kiwifruit – the whole shebang. And there may be a number of individuals. The Prime Minister, obviously, but also the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Minister for Trade Negotiations, and yourself, of course.”
    http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/borderline-call-with-apologies-to-yes.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Judith wrote

    I agree that if the police oppose bail, and can provide very good reasons for that, then it should be granted.

    Presume you meant to write that bail should not be granted. Easy to make tpyos :-)


    However, I don’t agree with the families etc unless they have some quantitative evidence (which would have been provided to the police anyway). The fact is that the police are making a rationally based decision. The others are making an emotionally based decision, which may not necessarily be based on the actual truth, but rather just their interpretation of it.

    The fact is, the police collect all the evidence and if there is a good reason why the victim/family etc oppose bail, they will put forward that argument anyway

    Perhaps, but the family/ victim may have long term and indepth knowledge / experience of the offenders behaviour that the Police dont. That is why I think that if BOTH the family AND the Police oppose bail it should not be granted, i.e. if it is only one OR the other that is opposed then the judge has the discretion to grant it

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    I usually get shot down in flames for saying this, but Africa would have been one country better off left to its own devices, than having the ‘good missionaries’ interfere (historically). To me it appears a culture/s that is in turmoil. Unable to live to their old values, and not evolved sufficiently to live to global cultural values.

    Yes I totally agree.

    Change needs to be organic and come from within. No continent in the world has had as much foreign “help” as Africa. They had modern infrastructure installed and all the systems set up for them by various nations. Entire modern cities built by occupying nations who eventually handed it all back to them. They have huge natural resources. Africa is not “poor” it is rich. But look at the state of the place ! :(

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    laworder, your position presupposes guilt. If the evidence is strong and the risk great, then bail can be denied under the existing system. I think your tending towards guilty by accusation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    laworder (207) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:51 am
    —————————-

    Yes it should have been not granted.

    My point was that the family, and victim/s, if they have any information that is pertinent, should be giving that to the police, who are able to make their case against bail accordingly, and more to the point, investigate the issues ( some victims do tend to exaggerate on certain issues and in certain types of crimes)

    Whilst I appreciate that in just about every case the victim and families would have a stance on this, one that usually means they do not support bail, the facts are often very different to what they may believe.

    I believe it is up to the police to sort out the issue of bail, including speaking to the victim/s and family etc.

    Something that would be worth your while arguing for is less prominence on family, and allow ‘friends’ to be included. This is particularly pertinent as many people are actually closer to friends than family in some instances. It is the friends who can provide a more realistic picture of the victim’s life in a lot of cases – and yet, frequently the friends are excluded from the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kea (4,586) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:59 am

    ———————————-

    Excellent point Kea, and one that is the basis of our law. A person is innocent until PROVEN guilty (BRD).

    Bail can always be granted with certain restrictions if there is deemed to be certain risks involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Kea wrote


    If the evidence is strong and the risk great, then bail can be denied under the existing system.

    But the trouble is, that is not happening under the existing system. If it was, there would be no issue, no controversy and we wouldnt be debating this. The existing system is not working properly, people have died as a result, that’s why SST and others are proposing changes.

    Judith wrote

    Something that would be worth your while arguing for is less prominence on family, and allow ‘friends’ to be included. This is particularly pertinent as many people are actually closer to friends than family in some instances. It is the friends who can provide a more realistic picture of the victim’s life in a lot of cases – and yet, frequently the friends are excluded from the process.

    That’s a good point, and I suspect that you are right in many cases. However the difficulty is that it is far harder to ascertain/ prove who is a friend than who is family. Friend is a status that has no official documentation to confirm it, so I can see the possibility of issues arising from this

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wally (65 comments) says:

    Great typo in the Herald this morning:

    “Officers then arrested two more offenders as they tried to flee in a taxi with a firearm in their possession.

    Police have asked for any whiteness who saw the incident or the vehicle leaving the scene to contact Counties Manukau police.”

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    But the trouble is, that is not happening under the existing system. If it was, there would be no issue, no controversy and we wouldnt be debating this. The existing system is not working properly, people have died as a result, that’s why SST and others are proposing changes.

    laworder, granting bail involves an element of risk. Sometimes the accused offends while on bail and it sometimes it goes dramatically wrong. You are concentrating on high profile failures and not looking at the bigger picture. The fact it goes wrong – sometimes- is not an indication of a broken system.

    The price of 100% successes is too high. It would involve overturning the fundamentals of our justice system and imposing a police state where people are imprisoned without trial and assumed guilty by accusation. One of the crimes most likely to raise your ire would be rape. However there are many false rape complaints lodged and later withdrawn by the complainant. Imagine you were the one accused or picked up by the police on suspicion. I wonder how you would view it when locked up in a jail cell as a rapist for something you did not do ?

    It is a balancing act and we do not always get it right. But I think our system is ok and we have folk like you keeping an eye on things.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    wally LOL :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Viking2 (11,467 comments) says:

    Judith (2,561) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:14 am

    All_on_Red (358) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 9:11 am

    Its also a good way to get rid of them so you can get on with your day.
    ———————-

    Unless they are good wee girls like me and don’t have much to confess :P Barely worth leaving the house!

    =======================

    I was bought up knowing there were good girls (Judith) and nice girls.
    Good girls were never any fun.

    What more can we say. :o :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Viking2, good girls are way better at being naughty and are the best in bed too. Their naughty sisters tend to be more cynical and guarded. I have done extensive field work on this hypothesis.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Appears Muslim……….again.

    Not commenting about the Paris incident yet, but recently appearing to be Muslim:

    Boston bombing, Jeff Bauman reportedly gets his legs blown off and there’s no evidence of blood on him. The suspects’ uncle used to live at the home of A CIA operative involved in radicalization of Muslims.

    Then a London soldier reportedly gets his head cut off and there’s there’s no evidence of blood on him. “Let me comfort him” a woman reportedly pleads. In the video a little old lady with a shopping trundler is so traumatized by the events that she walks past the alleged murderer who is holding a butcher’s cleaver and a knife, there are red smudges on his hands.

    And there’s the video of Nick Berg being beheaded. Berg was already dead when he was beheaded, if his heart was still beating there would have been blood everywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    laworder (208) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 10:24 am
    —————————–

    Your sentiments, are as usual honourable, however, they are not always practical, and tend to rely very heavily on the negative emotional side of crime to play to peoples emotional rather than practical side.

    Yes, there have been people charged with crime, that have been allowed out on bail, and then re-offended. However, these are by far the minority. For those victims and family that have been involved it is difficult to understand. However, the law must adopt the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty – IF the police have been unable to put forward a decent case regarding the need for bail to be refused, then you are suggesting that the concerns of an emotionally charged family/victim should be adhered to, instead.

    That argument is ridiculous. Fraught with problems and so open to abuse/corruption/error that it is difficult to know where to begin.

    Whilst the criteria for granting bail may need review – the system already allows for the police to make any inquiries necessary to support their argument for bail refusal, including putting forward the family’s position. Re-inventing the wheel is stupid and costly – the Judge, is suitably qualified to listen to, and make whatever decision is required – they may sometimes get it wrong – but in the large majority get it right. We cannot have a system where any member of the public, victim or family can just demand bail refusal and it not be granted accordingly.
    .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    For fuck’s sake, Kea, can you make GD much more pathetic than it is already with your endless boasting of how much you know about “girls”? You vain shallow self absorbed bore.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @laworder

    Sorry, Peter I must disagree with you. Let us look at rape. There is a high percentage of rape allegations where the alleged offender is found not guilty and even a substantial number where the alleged offender is totally innocence.

    If a person defends the charge of rape they could be in jail a very long time before being found not guilty.

    Everything is a balance. That means the risk of the alleged offender harming the victim or someone else has to be balanced against the possibility of jailing an innocent person for a very long time.

    You or someone else may say a person should be tried say within a month. That may be good in an ideal world but it is not going to happen anytime soon.
    We have to deal with the world how it is.

    It is obvious that the bail laws need improving but suggestions need to be thought out not just emotive. With respect yours does not appear to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, bad hangover this morning ?

    You are not your usual happy positive self. :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    The bail system operated far more efficiently when offenders were required to sign or deposit Bail Bonds and provide approved sureties who would likewise sign or deposit a bond which they would forfeit if their was any breach or non-appearance by the offender. These days it is little more than a promise by people who have never kept any.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Judith wrote
    IF the police have been unable to put forward a decent case regarding the need for bail to be refused, then you are suggesting that the concerns of an emotionally charged family/victim should be adhered to, instead.

    I think you (and maybe Kea) have misunderstood what I have proposed. I am not suggesting bail be denied just on the family’s say so, OR just on the basis of Police opposition, but BOTH.

    That is, if the Police oppose bail, AND the family/ victim ALSO oppose bail, THEN it is not granted, if just one OR the other oppose then it is left to judicial discretion as at present.

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Red, maybe you can entertain us with another sermon about the dangers of the progressives and the collapse of civilisation ( for a change ) since girls are not your thing ?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    laworder, so the bill of rights can be displaced on the basis of emotion ? I think not.

    If the evidence supports bail being denied, then fine. But it should never be denied on subjective emotional pleas. Police are likely to oppose bail simply because they do not like someone, but unless they have evidence, their view can be dismissed also.

    Let the facts speak, not the emotion of those who are understandably upset.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    backster , yes but many people before the Courts do not have that money. We would end up with different outcomes depending on a persons wealth. I am not comfortable with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. laworder (292 comments) says:

    Chuck, I tried to write a long response to your post which then vanished into the bowels of WordPress

    Basically I would like some examples of rape cases of the type you describe where the Police did oppose bail, as this is not something they do lightly due to the amount of work needed

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    13 year old girl (Collingwood supporter) “escorted” from ground for calling AFL player an “ape”.

    What a fucking authoritarian farce.

    The Guardians have taken over.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/8717139/Sydney-Swans-Adam-Goodes-racially-abused

    (Watch the video)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Huge police presence in Sweden to stop people defending against Islamic rioters because police are doing nothing. Even failing to extinguish burning cars unless it provokes rioters further.

    http://www.friatider.se/swedes-take-to-the-streets-to-defend-their-neighborhoods

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    More abject gutless surrender, as tweeters are arrested for texts insulting to Islam-

    Detective Inspector Ed Yaxley of Avon and Somerset Police said: ‘These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol.
    ‘People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330809/Lee-Rigby-death-11-people-UK-arrested-making-racist-anti-religious-comments-online-British-soldiers-death.html#ixzz2ULd6rKuM

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    laworder (208) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 10:24 am
    —————————-

    Still do not agree and I did understand you.

    The police are more than capable of putting forward the family/victim/s arguments regarding bail. What is more, they are in a position to sort out fact from fiction in such matters, and use objective reasoning, as opposed to highly emotive reasoning.

    Victims and family do not usually have the full facts regarding the crime involved, and the necessary information regarding the accused offender, e.g. Previous Convictions and personal information. They are not at this point in the proceedings sufficiently informed to make an objective personal plea. That time comes when sentencing is being considered, after the offender has been found guilty.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    While the flag of the Communist Generals flies high over America-

    http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/img/2013/05/Int/boston_ultima_800-movil.jpg

    their factories deliver more fake products to the west-

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/million-doses-of-fake-aspirin-from-china/story-fni0xqlk-1226650694328

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Reid (16,441 comments) says:

    Huge police presence in Sweden to stop people defending against Islamic rioters because police are doing nothing. Even failing to extinguish burning cars unless it provokes rioters further.

    So how much more evidence do people need before they finally draw the obvious conclusion (duh) that Islamification as practised in the EU is nothing more but a social engineering policy conducted since the 70’s designed specifically to get Christians and Muslims hating each other’s guts.

    What else explains the decades and decades of politicians right across the EU completely ignoring the wishes of THEIR OWN ELECTORATES plus actions like those of the Swedish police, here and now, today? (Which actions will only become more and more widespread across the EU.)

    It’s just an accidental bunch of stuff that just happened?

    Duh.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    laworder (210) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 11:27 am
    ————————————-

    I think you need to back up your claims with some evidence.

    From my experience the police frequently oppose bail when there are indications and likelihood of further offending, irrefutable evidence of excessive violence, possible harm to either victim or offender and so on.

    You are using an argument that the police, rather than do their job of protecting the community, deliberately avoid filling out forms because they are too long – and so put the community at risk unnecessarily.

    If that is the case – it is not a law change you need, but rather, a word with the police minister regarding Police policy and the manner in which it is being addressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. thedavincimode (6,759 comments) says:

    You vain shallow self absorbed bore

    Too funny.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    Reid- it is not anything near as complicated as you make out. It is simply that the left own the political debate. In fact they own politics, and therefore if there is a change coming, it has to come from outside of the present global political paradigm.

