General Debate 12 May 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment170

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (170)

Login to comment or vote

Redbaiter

Time to ban driving with kids in the car.

Apparently it is 12 times more distracting than driving while talking on a cellphone.

Come on do gooders.

LETS HAVE A LAW CHANGE NOW…!!!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/05/09/forget-cell-phones-kids-in-the-car-are-even-more-distracting/
11 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 8:38am
lilman

Totally over these police being blamed for these pursuit deaths.
I say chase the little bastards till the either crash run-out of petrol or give up,then take the car and inprison them for a mandatory 2 years.
As for those who say the police have fault in these accidents I say you are piss weak.
25 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:28am
Morgy

Paul East is on a hiding to nothing