    (Glad to see you well again)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @laworder

    Peter, I do not have the resources to do such research. However, I believe the onus on anyone proposing such a radical proposal which to the best of my knowledge does not operate anywhere in the civilized world to really do their research and homework.

    I am focused on another issue aligned with SST. That is better training and selection process for judges. We not only have judges that are not all that bright but some who are very much lacking in morals and ethic.

    This is the clown I had call Your Honour.

    http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845343

    I put in a complaint to the JCC but the judges version of events were a lot different than what happened.

    We need judicial accountability. The JCC is a farce.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    laworder,

    the Police do not routinely oppose bail. The reason is that the form they need to fill out in order to oppose bail is several pages in length and takes over a couple of hours to fill out correctly

    You’ve been had, mate.  The form is generally no more than 2 pages long and has, down the left hand side, a list of what they need to discuss in order to fill it out correctly.  Often much of it is just a recitation of the defendant’s criminal history, plus a few other points that may or may not be relevant.

    It is a straightforward form that is easily completed.  I could do one in about 15 minutes. 

    The Police regularly oppose bail, sometimes for genuine reasons and sometimes for specious reasons.  The fact is that there is a Bail Act that gives the judges guidance on what they are to look for and that guidance is included on the form, as I have said, down the left hand side. 

    Have you actually seen one of the forms?  If not, why are you actually taking a position on it without that sort of basic knowledge?  If you had read some of the drivel on them that I have read then you would not hold your position.

    I totally oppose your position.  I have seen complainants oppose bail on the flimsiest of reasons, often out of spite against someone they were in dispute with and even for offences that were fine only.   I have seen police oppose bail simply because they didn’t like the defendant, not because there was any actual danger to the community.

    Conversely, I have seen judges refuse bail even when the Police have not opposed it, because the judge has rightly followed the law and not their own feelings on the matter.

    Your position is a kneejerk one that is based, apparently, on low quality and biased information.  That is very poor policy making and, in my view, typifies the SST’s approach to their positions.  

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    We not only have judges that are not all that bright but some who are very much lacking in morals and ethic.

    That is pretty unfair.  Of the couple of hundred judges in the Country, all have a law degree and, generally, 20 to 30 years experience as lawyers before they are elevated to the bench.  

    I don’t think you will find any that can actually be accurately characterised as ‘not all that bright’.  The morals I am less able to comment on, but for most their ethics are exceptional. 

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    A taste of their own medicine: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22664835

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    F E Smith, you nailed it. Which is understandable given your profession.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    There seems to be a lack of coverage and commentary about the goings on in Obamamerica.
    We have a president and a White house lying and covering up over the Benghazi terror attacks.
    We have an IRS that has been targeting conservatives, something now admitted by the White house.
    It is now just a matter of what role it and Obama played in it, interesting considering Obama met with the IRS union leader the day before such targeting began.
    We have a government spying on the private emails of journalists.
    What has happened to what used to be the Land of the Free?
    It all seems very Soviet to me, to see a state abusing its citizens in such a way, especially those who oppose it.

    As for the 13 year-old girl in Australia, who called the AFL player an ape.
    I too see an over reaction. Yes, she was wrong but was such an exposure warranted?
    Here we have a great hulk of a beefy man ‘gutted’ by the stupid abuse of a 13 year old girl.
    What a precious little petal he must be, what a tender wee flower.
    Is he a man or a mouse?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Of the couple of hundred judges in the Country

    What’s with the capitalization?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Fletch (6,367 comments) says:

    UglyTruth @8:58

    Reminds me of how Seal Team 6 who killed Bin Laden all died in a helicopter crash.

    President Barack Obama said Saturday that the deaths of Americans in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan are a reminder of the “extraordinary” price the U.S. military is paying in the decade-long Afghan war.

    Insurgents shot down a U.S. military helicopter during fighting in eastern Afghanistan, killing 30 Americans, most of them belonging to the same elite unit as the Navy SEALs who killed former Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden, U.S. officials said Saturday. It was the deadliest single loss for American forces in the decade-old war against the Taliban.

    One current and one former U.S. official said that the dead included 25 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the raid in Pakistan in May that killed bin Laden. They were being flown by a crew of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because families are still being notified.

    A total number of 38 people died in the crash, killing 7 Afghans and one interpreter.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/06/afghan-president-31-americans-killed-in-helicopter-crash/

    Apparently, they were sent out without proper backup, and in an old helicopter etc…

    Three families of Navy SEAL Team VI special forces servicemen, along with one family of an Army National Guardsman, will appear at a press conference on May 9, 2013, to disclose never before revealed information about how and why their sons along with 26 others died in a fatal helicopter crash in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011, just a few months after the successful raid on the compound of Osama Bin Laden that resulted in the master terrorist’s death.

    Accompanying the families of these dead Navy SEAL Team VI special operations servicemen will be retired military experts verifying their accounts of how and why the government is as much responsible for the deaths of their sons as is the Taliban.

    The areas of inquiry at the press conference will include but not be limited to:

    1.    How President Obama and Vice President Biden, having disclosed on May 4, 2011, that Navy Seal Team VI carried out the successful raid on Bin Laden’s compound resulting in the master terrorist’s death, put a retaliatory target on the backs of the fallen heroes.

    2.    How and why high-level military officials sent these Navy SEAL Team VI heroes into battle without special operations aviation and proper air support.

    3.    How and why middle-level military brass carries out too many ill-prepared missions to boost their standing with top-level military brass and the Commander-in-Chief in order that they can be promoted.

    4.    How the military restricts special operations servicemen and others from engaging in timely return fire when fired upon by the Taliban and other terrorist groups and interests, thus jeopardizing the servicemen’s lives.

    5.    How and why the denial of requested pre-assault fire may have contributed to the shoot down of the Navy SEAL Team VI helicopter and the death of these special operations servicemen.

    6.    How Afghani forces accompanying the Navy SEAL Team VI servicemen on the helicopter were not properly vetted and how they possibly disclosed classified information to the Taliban about the mission, resulting in the shoot down of the helicopter.

    7.    How military brass, while prohibiting any mention of a Judeo-Christian God, invited a Muslim cleric to the funeral for the fallen Navy SEAL Team VI heroes who disparaged in Arabic the memory of these servicemen by damning them as infidels to Allah. A video of the Muslim cleric’s “prayer” will be shown with a certified translation.

    http://press.org/events/navy-seal-team-vi-families

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Redbaiter (8,801 comments) says:

    “There seems to be a lack of coverage and commentary about the goings on in Obamamerica.”

    The NZ media is owned by the left. They will do all they can to protect the left’s figurehead.

    This demonstrates so clearly what a farce the left have made of our democracy.

    (Good to see you back Fairfacts.)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    We not only have judges that are not all that bright but some who are very much lacking in morals and ethic.

    Chuck Bird, you may benefit from considering that Judges are bound by the law the same as anyone else. They do not get to sit up there doing what ever they like. Often they may make decisions that they personally do not like.

    Same thing with sentencing. If they impose an especially harsh sentence it could open up grounds for appeal. They are an instrument of the law, not a primary source of law and general fix-it-up profession.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (827) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
    Of the couple of hundred judges in the Country

    What’s with the capitalization?

    You tell us what’s with the capitalization UglyTruth…?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. wat dabney (3,756 comments) says:

    Apparently, they were sent out without proper backup, and in an old helicopter etc…

    So, not deliberately killed then.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You tell us what’s with the capitalization UglyTruth…?

    An expression of interest by govcorp.
    UT

    Capitalization repre­sents the total amount of the various securities issued by a corporation.
    Black’s 5th

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Inky_the_Red (759 comments) says:

    The Greens really piss me off with their distrust of Science. GM is a tool that can help feed moore people cheaper. I think that is a good thing and letting people starve is evil. I accept that with GM there needs to be caution but a blanket ban is insane

    I suggest people tell them some truths. Their Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/nzgreenparty?hc_location=stream

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, no it does not. You can not shop around for definitions to create a montage that supports your theory. I often see this with people who question sovereignty. They glean definitions from all over the place, often confusing civil proceedings with criminal.

    Your name in capitals is not a corporation. It is simply an administrative convention and nothing more.

    Take a break from the conspiracy sites and go read a basic introduction to the legal system. It is not complicated and won’t take you long. The library will have something.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It is simply an administrative convention and nothing more.

    Wrong. In the English language abnormal capitalization can indicate an alternate meaning. For example in the King James Bible, the word LORD represents a proper noun (the tetragrammaton), while the word Lord represents an ordinary noun (meaning master or the one having authority).

    Of course in court appearances are made on an oral basis (a name is called), which introduces an element of ambiguity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Doctor Who (52 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth. You’re Dan Brown, aren’t you.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    GM is a tool that can help feed moore people cheaper.

    GM from MonSatan?

    (Reuters) – Monsanto Co is hosting a “Bee Summit.” Bayer AG is breaking ground on a “Bee Care Center.” And Sygenta AG is funding grants for research into the accelerating demise of honeybees in the United States, where the insects pollinate fruits and vegetables that make up roughly a quarter of the American diet.
    ….

    Die-offs of bee populations have accelerated over the last few years to a rate the U.S. government calls unsustainable.
    ….

    Scientists, consumer groups, beekeepers and others blame the devastating rate of bee deaths on the growing use of pesticides sold by agrichemical companies to boost yields of staple crops such as corn. Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and other agrichemical companies say other factors such as mites are killing the bees.

    But environmental scientists say evidence increasingly points to pesticides coating corn seeds as the problem, not mites. In recent years, U.S. corn seed suppliers have offered more corn seed pre-treated with types of neonic insecticides so that as the plant grows it repels harmful pests.

    A study published last year by scientists at Purdue University in Indiana found evidence that planting the coated corn generates dust that contains very high levels of the neonics that can move beyond the fields where the seeds are planted. The researchers said they found the poison in the soil as well and in pollen collected by bees as food. The neonics were present on dead bees collected for study.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/20/us-usa-bees-idUSBRE94J0MK20130520

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @F E Smith (2,545) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Does having a law degree guarantee that so one is that bright and logic? I think not judging some of the comments I have seen on this blog for a start. I am not referring to you.

    I could also mention Binnie the ninnie who got $400k for a shocking bias report.

    I have a feeling that a law degree is not enough to be a lawyer. Perhaps you can tell me is a paper or two in math and stats a prerequisite? Is a paper in psychology a requirement?

    I also believe that judges should only cover areas where they have been tested and approved. A judge should not be able to set on civil, matrimonial and criminal cases unless he or she passed a qualification in each.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Wrong. In the English language abnormal capitalization can indicate an alternate meaning.

    Yes it can, but in the case of your name it does not. As I have mentioned previously, you are collecting meanings out of context and applying them where they do not belong.

    Monsanto has helped feed millions of people. The anti-science crowd have killed millions. Just look at the death toll from banning DDT and from food shortages caused by bio fuel crops, not to mention millions of hectares of forest destroyed. All our domestic crops are heavily modified and were long before Monsanto came along. Most plants were toxic with large amounts of natural pesticides. Plants evolved chemical defenses as they are unable to run away. We have breed them to be less poisonous, but typically the strongest toxins in our food crops are natural ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    “They do not get to sit up there doing what ever they like.”

    What make you say that?

    In my case the judge was to fucking lazy to put an important minute/direction in writing and that cost me about $70. I failed to get a second caveat on the property because of that and the property has been sold so an appeal would be pointless.

    I have since found out that there is no requirement for for judges to put anteing in writing.

    I complained to the JCC as i said. The JCC should be scrapped and complaints should be heard by a panel that includes lay people and if judge gives his or her version of events it should be a swore statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Yes it can, but in the case of your name it does not.

    You were wrong about it before, why should anyone think that you know what you are talking about?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    We need judicial accountability.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, provide evidence.

    You have never proven me wrong on any point. Ever.

    No matter how many times you parrot your conspiracy theories they will not suddenly become truth. You are living in a dream world, but that is ok. You will comply with the law just like all the other sheeple. The system will force you to do so. Simple as that :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You have never proven me wrong on any point. Ever.

    You were just proven wrong about capitalization simply being an administrative convention.

    K: It is simply an administrative convention and nothing more.
    U: Wrong. In the English language abnormal capitalization can indicate an alternate meaning.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,461) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    We need judicial accountability.

    You want to hold Judges accountable for the wrongs of others. A direction that would undermine Judicial separation and lead to the Judiciary being politicised.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, yes I heard you the first time. You are still wrong and have provided no evidence.

    But moving on….

    Why do you disregard the laws made by the democratically elected representatives of the people in favour of the announcements of an 8th century unelected English king, with appeals to the god of a Middle Eastern desert cult ?

    If you really value freedom and power to the people, you would prefer the former not the later. You can change the laws we have if you can gather enough support. Our elected representatives are the ones who make law, not god and not some king who lived over 1200 years ago on the other side of the world. This means you can bring about change, if enough people agree with you.

    Seems like a pretty good system to me and I am puzzled where you are going with all this ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    You want to hold Judges accountable for the wrongs of others. A direction that would undermine Judicial separation and lead to the Judiciary being politicised.

    Wrong. I want to hold the judge accountable for not using common sense and having no sense of fair play especially for an unrepresented party. A judge should make ever reasonable effort to make sure both parties hear his directions and at a minimum put his directions in writing.

    If a judge cannot be bothered putting in important directions in writing then there should be a requirement for him to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird, usually what the Judge says is recorded. That is the decision, not what he puts in writing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    One more thing Chuck Bird… have you ever tried to read a Judges “writing” ? It is considered a black art :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostradamus (3,320 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    UglyTruth (832) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 11:00 am

    Appears Muslim……….again.

    Not commenting about the Paris incident yet, but recently appearing to be Muslim:

    Boston bombing, Jeff Bauman reportedly gets his legs blown off and there’s no evidence of blood on him. The suspects’ uncle used to live at the home of A CIA operative involved in radicalization of Muslims.

    Then a London soldier reportedly gets his head cut off and there’s there’s no evidence of blood on him. “Let me comfort him” a woman reportedly pleads. In the video a little old lady with a shopping trundler is so traumatized by the events that she walks past the alleged murderer who is holding a butcher’s cleaver and a knife, there are red smudges on his hands.

    And there’s the video of Nick Berg being beheaded. Berg was already dead when he was beheaded, if his heart was still beating there would have been blood everywhere.

    Oh no – it’s a conspiracy! A conspiracy, I tell you!

    – Boston bombing: There was no blood on Jeff Bauman. Amazingly, none of the many people at the scene (including paramedics) and none of the hospital staff who treated him noticed this. Or they did, and none of them are telling us the truth. Yes, either way, definitely a conspiracy.

    – London: There was no blood on the London soldier. None of the many people at the scene noticed this. Everyone was taken in by the fake red smudges on the alleged murderers’ hands. The gunfight (of sorts) between the murderers and the police was an act, because there was no evidence of any guns! Surely at least one person could tell us that the alleged murderers was using red paint. Yes, they must all be in on the conspiracy, too.

    – Nick Berg: No evidence of blood! Those dastardly Americans who closely analysed the video posted on the internet were lying. They said that the video appeared to have been heavily edited (as shown by the date and time stamp), so not all of the footage was included. They were lying. Lying, I tell you! Why are we not being told the truth, er, the Ugly Truth? (Capitalisation intended – what’s with that is a matter for you to decide :))

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Kea, I know that final decisions are recorded but there is no requirement for directions made at case management or call over hearings to be recorded electronically or in writing. In my case the judge should have realized the importance of have such a direction in writing so it could not be disputed.

    I respectfully requested at a call over hearing that settlement not take place until after the main hearing and settlement was meant to take place a few days after. I requested that settlement not be moved forward.

    The judge said that the court was to be notified if settlement was to be brought forward. There was some discussion which I had a little difficulty hearing as I was not as the bar as I should have been and the other party’s lawyer had his back to me. I left understanding that the judge had not changed his mind. Both parties should have got that direction in writing.

    The property was sold and the judge could not remember what he said.

    A simple written direction like that would taken five minutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird. Let me get this straight. The judge gave a direction to the lawyer who borrowed money from you that he was to give you notice if the property was going to be sold before a certain date. The property was sold before that date. You can still claim the money he owes but it is more difficult because you no longer have any claim on that property (it has been transferred to another person). I take it the figure is $70,000 not $70.

    The lawyer shafted you and the judge cannot remember what he said; nothing was recorded. I can scarcely believe this. A vital and crucial direction was not recorded. Would F E Smith or someone tell me this could happen.

    If it can then it would be worth telling people to take a recorder into court with them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird, fair enough. Point taken, if it indeed happened that way.

    Dennis Horne, I don’t think you are allowed to take a recorder with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @UgLy TrUtH. WoRk ThIs OuT

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. Of course you aren’t. Making a point. You get a Herald photographer ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    This might apply:

    A nursery school pupil told his teacher he’d found a cat, but it was dead.
    ‘How do you know that the cat was dead?’ she asked her pupil.
    ‘Because I pissed in its ear and it didn’t move,’ answered the child innocently.
    ‘You did WHAT?’ the teacher exclaimed in surprise.
    ‘You know,’ explained the boy, ‘I leaned over and went ‘Pssst’ and it didn’t move.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea.

    When I was six months pregnant with my third child, my three year old came into the room when I was just getting ready to get into the shower.
    She said, ‘Mummy, you are getting fat!’
    I replied, ‘Yes, honey, remember Mummy has a baby growing in her tummy.’
    ‘I know,’ she replied, but what’s growing in your bum?’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,195) Says:
    May 26th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
    @UgLy TrUtH. WoRk ThIs OuT

    You will have him running to his safe-house wearing his best tinfoil hat !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Longknives (4,737 comments) says:

    For fucks’s sake-

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/8718898/Doctor-Who-thunderingly-racist

    Amongst other things Dr Who is racist because he likes cricket…God help us.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @Dennis, I meant $70k. The failed lawyer that ripped me off is to useless to represent himself so he is paying a barrister to tell lies for him.

    The judge’s direction was to the barrister.

    If I had known what I know now the first thing I would advise an unrepresented litigant to do would be to request to sit at the bar. So you can hear the judge and the lawyer properly. I believe one can request the direction be put in writing.

    Below is from a letter I got from the General Manager Higher Courts

    To answer your questions on Court procedure:
    • The Institute of Judicial Studies provides support and education programmes for Judges. As the Institute operates independently from the Ministry of Justice I cannot comment on the existence of standard procedures relating to unrepresented litigants. More information on the Institute is available on its website: http://www.iis.govt.nz Only barristers have a right to sit at the bar during a hearing, and the position of unrepresented litigants within the Courtroom is entirely at the Judge’s discretion.
    • Also at the Judge’s discretion is the decision of whether or not to put directions in writing.
    • The Ministry currently does not record case management and call over hearings as a matter of course.
    If you wish to continue to pursue your claim, I urge you to seek further legal advice as to what options may be available to you from here.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Fairfacts Media (372 comments) says:

    Now, we have the thuggish supporters of Obama targeted the sponsors of a radio show because the presenter criticised Obama over his record on unemployment.
    Funny thing is, the radio presenter was a lefty.
    And get this? Black too!
    Obama and his supporters really cannot stand any form of criticism.
    Hence the oppression we see in Obamerica!
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/05/breaking-obama-goons-threatened-far-left-radio-host-tavis-smiley-and-his-sponsors-too/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird, the system is not perfect. You go to Court for justice and you get law. What is “just” is a matter opinion.

    Your experience, though personally damaging, is not an indication of the entire system being broken.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    The communist Luddites continue to con heaps of gullible people: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10886230

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I want to hold the judge accountable for not using common sense and having no sense of fair play especially for an unrepresented party.

    A person who is not a lawyer, fails to get legal representation in a case where they stand to lose property? – there was definitely someone without commonsense in those proceedings, and it wasn’t the Judge.

    Why should the courts make allowances for people who refuse to get representation? If you wish to represent yourself, then you should have made sure your ‘representation’ was ‘up to the job’. It is not up to the Courts to treat you any different, or give any favours.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Fair comment Judith.

    If I wire my own house, or attempt to recondition my car engine, I can not complain to the relevant trade bodies if the result is not what I intended.

    Nothing against your intelligence or ability Chuck Bird, but you should have gone to a specialist. Talk of “fair play” & “common sense” are immediate red flags for me. You don’t get it.

    I wonder what the other party thought of the outcome ? Typically the successful party considers the Court showed lots of common sense and fair play.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Kea, I do not expect the system to be perfect but I do expect highly paid people like judges to be selected on there character and common sense not on who drink with or whose arse they kiss or there ability to make a judgement on points of law that defies common sense.

    I complained to Judith Collins but she forwarded my complaint the Minister of Court who did not have enough confidence to vote for his own amendment.

    He thought it was all my fault and should get a lawyer and throw away good money after bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Chuck

    70K is worth speanding a few bob on to try and collect BUT if your legal advisor had said ” you are throwing good money after bad let it lie’ thats money well spent. Been there done that. It sticks in your craw but it cheaper in the long run.

    The worst possible thing you can do in civil proceedings is go in thinking things will be ticky boo just because “morally” you have a strong case. Morals are not statutes or case law.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. RF (1,396 comments) says:

    i guess that after the 2 poll results that came out tonight Shearer the sheep will present himself to the nearest freezing works tomorrow to do the decent thing. His commie mate Wussel should follow his lead. The great white hope has just turned brown. !!!!!

    Waiting to hear from Toad and that funny faced fella from the Standard, Micky Mouse.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Chuck here is some legal advice. I think it might be my mate Uglytruth :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. wreck1080 (3,905 comments) says:

    The high AUD is a reason why Ford (and probably Commodore ) are shutting down manufacturing.

    It’ll be funny when the AUD sinks again and they are again viable. But oops, can’t easily reopen a closed factory.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    – Boston bombing: There was no blood on Jeff Bauman. Amazingly, none of the many people at the scene (including paramedics) and none of the hospital staff who treated him noticed this. Or they did, and none of them are telling us the truth. Yes, either way, definitely a conspiracy.

    Which Jeff Bauman are you talking about?
    The ears are different, as well as the moustache lines.

    From the bombing
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/Bauman2Wheelchair500hArrowstext.jpg
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/JeffBaumanBostonMarathomLeftEarBump500h404wcrop.jpg

    Or this guy?
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/Bauman1D500hArrowstext.jpg
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/JeffBaumanDonationsGuyLeftEar500harrowText.jpg

    Source:
    http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bostonbombingdidyouthink20apr13.shtml

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, yes I heard you the first time. You are still wrong and have provided no evidence.

    Not that there is much point in arguing with a liar, but here is the evidence that I posted before.

    In the English language abnormal capitalization can indicate an alternate meaning. For example in the King James Bible, the word LORD represents a proper noun (the tetragrammaton), while the word Lord represents an ordinary noun (meaning master or the one having authority).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, what the fuck has the bible got to do with law in modern day NZ ?

    Why do you consider yourself exempt from the law passed by the democratically elected representatives of the people of NZ ?

    What is the bet you are happy to fully accept all the rights and protections, while rejecting all the obligations…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Nostradamus (3,320 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    The website you’ve linked to claims to have found “Indisputable Photo Evidence That the Boston Marathon Bombing Was Staged”.

    The “analysis” (in the broadest sense of the word) concludes:

    – There’s a “remarkable similarity of appearance” between Jeff Bauman and Lt. Nick Vogt (who lost both of his legs in Afghanistan in 2011).
    – It’s “still possible” that another person may be “playing the role of … Jeff Bauman”.
    – the person identified as Jeff Bauman is “surely an amputee actor who is pretending that his legs were blown off from a staged bombing near the finish line of the Boston Marathon“.

    I see…

    Now, UglyTruth, which part of this media account do you disagree with (I’ve posted the entire article so you can see how many people besides Jeff Bauman were apparently involved in this conspiracy):

    Two bombs that exploded in the crowded streets near the finish line of the Boston Marathon have killed at least three people, including an eight-year-old boy, and injured at least 176 in a bloody scene of shattered glass and severed limbs that raised alarms that terrorists might have struck again in the US.

    The Boston Globe named the boy who died as Martin Richard, from Dorchester in Boston, and reported that his mother and sister had suffered grievous injuries in the attack. A third child was uninjured.

    Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said no suspects were in custody but “we are questioning many people”. Investigators were reviewing streams of video gathered from nearby security cameras.

    People were told to stay out of the city as it was announced the FBI had taken over the investigation into the blasts. They occurred just before 3pm local time (5am AEST) and went off within 100 metres of each other near Copley Square in what appeared to be a co-ordinated attack.

    Eight children are among the injured, including a two-year-old boy in intensive care with head injuries. At least 10 people have had limbs amputated. No one has claimed responsibility for the carnage.

    Richard DesLauriers, the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Boston office, said the bureau was treating the inquiry as “a criminal investigation that is a potential terrorist investigation”.

    It has been suggested the bombings may have been timed to cause maximum damage, with both blasts occurring when the largest proportion of runners were due to cross the finish line.

    Early reports suggested five unexploded bombs had been found near the finish line but by nightfall, authorities were saying no other explosive devices had been found. As many as seven suspicious packages had been destroyed but they were later found not to be bombs.

    The two bombs that went off at the finish line were described by one of the officials as relatively small and possibly containing small ball-bearings or BB gun pellets, designed to serve as shrapnel. It was unclear whether the devices were remotely detonated or included timers, the official said, adding that no conclusions had been drawn on whether a group or lone wolf had been responsible for the attack.

    Injuries from the two explosions ranged from cuts and bruises to lost limbs. Many people suffered lower-leg trauma and shrapnel wounds, while some suffered ruptured eardrums. There were reports that ball-bearings had been pulled from victims’ bodies. The Boston Globe reported victims had been brought to hospital with metal debris embedded in their bodies, debris which doctors did not think was shrapnel from the bombs.

    “This is the sort of carnage you expect to see in war,” said Alasdair Conn, chief of emergency services at Massachusetts General Hospital, where 22 victims were taken, six of them critical, including four with traumatic amputations.

    President Barack Obama said the explosions were the act of an individual or group, but vowed to hold those responsible accountable. He stopped short of calling the attack terrorism.

    “We will find out who did this. We’ll find out why they did this,” Mr Obama said in a brief, three-minute statement. “Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full weight of justice.”

    Boston Medical Centre reported 20 injured, with two children among the wounded there. Tufts Medical and Brigham and Women’s Hospital also reported injured, as did Beth Israel Hospital. At least 15 people are in a critical condition.

    Investigators confirmed that they were speaking to a Saudi man in hospital, but said he was not a suspect. The man was reportedly tackled by a bystander after he was seen running from near the explosion. He is believed to be a university student in Boston and was co-operating with the FBI. He told agents that he was not involved in the explosions and had run only because he was frightened.

    This year, more than 23,000 people started the marathon in near-perfect conditions. Only about 17,580 finished. Many Australians were in the field, including wheelchair athlete Kurt Fearnley and a team of indigenous runners led by Australian marathon legend Robert de Castella. Officials say there are no suggestions of Australian casualties.

    The fiery twin blasts took place almost simultaneously and about 100 metres apart, knocking spectators and at least one runner off their feet, shattering windows and sending dense plumes of smoke rising over the street and through the fluttering national flags lining the course.

    When the second bomb went off, the spectators’ cheers turned to screams. As sirens blared, emergency workers and National Guardsmen assigned to the race for crowd control began climbing over and tearing down temporary fences to get to the blast site.

    A pool of blood formed, and huge shards were missing from window panes as high as three storeys.

    “They just started bringing people in with no limbs,” said runner Tim Davey, of Virginia. He said he and his wife, Lisa, tried to keep their children’s eyes shielded from the gruesome scene inside a medical tent that had been set up to care for fatigued runners, but “they saw a lot”.

    Roupen Bastajian, a 35-year-old state trooper from Rhode Island, had just finished the race when they put the heat blanket wrap on him and he heard the first blast.

    “I started running toward the blast. And there were people all over the floor,” he said. “We started grabbing tourniquets and started tying legs. A lot of people amputated … At least 25 to 30 people have at least one leg missing, or an ankle missing, or two legs missing.”

    Some 23,000 runners took part in the race, one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious marathons, which attracts more than 500,000 spectators and winds up in the heart of central Boston, near the landmark Prudential Centre and the Boston Public Library. It is held on Patriots Day, a Massachusetts state holiday which commemorates the first battles of the American Revolution in 1775.

    The Federal Aviation Administration barred low-flying aircraft from within 5.6 kilometres of the site.

    Public transport was shut down and mobile phone service was disabled to prevent the remote detonation of any other devices.

    House Homeland Security chairman Michael McCaul said the incident “has all the hallmarks of an act of terrorism. The White House is not calling it an act of terrorism yet. I am. We just don’t know if it’s foreign or domestic.

    “One piece of evidence I’m particularly interested in is whether these devices contained ball bearings, because that’s the signature of an IED,” Mr McCaul said. Improvised explosive devices are often used by al-Qaeda-linked groups and would suggest a foreign link, he said.

    Chairwoman of the US Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein was quoted as saying the bombing was “…a terrorist incident. It could be foreign, it could be home grown”.

    “There is no intelligence to the best of my knowledge that would point out there was an attack on the way,” Senator Feinstein said, describing the marathon event as a ”diabolical” place to strike. “We’ve known for some time that a public event where there were a lot of people would be subject to this possibility.”

    Police in Los Angeles, New York City, London and other cities around the world have stepped up their security, as organisers of the upcoming London Marathons announced the event would go ahead as planned.

    Two Australians competing in the marathon were just 700 metres from the blasts.

    Gill Stapleton, head of Special Olympics Australia, and Helen Carmody, principal of exclusive Victorian girls’ school Toorak College, were in a buoyant mood as they approached the finish line of the marathon.

    “Helen was on track to do a personal best and I was doing my sixth marathon in five years,” Ms Stapleton said.

    “It was a big moment for us, but then runners started stopping and we didn’t know what was going on.

    “Then we heard there was an explosion.”

    Ms Stapleton described Boston as “a city in chaos”.

    “For the first time in my life I’m glad I didn’t run any faster,” she said.

    Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the scenes in Boston were “shocking and tragic” and “cast a long shadow over one of the world’s great sporting events”.

    She said Australia’s condolences went to the families of those killed.

    For starters, that’s a lot of amputee actors, let alone other willing participants.

    So, just to be clear, do you say that all of these people (the ones injured, the paramedics and the bystanders) were in on a largescale conspiracy to deceive the public?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. lilman (958 comments) says:

    Ugly- why wont you tell us all why you hate the New Zealand police so much?

    Tell us why you are so picked on?

    Tell us why your so disadvantaged?

    Or even just tell us the truth for once?,not you version of the truth!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, regarding interpretation of words, I came upon this on YOUR WEBSITE

    “[it] is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the source itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no futher”

    Do you know who the “legislature” is Ugly ? It is those lot in parliament. The ones you have been telling us have no legal authority to govern. And I got this off your site !

    The crazy is strong in this one http://www.actsinjunction.info/home.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    Just in case anyone was wondering. :)

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u5pf9wz0wpl5d6u/Soda-Vs-Marijuana_o_116827.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    “Just in case anyone was wondering.”

    Stop sucking up to Griff ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    The poor bugger needs a glimmer of hope & happiness on the horizon Kea. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    PEB, thanks for your genuine advice. However, I did not quote my legal adviser. I am representing myself. I do not believe in caving in to extortion, so I will carry on representing myself.

    Do you suggest I walk a from a significant legitimate debt because of a former failed lawyer, property developer and father does want to pay his debt to me?

    I am just disappointed that I am not sure I will get an honourable judge.

    It is easy to tell others to move on but would you cave in to a fraudster who was a lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. nasska (11,468 comments) says:

    A golfer in Ireland hit a bad hook into the woods. Looking for
    the ball, he discovered a Leprechaun flat on his back, a big bump
    on his head, and the golfer’s ball beside him. Horrified, the
    golfer took his water bottle from his belt and poured it over the
    little green guy, reviving him.

    “Arrgh! Wha happen?” the leprechaun says. “Oh, I see. Waal, ye
    got me fair and square. Ye get three wishes. Whaddya want?”

    “Thank God, you’re all right!” the golfer answers in relief. “I
    don’t want anything. I’m glad you’re okay, and I apologize. I
    didn’t mean to hit you.” And the golfer walks off.

    “What a nice guy,” the leprechaun says to himself. “But it was
    fair and square that he got me, and I have to do something for
    him.! I’ll give him three things I would want a great golf
    game, all the money he ever needs, and a fantastic sex life.”

    A year goes by (as it does in jokes like this) and the golfer is
    back, hits another bad ball into the woods and finds the
    leprechaun waiting for him.

    “‘Twas me that made ye hit the ball here,” the little guy says.
    “I wanted to ask ye, how’s yer golf game?”

    “That’s the first bad ball I’ve hit in a year! I’m a famous
    international golfer now,” the golfer answers. “By the way, it’s
    good to see you’re all right.”

    “Oh, I’m fine now, thankee. I did that fer yer golf game. And
    tell me, how’s yer money?”

    “Why, I win fortunes in golf. But if I need cash, I just reach in
    my pocket and pull out $100 bills all day long.”

    ” I did that fer ye. And how’s yer sex life?”

    “The golfer blushes, turns his head away in embarrassment, and
    says shyly, “Errr, all right, I suppose.”

    “C’mon, c’mon now. I’m wanting to know if I did a good job. How
    many times a day?” Blushing even more, the golfer whispers, “Once
    -sometimes twice a week.”

    “What!” says the leprechaun in shock. “That’s all? Once or twice
    a week?”

    “Well,” says the golfer, “I figure that’s not too bad for a
    Catholic priest in a small parish.”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Chuck

    the only thing I know from civil proceedings is if you loose, you can loose big. You have to have very deep pockets or about a 95% chance of success .

    I dont know your cases circumstances but I would suggest you at least talk it over with a professional . If he says you’re rooted you probably are.

    Precedent is everything in civil proceedings and it is a very rare situation where there is not a previous precedent

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Sorry to hit and run this morning, people.  Spent a very enjoyable day looking at old planes and even older big guns. 

    Anyway, can I just say to Dennis Horne that I have been enjoying your comments recently.  Much respect in the measured way you respond; it is not something that I always manage to do!

    Chuck,

    Does having a law degree guarantee that so one is that bright and logic

    Well, it does guarantee that you are relatively intelligent, yes.  Logical?  Not so sure; legal reasoning is not necessarily based upon logic.  There are lecturers that could explain it better than I, but we have a particular way of addressing legal issues that is not always apparent to the untrained.

     Do we do maths, science, and the like in our degree?  Only if we want to.  I didn’t.  My extra subjects are in politics, history, and classics (which is basically more history). (Care to guess what subject I would have done if I hadn’t done Law?)

    Judges are generally either bright or very bright.  However, some are not cut out to be judges.  Unfortunately, in NZ we don’t have the role of deputy judge that allows some measure of estimating whether a person is both able to perform the role and actually wants to do it (it actually isn’t a universal aspiration of lawyers).  Contrary to what you say, they are given training, although not a lot of it.  That said, after 20-30 years as a lawyer they really don’t need a lot of training to be a judge.  They get regular chances to further their knowledge through seminars and the like, as well as having very up-to-date information on law changes, new decisions of higher courts and so on. 

    Unfortunately, judges remain human.  They have bad days.  They can get grumpy for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes they miss things.  Other times they just get the law, or something else related to the case, wrong.  That doesn’t make them bad judges.  It doesn’t mean that they are deficient in ethics or morals.  Perhaps the judge in your case just thought the other side had the better argument?  You say the other side’s case was false, but the judge only gets to hear and see what is put in front of them.  They aren’t allowed to investigate on their own, and if a false case is presented well (such as the AA Thomas case, or that against Peter Ellis, for example)  then a judge and/or jury might be convinced by it. 

    I think that PEB gave some very good advice at 6.17pm:

    70K is worth speanding a few bob on to try and collect BUT if your legal advisor had said ” you are throwing good money after bad let it lie’ thats money well spent. Been there done that. It sticks in your craw but it cheaper in the long run.

    The worst possible thing you can do in civil proceedings is go in thinking things will be ticky boo just because “morally” you have a strong case. Morals are not statutes or case law.

    I have done that myself, as a private person consulting a lawyer on a civil matter.  My matter was resolved in my favour, and I hope that yours is resolved to your satisfaction.  But it is wrong to impute poor ethics, morals, intelligence, or any other character quality or talent, simply based upon one case.  In a 15 year career as a judge, it won’t make much difference.

    By the way, I have little confidence in the JCC, too, but in its defence, it gets a lot of complaints from crims who have been rightly banged up by a judge.  So the JCC has a high standard for its complaints.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Kea,

    I have just watched that video clip that you posted at 6.36pm. That is some serious crazy there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    F E Smith, the highlights for me were the explanation of a “charge” and the one about the Registrar putting something on the 90 day bond market :)

    You should check out Bill Turners channel. It is so wrong it causes physical pain !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    PeterJ wants to change the law because of a conversation he claims he had about the ‘difficulty’ of filling out a simple form.

    Chuck chose to ignore advice on how he might recover his loss because it was too expensive, choosing instead to blame the world, or at least a reasonable part of the upper North Island.

    I wonder what the weather forecast is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Do you know who the “legislature” is Ugly ? It is those lot in parliament. The ones you have been telling us have no legal authority to govern. And I got this off your site !

    When did I say that they have no legal authority to govern, Kea?

    Oh, never mind, you were just making shit up again. Sorry I asked.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Now, UglyTruth, which part of this media account do you disagree with

    What has that got to do with the fact that the photos of “Jeff Bauman” are of different people?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Ugly the legislature governs and is the supreme law making body. The Judiciary is separate but subordinate to the legislature. They can make any law they like and change any existing one. Their laws bind us all, even you.

    You agree with all that….. now ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly the legislature governs and is the supreme law making body.

    I guess it’s easier for you if you don’t have to think about the consequences of serving the Crown.

    LAW OF NATURE. The law of nature is that which God, the sovereign of the universe, has prescribed to all men, not by any formal promulgation, but by the internal dictate of reason alone. It is discovered by a just consideration of the agreeableness or disagreeableness of human actions to the nature of man; and it comprehends all the duties which we owe either to the Supreme Being, to ourselves, or to our neighbors; as reverence to God, self-defence, temperance, honor to our parents, benevolence to all, a strict adherence to our engagements, gratitude, and the like. Erskines Pr. of L. of Scot. B. 1, t. 1, s. 1. See Ayl. Pand. tit. 2, p. 5; Cicer. de Leg. lib. 1.

    From Bouvier’s dictionary of law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Nostradamus (3,320 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    What has that got to do with the fact that the photos of “Jeff Bauman” are of different people?

    *Sigh*

    Let me be as clear as I can possibly be:

    – Let’s say (as a thought experiment) that you’re right: the photos of Jeff Bauman are of different people.
    – Working from that starting point, what’s your position on all the other people who were photographed or interviewed?
    – The “other people” I’m referring to are the many people who were injured, the many people who provided medical treatment, and the many bystanders who were otherwise caught up in the Boston incident.
    – Do you say all of those “other people” were part of the (quoting from your website) “staged bombing near the finish line of the Boston Marathon”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    I guess it’s easier for you if you don’t have to think about the consequences of serving the Crown.

    This from a guy who quotes an 8th century English king as a legal authority, along with an imaginary god of a bronze age desert cult !

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    This from a guy who quotes an 8th century English king as a legal authority, along with an imaginary god of a bronze age desert cult !

    Well, looks like talking shit is all you have left. Thanks for playing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, your website begins with this:

    The purpose of this website is to present information about a remedy for judicial fraud which occurs in New Zealand courts when they are unable to obtain jurisdiction by consent. In September 2011 Judge Richard Russell admitted to comitting fraud, and he said that it was due to “the rules”. The fraud related to his misrepresentation of the facts regarding the existence of a pleading.

    Given the demonstrated difficulties you have with understanding even simple legal processes, it is not hard to imagine there may have been a misunderstanding on your part.

    Am I right in assuming you represented yourself ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Well, looks like talking shit is all you have left. Thanks for playing.

    What the fuck ???

    You quote god and some king as the only binding statements of law. Are you denying that now ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. lilman (958 comments) says:

    Tell the truth Ugly>

    POOR POOR UGLY.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (838) Says:
    May 12th, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    “Uglytruth, so who gives you these rights you talk about ?”

    The Creator. This has always been part of the common law.

    …. There is also historical basis from the legal code of King Alfred the Great.

    UglyTruth, like most conmen you underestimate the intelligence of others while grossly over estimating your own abilities. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Nostradamus (3,320 comments) says:

    I see UglyTruth has no clear answer to the points raised in my 7:18 pm comment and in my 10:30 pm follow-up comment.

    Uglytruth must have seen my 10:30pm follow-up comment, because he’s responded to Kea’s 10:35 pm comment.

    As they said on the X-Files, The Truth Is Out There, but the truth is clearly not to be found on the weird conspiracy websites that UglyTruth reads.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. Griff (7,679 comments) says:

    Ut
    just another Wingnut conspirowhack
    :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    the highlights for me were the explanation of a “charge” and the one about the Registrar putting something on the 90 day bond market

    Have to agree, Kea.  Talk about taking words and using them in an entirely original manner! 

    A bit like our friend UglyTruth here…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    I can’t imagine what poor Judge Russell suffered through with Ugly referencing King Arthur, God and rather a lot else.

    I wonder if Ugly is a cannabis enthusiast :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @F E Smith. Chuck Bird says the judge ordered that the (ex-)lawyer who owes him money was not to sell the property. He sold it. The judge says he doesn’t remember what he said.

    Is what a judge says routinely recorded? Yes/No

    The debt remains. My personal view is get a debt collector. Preferably a big company with a big weight.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne, how do you suggest the debt collector recovers the money ? Chuck has no Court order in his favour by the sound of it. It is not legally enforceable.

    A big “company” won’t help. Maybe a “big” thug could assist, but that is not a path I would suggest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Kea. It appears to be a private debt, not a mortgage. The debt remains but the co-lateral was sold despite the judge’s order.

    Therefore a debt collector would have the right to collect the money, at a certain fee of course. Sounds like a crooked lawyer. Even if a judge ordered payment, he has probably hidden the money from the sale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    Aah no actually. Stick with other stuff you know nothing about Dennis. The debt is disputed. Additionally the court have nothing to verify the claim Chuck made about not selling the property. Another Judge indicated a route Chuck could take but he doesn’t want to because of the cost. He has a very arguable case but like folk that chortle about ‘Binnie the ninny’ and elevate themselves above Law Lord and international Jurists he is his own worst enemy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. I was hoping to phone a friend who knows something but it seems ask the audience is all I get. :)

    Is what a high court judge says recorded? Yes/No/Don’t know.

    Of course the debt is disputed. The lawyer is a crook.

    Binnie Dunce may know something of the law but he knows little about sifting through information and making sense of it. I listened to Sandiford. Anna is very entertaining. When pressed as to what independent evidence she has that the sock prints Hentschell saw were complete, she said “Hentschell”. Leaving aside Hentschell tried to qualify his opinion, how did Hentscell know? There is no valid evidence and no independent evidence the sock prints were complete. There is just an opinion and a circular argument. Binnie decided the prints were Robin’s and discarded crucial evidence and the accumulated effect. This is defective reasoning, not law. The Law Lords, toffs as they are, did not say Bain was not guilty or innocent.

    Stick to what you know, Nosty. I’m sure you’d recover money owed you without too much argument. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Talk about taking words and using them in an entirely original manner!

    Words can signify the abstract as well as the common. You never did say why you chose to capitalise “Country”.

    Clearly the Crown has issues with the law of the land.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Tell the truth Ugly

    Hypocrisy much, lilman?

    “Ugly- why wont you tell us all why you hate the New Zealand police so much?” ~ lilman

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Working from that starting point, what’s your position on all the other people who were photographed or interviewed?

    It’s not important. If Bauman is fake (and he is – the different ear shapes alone prove that) then that proves both foreknowledge and involvement of a third party. Add this to the wider context of a post-event body count of four, the FBI’s history of contact with Tamerlan, and the link from Uncle Ruslan to the CIA’s Muslim radicalization program via Graham Fuller and you’ve got a sizeable shit sandwich for the administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth. You have constructed a world that is not recognisable to the rest of us, using old books and old dictionaries whose authority we do not accept. That’s the fact of the matter.

    People capitalise words all the time. The POTUS is written the “President”; he is the “president”. Some capitalise “queen”, some do not. It’s just convention and habit, or ignorance.

    You are making a fountain out of a mole:) (Do see the joke? Yes/No.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You have constructed a world that is not recognisable to the rest of us

    I didn’t construct it, I pointed it out by showing associations between various facts, historical and contemporary. The real world is very different to the model used by the humanists, and the consequences of ignoring reality compound, they do not fade away into irrelevance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Ugly Truth. We all construct our own view of the Universe. Our brain interprets what we see — what our senses tell us. It’s all interpretation.

    People see connections between things, sometimes amazing insights into abstract things–Newton, Einstein–others are more mundane.

    Sometimes we “see” connections that do not exist. If we do this to a great extent we may get to the stage we cannot function.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    We all construct our own view of the Universe. Our brain interprets what we see — what our senses tell us. It’s all interpretation.

    The relevance of that view can be measured by the number of times it can’t explain the phenomena.

    The Phoenix Lights.
    Nanothermite residue in the remains of the twin towers.
    “Terrorist” events where people apparently can lose legs or even a head without any substantial blood loss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. It is perfectly obvious, looking at the construction of the Twin Towers, with failing fire-retardant material on the steel trusses, why they came down. The man who designed them accepts it, I don’t think he would feel the need to take responsibility if he didn’t have to. Nobody dreamed a heavy aircraft would deliberately fly into them. All for a few virgins.

    Cite incontrovertible evidence significant amounts of explosives were found.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    “Nanothermite residue in the remains of the twin towers.”

    A coating of Thermite would not have resulted in collapse. This has been demonstrated in experiments. It just burns off.

    Large amounts of concentrated Thermite are a different story, but this is not what has been suggested.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Nobody dreamed a heavy aircraft would deliberately fly into them.

    In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

    Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

    Cite incontrovertible evidence significant amounts of explosives were found.

    The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe conclusively shows the presence of unignited aluminothermic explosives in dust samples from the Twin Towers, whose chemical signature matches previously documented aluminothermic residues found in the same dust samples.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Paul, It is difficult to explain a complicated protracted case briefly but I will try. This guy owed me $130k. I had it secured by a second mortgage. He was a very close and trusted friend and had acted for me on a number of property transactions. He fell behind with the BNZ that had the first mortgage. He wanted to refinance with another bank but they would not allow a second mortgage. He persuaded me to accept a voluntary caveat in place of a mortgage. In return he reduced the debt to $35k. I did not have a lawyer as such so he drew up the Memorandum of Agreement and I emailed to his lawyer and he registered the caveat.

    We move ahead 4 or 5 years. The debt had increased a lot because of interest. When I pressed for repayment he stalled and I was forced to lodge a claim and he counterclaimed. His counterclaim is vexatious. The details are not important. He and I both represented ourselves in the District Court. I was okay with that.

    I then find out the property was up for auction. I could not believe it as I had a caveat on it. The way it was done was that he employed a devious lawyer who came up with a cunning plan. As I did not have my own lawyer to register the caveat, the address with LINZ was my home address when the caveat was registered. He knew I had moved and my new address as my address for service on our court case was my new address. His lawyer samply applied for the caveat to lapse knowing LINZ would send the notice to my old address and hope the new owners would not forward the notice. It worked.

    I knew I was out of my depth as I knew little about caveats so I employed a barrister. She told me she could either advise me and help prepare affidavits and applications on an hourly basis or fully represent me but not change about. I decided to take the first option as I knew the other party was vindictive and would try to run up my legal bill as he had done with someone else. The other person was owed about $20k and he has spent well over that on legal bills which he will never recover.

    I tried at first to get an ex parte freezing order in the District Court. The judge skim read my affidavit in under half an hour and said I should go to the High Court to lodge a second caveat. At this stage I did not know he had employed his own lawyer. I then apply to the High Court for a second caveat. I pay to have him served and then find out he now has a lawyer. This was a couple of days before the call over to set a date for the hearing. My barrister advised me as best she could and I read the following which I got at the High Court.

    http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/business/guidelines/memorandum-for-unrepresented-civil-litigants/Unrepresentedcivillitigants.pdf

    I had never been in a High Court before let alone represent myself. I walked into the Court and was going to sit and the bar as I had done in the District Court on a few occasions. At that time some well-meaning person who was represented signalled to me to sit beside him and whisper some nonsense to me. I should not have listened to him. I ended up at the back of the court on the right. The other party sat at the back on the left and his lawyer was at the bar on the right between me and the judge.

    When the judge came in he ignored me and spoke to the lawyer although I was the applicant. As you can see from the above link I was told not to interrupt so I said nothing. The judge then gave the lawyer a choice of dates and again ignored me. He then told us when to have submissions in and was about to dismiss us.

    I had no option but to stand and address the judge, “Your Honour I have gone to a lot of time and expense to get this far. If I leaves things as they are with this property with an unconditional contract and a settlement date a few days after the hearing it is highly likely that the settlement date will be moved forward and I will not see my money whatever the District Court rules.” The judge then said the Court is to be notified if the settlement date is brought forward.

    I had applied either for a second caveat or for the disputed amount left in my solicitors trust account till the matter was decided in the District Court. The lawyer got up and responded to the judge. I was left with the impression that the judge direction still stood. I have marginal hearing loss. The lawyer had his back to me when he spoke and obstructed my view of the judge when the judge spoke. It is easy to say I should have said this or that to the judge but I had been treated most unfairly from the minute the judge entered the room.

    I was ignore and I was the applicant

    I was not invited to sit at the bar.

    I was not asked for input as to the date. If I was I would have asked for the earlier date.

    I thought the decision would have been in writing.

    In my present position it would be illogical to hire a lawyer. If I get an honest judge with an IQ above room temperature the counterclaim will be thrown out and I will get all or most of my claim. However, it is one thing getting a judgement and another thing getting the money. My chances could be marginally improved with a lawyer but I could end up with a lawyer’s bill for tens of thousands as well as an unpaid debt. I have already paid a few thousand dollars in legal bills for advice. I hope this explains my situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird. Do you have a bank record of money you lend this lawyer friend and what he repaid?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. No, the man who designed the Twin Towers said they were not designed to withstand deliberate intrusion by heavies. A medium aircraft only. That makes sense to me.

    “Your” paper gives a rigmarole about explosives. Why would I believe hypothesised alternative explanations, that would involve a huge number of conspirators, when there is a perfectly obvious one available? I saw the video of the aircraft flying into the building and “exploding”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith

    Judges are generally either bright or very bright.

    It depends how you define bright. They may be able to argue about the placement of a comma or the meaning a word but that does not mean they will come up with a fair, reasonable or logical decision.

    Any judge should be able to work out it event A has 20% chance of happening and event B has a 30% chance of happening what is the likelihood of both event A and event b happening. I bet many of them could not.

    Competent lawyers, like politicians are good at debating. Many could win a debate even if they are logically wrong. Take the late Paul Holmes’ book on Erebus. His book was based on emotion and I bet he could be have judged to win a debate with a highly competent commercial pilot but that does not mean he is right. A lawyer may get guilty person off by sometimes very dubious means that does not make them a good judge.

    Unfortunately, judges remain human. They have bad days. They can get grumpy for all sorts of reasons.

    Either they are human or they are deities. If the former we should not be required to treat them as deities. All this crap of wigs and gowns should be done away with.

    But it is wrong to impute poor ethics, morals, intelligence, or any other character quality or talent, simply based upon one case.

    If you read my earlier post you will see I have not. I was not happy how I was treated in court and less impressed with his version of events which was not what happened. However, when I read about his conduct in relation to women I think that confirms what I thought of him.

    http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?PageID=2145845343

    I must add many years ago I represented myself in the Family Court and was very impressed with the general fairness in the way judges treat unrepresented litigants.

    My latest experience with some of the judges in this case leaves me less than impressed. They may have drunk at the Northern Club when this guy was a practicing lawyer and they are not obliged to disclose a perceived conflict of interest. This is not right. This guy used to big note about drinking with the prosecution and the judges there after a case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No, the man who designed the Twin Towers said they were not designed to withstand deliberate intrusion by heavies.

    Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he “designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.”
    Ref: Towers collapse shocks engineers, MedServ, 9/11/01

    Max takeoff weight:
    Boeing 707-320 328,060 lbs
    Boeing 767-200 395,000 lbs

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

    Why would I believe hypothesised alternative explanations, that would involve a huge number of conspirators, when there is a perfectly obvious one available?

    Because the “obvious” one fails the energy test, and the alternative one fits the wider geopolitical context of increasing state power and dominance of countries which have significant oil reserves,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, in order to believe such things requires a very dark and distorted view of your fellow man. That is a common feature of conspiracy theorists. You do not like people very much and have a pretty miserable view of mankind.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @Dennis Horne

    There were two loans. One was for $450k and was fully repaid 23 July 2004. Then there was the current loan taken out 2005 and converted to a mortgage 2007.

    The major issue is the vexatious counterclaim that related to the earlier loan. This nut job is claiming I commuted fraud over the earlier loan. There is some dispute over the Limitation Act and the time limit that should apply. But he has claimed that he did not get the last advance of $115k I made by cheque on 9 June 2002. I fortunately have the cheque stub and bank statement that shows the money came out the next day. This does not satisfy him and thinks I should prove he got the cheque although he knows the bank destroys cheques that old.

    I believe that civil courts should work like criminal ones and have something like depositions to see if a claim or counter claim is reasonable. His counterclaim is unreasonable and I am confident any judge will agree but the damage has been done by this vexatious counterclaim.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. The obvious flaw in your argument is that, whatever the design, there was degradation of the fire-retardant on the steel trusses. The TT would not have withstood a B707 either. Depends on the fuel load more than anything, the mass only penetrates, it’s the fire that matters.

    If this plot had been organised by the Americans it would have failed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    ‘Binnie Dunce may know something of the law but he knows little about sifting through information and making sense of it. I listened to Sandiford. Anna is very entertaining. When pressed as to what independent evidence she has that the sock prints Hentschell saw were complete, she said “Hentschell”. Leaving aside Hentschell tried to qualify his opinion, how did Hentscell know? There is no valid evidence and no independent evidence the sock prints were complete. There is just an opinion and a circular argument. Binnie decided the prints were Robin’s and discarded crucial evidence and the accumulated effect. This is defective reasoning, not law. The Law Lords, toffs as they are, did not say Bain was not guilty or innocent.’

    It just shows stupidity Dennis and lack of understanding of the process. There are always 2 sides Dennis and while Chuck has an arguable case, he admits (and of course that is his decision) he does not want to spend further. That however doesn’t make his allegations against various lawyers and a Judge anything more than that.

    In respect of Sandiford, she wasn’t required to look behind evidence of Hentschel that she was able to confirm, she accepted that Henstchel was right in his evidence before he tried to change it, so did Justice Binnie. She accepted it as did Binnie because it was able to be confirmed through her tests. However continue on, there’s more emerged in that case to make you look an even bigger tool. Not specifically just the OIA that discloses the crap the sisters have been trying to peddle either. You’re trying to harvest from a very barren field now however, trying to say that the Crown and it’s witnesses shouldn’t be held to their own evidence. What next, seances?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    CB

    “All this crap of wigs and gowns should be done away with. ”

    Wigs are long gone. Just gowns now mate.

    Likewise depositions are going the way of the dodo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. Crap, crap and more crap. Sandiford has no independent evidence. No independent evidence means the conclusion is not inarguable.

    The opinions of one man, one accepted one rejected. Neither opinion incontrovertible evidence. Whatever he said, Hentschel had no way of knowing whether the print was complete or not. The measurements remain problematic.

    To pin such flimsy evidence against a raft of other evidence is wishful thinking, poor reasoning or madness.

    As regards Chuck Bird, there are three possibilities. The loan was not made. The loan was repaid and he has forgotten. The loan was repaid and he is lying.

    Bird seems to have a record of transactions. As I know of several cases where lawyers have stolen houses from other family members, I am not surprised at Chuck’s betrayal by a former friend. I have a very decent lawyer. He once remarked he doesn’t trust other lawyers … at least the ones in the city…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

     Dennis, in my field, which is criminal law, all hearings are recorded.  In my forays into the civil arena I have not actually bothered to check if they are recorded, so perhaps my civil colleagues could chime in sometime. 

    I know that I note down as much of what the judge says regardless of whether the matter is recorded or not.  Recordings can get lost, or the record button might not be pressed, or the might be a malfunction with the recording equipment, so I choose not to rely on it.

    Chuck,

    Firstly:

    so I employed a barrister

    Do you mean that you asked your solicitor to instruct a barrister to act for you?  Because you cannot directly instruct a barrister to act on your behalf.  The intervention rule still applies in NZ.  I have to say that I think that you were poorly served both by the barrister and in representing yourself.  You really did need a solicitor to do this work for you.  The barrister could have been instructed prior to going to Court, but really it was a solicitor that you wanted.

    When the judge came in he ignored me and spoke to the lawyer although I was the applicant

    Had you stood and identified yourself when the case was called to make it known to the judge that you were the applicant? 

    He then told us when to have submissions in and was about to dismiss us.

    That seems fairly normal.

    The judge then said the Court is to be notified if the settlement date is brought forward.

    As does that.

    I had applied either for a second caveat or for the disputed amount left in my solicitors trust account till the matter was decided in the District Court.

    In written submission or orally?

    I have marginal hearing loss

    Did you make this known to the Court Taker (the usher) prior to Court commencing?  They will make allowances for people with hearing loss to be seated closer to the judge, or for the judge to speak more loudly.

    The lawyer had his back to me when he spoke and obstructed my view of the judge when the judge spoke

    The first part is normal- the lawyer was not speaking to you but to the judge.  Are you suggesting that your view of the judge was purposely obstructed by the lawyer?  Where you unable to move seats in the Courtroom?  

    It is easy to say I should have said this or that to the judge but I had been treated most unfairly from the minute the judge entered the room.

    Well, that depends on your answer to my question about whether you identified yourself to the judge when the case was called.  Also, had you engaged in any discussion with the other sides lawyer about how the matter should proceed? That, I understand, is fairly normal also.

    I was not invited to sit at the bar.

    That is not an issue at all.  I have seen people represent themselves very well from the front of the public gallery.  The District Court can be quite informal, but the High Court is very strict on the rules.  My civil friends would be better placed than I to have a firm opinion, but what you are describing sounds very much like a directions hearing, so nothing was going to be resolved at that time anyway.

    I thought the decision would have been in writing.

    Not necessarily if it was in fact a directions hearing.  You are expected to make a note of the dates set yourself.  Or ask the Registrar after the hearing was over if you hadn’t heard the judge.  Or just speak up and politely ask the judge to repeat what he had said because you hadn’t been able to take it all down.

    In my present position it would be illogical to hire a lawyer

    Rubbish.  It would be most prudent of you to hire a lawyer.  Have you heard of the legal maxim that he who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer?  In your case, and given what you have described, I would say that you are in desperate need of instructing a good property lawyer.

    If I get an honest judge with an IQ above room temperature the counterclaim will be thrown out and I will get all or most of my claim.

    Well, that is your opinion.  Obviously the other side disagrees.  That is why you need a lawyer.  

    However, it is one thing getting a judgement and another thing getting the money.

    Absolutely.  That is a completely separate process.

    My chances could be marginally improved with a lawyer but I could end up with a lawyer’s bill for tens of thousands as well as an unpaid debt.

    Or you could end up with a judgment in your favour, all or some of your costs awarded to you (there are rules on that, too), and advice on how best to go about ensuring that you get your money.

    Chuck, I cannot urge you strongly enough to instruct a good civil litigation lawyer who deals with property cases, and do it as soon as possible.

    but that does not mean they will come up with a fair, reasonable or logical decision.

    Well, I have to say that the crims who get imprisoned by judges also have low opinions of those judges, so I don’t put much store in what you say there.

    Any judge should be able to work out it event A has 20% chance of happening and event B has a 30% chance of happening what is the likelihood of both event A and event b happening. I bet many of them could not.

    That is completely irrelevant.  It is up to each side to provide that information to the judge.  It is not for the judge to conduct their own calculations, indeed the should not conduct their own calculations.   That is the whole point of having counsel in a case.

    Competent lawyers, like politicians are good at debating. Many could win a debate even if they are logically wrong.

    Irrelevant.  Lawyers argue positions under the law. It is not just a matter of logic.  It is also a matter of what the law says and what the facts of the case are.  If the facts are disputed then each side has to present their case and do it well.  You make it seem as if lawyers operate in a vacuum, but they do not.  They operate in circumstances defined by the facts as relayed to them by their clients, and the law as it is set by Parliament.

    A lawyer may get guilty person off by sometimes very dubious means that does not make them a good judge.

    Lawyers do not ‘get guilty people off’ by ‘very dubious means’.  I am not sure you realise what you are meaning when you write that.  Lawyers operate in a system defined by rules written mostly by Parliament.  If Parliament provides a defence that allows a guilty person to escape conviction, then that is not ‘very dubious means’.  

      If the former we should not be required to treat them as deities.

    We don’t, but they are accorded a great deal of respect because of their position.  They sit in place of the monarch.  Would you not accord the monarch at least a little respect?

     All this crap of wigs and gowns should be done away with.

    We no longer wear wigs except at ceremonial sittings.  I think we should bring them back.  

    They may have drunk at the Northern Club when this guy was a practicing lawyer and they are not obliged to disclose a perceived conflict of interest.

    If you think that there is a conflict of interest then you can ask the judge to recuse him or herself.  Again, a solicitor would be the best person for you to consult on how to best deal with this.  However, I can assure you that this judge could be a lifelong friend of everyone but you but it would still mean little to the outcome of the case.  The outcome of the case involves a written decision with reasons, one that can be appealed and then looked over by the Court of Appeal.  There are checks and balances in place, no matter how much you choose not to make use of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The obvious flaw in your argument is that, whatever the design, there was degradation of the fire-retardant on the steel trusses.

    Irrelevant unless you can show that the degradation was sufficient to cause fire-related catastrophic truss failure.
    Also irrelevant because truss failure can’t account for the amount of energy necessary to produce the high volume of particulates produced by the collapse.

    The TT would not have withstood a B707 either.

    You know better than the engineers who designed the building? You were wrong in claiming that an airliner crash was unforseen, where is your credibility in this?

    Depends on the fuel load more than anything, the mass only penetrates, it’s the fire that matters.

    Most of the fuel was consumed in the fireball outside the building.
    After the initial burn the colour of the smoke indicated a low temperature oxygen starved fire.

    If this plot had been organised by the Americans it would have failed.

    The Israelis were running an extensive intelligence operation at the time, there were numerous connections to Israel (Kroll Associates, ITCS Associates, Urban Moving Systems, the neocons), and the event was in their interest politically.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,470) Says:
    May 27th, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    ————————–

    I would say he is correct – it is for you to prove that he was paid in full.

    The bank should be able to provide the name of the person to whom the funds were paid, presuming you had the good sense to make it crossed not negotiable, – although if it was presented and paid out the following day, it sounds like that may not have been the case.

    If you made it a cash cheque, then I suspect you will lose.(Unless limitations etc) The fact is, you could have written the cheque and presented it yourself for cash, and written the cheque stub at anytime. I would suspect a cash cheque without a receipt offers you no protection – of course you would have got a receipt when you gave him the cheque?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    Your distress shows you’ve lost the plot Dennis, perhaps you’ve started to feel uncomfortable that it might be you wrong rather than scientists, Judges and a Jury. Anyway, my confidence remains high not only that DB was always innocent, but that it’s been made clearer more recently. Sweat on that old chap.

    ‘There are checks and balances in place, no matter how much you choose not to make use of them.’

    F E Smith, all the things you said. Chuck seems to be also overlooking the fact that he was urged to make contact with The Registrar in writing before the grace period lapsed, telling them that he was going to take legal advice and have a lawyer represent him on the matter and to ensure it when on the file and the Judge was informed, also to forward the same advice to the ‘other’ side. He chose not to for some reason. I agree with your advice to him. I think he has some ‘silly ideas’ about certain cases he comments on but that doesn’t substitute the fact that he’s been treated both poorly and illegally by someone he trusted with a lot of money.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    “I have marginal hearing loss”

    Chuck, next time explain this to the Court taker or the Registrar. Most Courts have a device you can wear to amplify the sound. The desks usually have microphones to pick up what everyone is saying.

    And get a lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    that doesn’t substitute the fact that he’s been treated both poorly and illegally by someone he trusted with a lot of money.

    Absolutely, and that is really unfortunate.  I regret even more that involved someone from my own profession.  That said, with 11,000 of us in NZ, there will always be the odd bad apple or two.  

    But what he has described is text book as to why he should have retained a lawyer in the first place. 

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If the former we should not be required to treat them as deities.

    We don’t,

    New Zealand’s Parliament has developed from the British parliamentary system known as the Westminster system of government and is the highest law-making body in New Zealand.
    http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-new-zealand-legal-system

    Except for the law making body who established the principles of common law, of course.

    Would you not accord the monarch at least a little respect?

    What respect is due to a monarch who is ultimately responsible for acts of torture, genocide and depravity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    UglyTruth, we clearly disagree on the details, but perhaps we can find some common ground on the big picture.

    1. What system of law do you suggest we adobt ?

    2. Where do we access this law ?

    3. Who will enforce it ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    New Zealand’s Parliament has developed from the British parliamentary system known as the Westminster system of government and is the highest law-making body in New Zealand.

    Well, blow me down, I didn’t know that!  Gee, UglyTruth, what other wonderful snippets can you teach me?

    Except for the law making body who established the principles of common law, of course.

    Um, wouldn’t that be ‘bodies’, not body?  The Common Law does not stem from one single body, after all.  But even then you would be WRONG!!!!

    What respect is due to a monarch who is ultimately responsible for acts of torture, genocide and depravity?

    Well, considering that Her Majest is the Queen of New Zealand, then I am suggesting that she is due quite a lot of respect, regardless of what you might think that she is responsible for.  

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird. By saying you have some trouble hearing you have shot yourself in the foot. It gives them all an out. You don’t “know” what was said.

    The lawyer owes you the money, he can produce no evidence he repaid you. If he had repaid you he would have said so to the judge in the first place instead of listening to the argy-bargy about selling the house. He didn’t.

    He sold the house over which you had some hold. Of course the judge said he wasn’t to, whatever you may think about judges’ understanding of science and maths, he understood the situation regarding the loan and he understood what was required regarding your interest in the house. No question of that.

    The house was sold and the money has been hidden somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Well, blow me down, I didn’t know that! Gee, UglyTruth, what other wonderful snippets can you teach me?

    Your sarcasm is misdirected, the point was to show that the system has an overinflated sense of self importance in designating itself to be the highest law making body.

    Um, wouldn’t that be ‘bodies’, not body? The Common Law does not stem from one single body, after all.

    No, I mean a single body. I’m talking about the fundamental principles here. The body I’m referring to authored the original text, a translation of which begins King Alfred’s legal code.

    I am suggesting that she is due quite a lot of respect, regardless of what you might think that she is responsible for.

    The evil that has occurred under here watch is too widespread and has gone on for so long that the notion that she was unaware or disapproved of it simply isn’t tenable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    FES

    UT and Chuck Bid have made interesting reading over the past few days.

    UT comes from the water-woman school of jurisprudence. Any attempt to debate issues is impossible. The maxim about never wrestling with pigs springs to mind.

    Chuck on the other hand has had a difficult time. I think that is exacerbated however by his insistence on going it alone. It is his absolute right to do that but it does make life difficult.

    I have tried to get my head around the hearing Chuck has an issue with.

    If it was a directions hearing then a timetabling minute would have been issued by the judge or more likely the associate judge dealing with the matter. If it was the first call of an on notice application as it would need to be for an application to register a second caveat then any directions and timetable orders would have been committed to writing and circulated amongst the parties.

    Even now retired associate judges (or in her case Masters) such as Anne Gambrill gave written directions.

    It just seems odd that important things like timetabling wouldn’t have been reduced to writing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @ F E Smith

    Thank you very much for your considered reply with questions. I will answer it shortly but address a couple of the short easy ones first.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Thanks, alex. I appreciate someone with more civil experience than I giving an opinion.

    Chuck, rather than reply to me, it might be better to have a look at your records and see what type of hearing it actually was, given what alex has said.

    But I still urge you to seek legal help with this matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    UT comes from the water-woman school of jurisprudence. Any attempt to debate issues is impossible. The maxim about never wrestling with pigs springs to mind.

    Yeah, agreed.  I actually had a look at UT’s website the other day.  Not good, although possibly with a genuine issue, but a poor understanding of both legal history and legal reality. 

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    FES,
    Agreed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia. If you want to know if homeopathy or chiropractice works, would you review the court cases or the science? If you wanted to know about evolution, would you talk to scientists or lawyers involved in various court cases?

    You simply don’t understand or won’t accept reality. The question of factual innocence is a question of science and probability, not of the law. The law is only about guilt BRD within its own proceedings and processes.

    It doesn’t matter a fig what the courts or Binnie declare about the sock prints or anything else from a scientific point of view. The information can be investigated quite independently and as often as we like.

    Sandiford has no independent evidence about the sock print. She admitted that to me. If she has no independent evidence then she is depending on Hentschel. She admitted as much. But it doesn’t matter what Hentschel thought or said, or whether the court accepted it or not, because it was only an opinion. Hentschel might have been wrong. There is simply no way of telling.

    Therefore Sandiford’s conclusions may be wrong. Actually, whether they are wrong or not is immaterial, her methodology is invalid. I say again: The sock print measurements are problematic. Nobody can decide whose feet they were.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @Judith

    I would say he is correct – it is for you to prove that he was paid in full.

    The bank should be able to provide the name of the person to whom the funds were paid, presuming you had the good sense to make it crossed not negotiable, – although if it was presented and paid out the following day, it sounds like that may not have been the case.

    If you read my post the cheque was written 9 June 2002 and he was aware that the bank could not trace the cheque. This is the case so you are wrong that the bank should not be able provide the name of the person to whom the funds were paid.

    I might add that since the High Court matter we had a telephone conference with a lady judge who I will not name and he also had a different barrister – a female. The judge was far from impressed. He employed a barrister for the phone conference and keep butting in. The judge requested I supply certain things rather than make discovery orders necessary. I said no problem for the current loan which was what I brought the claim about but I was arguing that the Limitation Act applied and mentioned the cheque that was over 10 years old and she was happy with that.

    I got the impression that the judge was not impressed with this dickhead who kept butting in and neither was his new lawyer. After the case she was no longer working for him and he went back to the low life dodge lawyer he had.

    The next point covers Kea’s comment. The judge offered to set me up with headphones. I told her I had a hearing impairment and was not deaf. I had no problem on the phone except for this dickhead interjecting. I was also okay in Court proved I could see the person speaking.

    I might also add that the other High Court judge who presided at the main hearing was very good and fair. She knew I got shafted and when the lawyer asked for cost she very quickly declined. I also got a written judgment.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    The body I’m referring to authored the original text, a translation of which begins King Alfred’s legal code.

    King Alfred’s legal code… how quaint.

    What has the “King” to say about Aviation Law UT ?

    Why are the utterances of 8th Century English Kings binding on modern day NZ, rather than the laws of our democratically elected representatives. ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    The next point covers Kea’s comment. The judge offered to set me up with headphones. I told her I had a hearing impairment and was not deaf.

    Well Chuck you can hardly blame the Court if you did not hear can you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Why are the utterances of 8th Century English Kings binding on modern day NZ

    They aren’t.  They have no application at all.  UT also seems to ignore the fact that the Code he refers to was in fact legislation.  That is what a Code is.  Our current Crimes Act is also a code, so it replaces all previous common law crimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @UglyTruth. You know better than the engineers who designed the building? You were wrong in claiming that an airliner crash was unforseen, where is your credibility in this?

    I am relying on an old memory. I recall that the only crash considered likely was an accident, a light aircraft, in the area by error. I do believe the possibility of a heavy was considered extremely unlikely, certainly not foreseen. I think the biggest aircraft at the time was the B707/DC8, which are not wide-body.

    Whatever the design parameters, the trusses had not been maintained. That is a fact. I have seen an aircraft crash and burn; I have no difficulty at all believing a heavy could penetrate certain buildings and cause a serious fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Well Chuck you can hardly blame the Court if you did not hear can you ?

    Absolutely, I should have been sitting at the bar and I was not. How was I to anticipate I would be in this unfair position?

    Did you read the link to the pamphlet I was given?

    http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/business/guidelines/memorandum-for-unrepresented-civil-litigants/Unrepresentedcivillitigants.pdf

    It is all about how to grovel to the judge and nothing about any right of which there a few. It would have been nice if it told me what to do if I got an unfair judge like making myself know to the judge as FES suggested and also request to sit at the bar so I could not only hear properly but also have a place to place papers and take notes.

    You mention in another comment I should get a lawyer. Did you read my earlier comment why I won’t? I assess I am highly likely to win my claim but will struggling to get paid. I could end up paying a legal bill of anywhere from $20 to $50k and be awarded a small fraction of cost that I also would have little chance of collecting. Where is your logic?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    ‘Therefore Sandiford’s conclusions may be wrong. Actually, whether they are wrong or not is immaterial, her methodology is invalid. I say again: The sock print measurements are problematic. Nobody can decide whose feet they were.’

    To use your own language, ‘crap’ Dennis. One person’s feet were excluded, the Crown case was that it was one or other of the men. All the ‘crap’ in the world doesn’t elevate your opinion over the Jury’s decision and Binnie’s finding. The person that was excluded wasn’t the person whose blood was on the towel, who had a nosebleed, damaged hands and left his DNA in the barrel. Go whistle on a mountain.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @ alex Masterley

    Thanks for your input. I have and pasted from a letter I received from Paula Tesoriero
    General Manager, Higher Courts.

    To answer your questions on Court procedure:
    • The Institute of Judicial Studies provides support and education programmes for Judges. As the Institute operates independently from the Ministry of Justice I cannot comment on the existence of standard procedures relating to unrepresented litigants. More information on the Institute is available on its website: http://www.iis.govt.nz Only barristers have a right to sit at the bar during a hearing, and the position of unrepresented litigants within the Courtroom is entirely at the Judge’s discretion.
    • Also at the Judge’s discretion is the decision of whether or not to put directions in writing.
    • The Ministry currently does not record case management and call over hearings as a matter of course.
    If you wish to continue to pursue your claim, I urge you to seek further legal advice as to what options may be available to you from here.

    Note the added mantra about paying lawyer that can do nothing more than I can now that I have lost my security.

    As you see the judge was not required to put his direction in writing and he definitely did not. That was part of my complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

    The time of the main or substantive hearing and when the submissions were required was in writing but the important direction that the court be notified if the settlement date was brought forward was not in writing.

    Surely, the judge understood my point about the main hearing being pointless if the property was sold. He should have order that the settlement date not be brought forward. However, when I am treated with less respect be the judge than a common criminal I did not feel I should argue the point from the unfair position I was forced to be in.

    I have written Chester Borrows and one of my complaints was about the inadequate pamphlet I was given for unrepresented civil litigants. He dismissed that as well as everything else. He said basically it was all my fault for trying to represent myself. I do not think Chester is the sharpest knife in the drawer. He even voted against his own amendment.

    I am afraid I am still of the view there can be no justice until judges are held accountable one way or another – do not care how. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner is a con and should be scraped.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Nostalgia. Don’t be thick. Sandiford’s conclusion rested on evidence that was only an opinion. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. You say the Crown case was it was either man. Yes. So what? Doesn’t prove anything.

    An opinion was given by Hentschel. If another opinion is given based on that opinion it remains an opinion, no matter how impressive the prestidigitation. The sock prints remain problematic no matter what.

    Binnie Dunce decided it was Robin, that is gave an opinion to himself on the value of an opinion, and constructed his narrative around that, ignoring compelling evidence, like the broken glasses.

    DNA in the barrel? Nosebleed? Damaged hands? You made it up.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Absolutely, I should have been sitting at the bar and I was not. How was I to anticipate I would be in this unfair position?

    Did you read the link to the pamphlet I was given?

    Chuck, you were offered a head set and declined.

    I did read the link you provided and this is the first thing on it:

    MEMORANDUM FOR UNREPRESENTED CIVIL LITIGANTS

    Obtain legal representation

    This memorandum sets out some material which may help unrepresented civil litigants.
    However, parties who participate in civil litigation should if possible have legal representation.
    This is because a knowledge of the law, of court practice, and an ability to analyse facts from a
    legal perspective, are the province of specialised court lawyers. You may be very disadvantaged if
    you are not able to call on that level of expertise. You should speak to a lawyer before you
    proceed further.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    I have written Chester Borrows and one of my complaints was about the inadequate pamphlet I was given for unrepresented civil litigants.

    What you wanted was a pamphlet that gave you the same advantages as years of legal study and experience. Such a thing does not exist.

    Law is technical, just like surgery is. Would you have a go at removing a tumor after reading a pamphlet ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. Longknives (4,737 comments) says:

    Oh God Nostalgia has been at the ‘Funny Cigarettes’ and the Karam Propaganda booklets again….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    ‘DNA in the barrel? Nosebleed? Damaged hands? You made it up.’

    Don’t be a sore loser Dennis, write a poem it will make you feel better. But only temporarily of course, because the good ship ‘Daddy’ is sinking faster than ever – don’t let that stop you from shoring up the leaks and going down shouting insanely.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  198. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    What Chuck wanted was a judge who wrote down what he said, or saw that someone did. He must have known what was at stake: That if the property was sold then Chuck lost his money.

    You may need a lawyer to play in the field of law, that does not make the law right. In fact, it makes it wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  199. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Nosty. I’m being called for dinner. What do you get called for dinner? :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. Johnboy (16,484 comments) says:

    I whistled on a mountain a month ago.

    No Sika stags responded! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    Run along Denny, you’ve had your play time. There’s no problem being a double yoker and eating one as well, after that into the old sanitary nappies, a cup of cocoa, a little story about Cinderella and off to nod land you go.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Johnboy (16,484 comments) says:

    Is it just the marbles N-NZ or have you misplaced the bag as well? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    You may need a lawyer to play in the field of law, that does not make the law right. In fact, it makes it wrong.

    Dennis, I agree for all its worth (Which is nothing)

    Some attempts have been made to make the law more accessable. Part of the problem may be the adversarial system. The Judge is not there to sort things out, but to listen to both sides and apply the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    He must have known what was at stake: That if the property was sold then Chuck lost his money.

    Surely the debt would still remain?  What would be lost would be the opportunity to realise the property via mortgage, or to register a caveat against the title.  

    Kea, please don’t bring up the adversarial thing.  We have had too many people criticise the adversarial system vs the inquisitorial system when they actually haven’t understood what that entails.  Or which version of the inquisitorial system they are actually referring to. 

    Whichever system you use, it still always comes down to the judge making a decision on what the facts actually are and then applying the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    Judges for the most part will listen, and their decisions can be appealed. Chuck simply decided to give up and has said as much many times, mindful of the costs and what he might have been unable to recover. That’s his choice and good on him, but no use bitching about it and blaming the Courts. No superior Court would freely abide an injustice, looking first at the merits of the case, why it wasn’t communicated properly, what the likely outcome would have been and so forth. Chuck simply didn’t go that far, he was down to the hour and could have communicated his situation to the Registrar but decided against doing so. It’s not even too late for him now (though his explanation why he sat on his hands would be carefully scrutinised), but he prefers moaning about others whose fault he claims it to be and does nothing to remedy his situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Johnboy (16,484 comments) says:

    If we ever get to vote for Judges I’ll vote for you FE. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @kea

    Chuck, you were offered a head set and declined.

    You sound like a lawyer or judge to me. You are quoting me out of context to misrepresent the facts.

    I was not offered a headset at my hearing in the High Court.

    The judge in the telephone conference offered to arrange a headset for the settlement conference. I declined because it was not necessary as it was not necessary in the High Court if I had been given a fair go by the judge as there are no rules how judges are required to treat unrepresented litigants. The judge probably as a lawyer had a similar attitude to some of the lawyer on this blog towards unrepresented litigants and carried that attitude to the bar.

    What you wanted was a pamphlet that gave you the same advantages as years of legal study and experience. Such a thing does not exist.

    Rubbish. You are as about as bright as Cheater Borrows. I said what I expected. All is as wanted was how to respectfully request a fair go. I do not think that is too much to ask. I never had a problem with my marginal hearing loss in the District Court when I sat at the bar.

    It is an outrage that ALL hearing are not recorded.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    It’s not even too late for him now (though his explanation why he sat on his hands would be carefully scrutinised), but he prefers moaning about others whose fault he claims it to be and does nothing to remedy his situation.

    Nos, you are talking utter nonsense. I did not realise the settlement have been brought forward and the property had been sold when I went to the High Court for the main hearing. There was different judge and she was very good and fair. However, she could not allow a caveat on the property as there was a new owner. She knew I was shafted and when the lawyer asked for cost she quickly declined and gave her reason h=in her written judgement.

    Would you kindly tell me how I can get my security back?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  209. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    Kea, please don’t bring up the adversarial thing. We have had too many people criticise the adversarial system vs the inquisitorial system when they actually haven’t understood what that entails.

    F E Smith, I was not being critical of the adversarial system. I just wonder if the inquisitorial system “may” be better suited to those unfamiliar with the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    ‘It is an outrage that ALL hearing are not recorded.’

    Chuck your ‘skirting about the outskirts.’ The Judge who you decided not to name gave you a very clear (and it could be said sympathetic) indication of what legal avenues were open to you, instead of pursuing them you have instead chosen to attack the system as being at fault. Taken to it’s natural conclusion, had you followed a fairly basic course to recover your money all the other ‘handicaps’ that you feel were placed in front of you would now be of no consequence – you I think (most likely) would have won, had the opportunity for the Court to inquire into where money had been moved, and when, and if it had been deliberately ‘hidden’ to deny you being paid it would have been clawed back and other serious consequences would have followed for the other party. You made it easy for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @FES

    Surely the debt would still remain? What would be lost would be the opportunity to realise the property via mortgage, or to register a caveat against the title.

    Exactly, when I win my case as I should I will then look at my options. First I will make a complaint to the Law Society although not perfect against the barrister. The Law Society may not be perfect but better than the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. If I win there I will consider paying a lawyer to sue him. But before I do so I would do a cost benefit analysis as to my chance of winning and what I will get as I have done on my present case.

    I have two sensible options. Firstly, walk away from the debt or do what I am doing. Paying a lawyer is not a sensible option. I mentioned this to my barrister who I employed for research and advice and she immediately mention cost benefit.

    Many people have suggested the South Auckland solution which I have rejected. The piece of scum I have been told by someone I trust threated him and his wife with death if he did not comply with his demands. The guy did not go to the police as it would be his word against this crocked lawyer. He has had the good sense not to threaten me and certainly not my family. He has that much survival instinct.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    ‘Nos, you are talking utter nonsense. I did not realise the settlement have been brought forward and the property had been sold when I went to the High Court for the main hearing. There was different judge and she was very good and fair. However, she could not allow a caveat on the property as there was a new owner. She knew I was shafted and when the lawyer asked for cost she quickly declined and gave her reason h=in her written judgement.

    Would you kindly tell me how I can get my security back?’

    The ‘lapsed’ caveat didn’t extinguish the debt, it extinguished the security – but even that was in question, in particular if it had been ‘extinguished’ in such a manner to deliberately deny your right to be paid, or unfairly to benefit the creditor to your detriment. From memory the Court didn’t make any ruling on whether the debt was owed, only on the extent and life of the security. The un-named Judge couldn’t rule on peripheral matters not contained in the papers, but he or she gave a good explanation to you about that which was very fair, and to me at least, an indication of what course you should take.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  213. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Chuck. I don’t want to make light of your predicament, but have you considered giving Tame Iti a bell? Or you could try Fair Go. In the meantime, count yourself lucky you didn’t get shafted like Peter Ellis.

    @FESmith. I have read your comments, Chuck must be very grateful you are taking the trouble to help him, in the absence of an examining magistrate being available at the time … :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    Nos, I believe the majority of judges are good honest people but there is a minority that is not insignificant who are arrogant low lifes like the first judge in the High Court who is likely a serial sexual predator and totally lacking in ethics.

    I am dealing with a sociopath who would rather pay this scumbag lawyer $70k than pay me what he owes me. This guy inherited around a million dollar and it will soon be gone. What is left – a few thousand can easily be hidden.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    @Dennis

    “Or you could try Fair Go.”

    That is certainly an option I have and am considering at the appropriate time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. Chuck Bird (4,880 comments) says:

    F E Smith, I was not being critical of the adversarial system. I just wonder if the inquisitorial system “may” be better suited to those unfamiliar with the law.

    It may be reasonable to keep the adversarial system in criminal law but have the inquisitorial system for civil law particularly matrimonial law. I believe the adversarial system can cause lifelong harm to children in family courts.

    I also agree with F E Smith that there is no silver bullet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  217. Johnboy (16,484 comments) says:

    I’ve just whacked a bit more popcorn in the microwave. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    I put that ‘skirting about the outskirts’ in just for you JB, knowing that you’d ‘flicked’ your skirts in a very ‘cheeky’ way in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Johnboy (16,484 comments) says:

    Sorry old chap I never noticed it. What time did you say it? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. Kea (12,795 comments) says:

    I’ve just whacked a bit more popcorn in the microwave.

    Nothing to see here Johnboy. The following things are settled and leave no room for debate.

    1. AGW theory is totally discredited.

    2. Griff is self medicating heavily.

    3. Fags are happily married.

    4. God still has not turned up to smote the doubters.

    5. Mad Butcher Bain is free as a bird.

    6. White people suck.

    7. Men suck.

    8. Capitalism sucks.

    Not much else to talk about really.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  221. Johnboy (16,484 comments) says:

    I’ll have another drink instead then Kea! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. Rowan (2,306 comments) says:

    Binnie Dunce may know something of the law but he knows little about sifting through information and making sense of it.”

    LMAO Dennis you truly are a clown! will value the judges findings over the ex dentists ‘sifting through information and making sense of it’ or the ramblings of the JFRB cult.
    Looks like you and Chuck would make a good pair for the ‘ninny’ or ‘dunce’ award

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Ah, Rowan, I see the troops have brought out the big gun. Pop!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  224. Rowan (2,306 comments) says:

    Will be interesting to watch your cult leaders defamation case later this year Denny, looking forward to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Rowan. Bully shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. Rowan (2,306 comments) says:

    Funny for such an ‘expert’ Denny your explanations of any of the evidence are simplistic, naive and laughable. Unsubstantiated bullshit would more accurately describe most of it, hey but what would more we expect from CS!
    ‘ignoring compelling evidence, like the broken glasses.’
    So compelling that the detective had to lie about them and perjure himself back in 1995. Such the ‘strength’ of the crown case

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    Kea, at least have enough guts to defame people on your own site instead of prevailing upon a site not owned by you to continue your hate speech. Why try to make DPF responsible for your defamation, give up being a gutless wonder. Then check out recent proceedings of published defamatory comments made on a host site, it might help you crap inside your own bell bottoms instead of those belonging to others.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Nostalgia-NZ (5,191 comments) says:

    Just realised I repeatedly referred to Chuck’s erstwhile ‘friend’ as the creditor rather than the debtor last night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  229. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Rowan. One thing about your not saying anything original, little man, is that there’s nothing to think about or answer. If you stumbled on the truth people would only think you were pissed. :) :) :)

    @Nostalgia. Never mind old bean, you must sometimes eventually realise that you are in error. Keep it up. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote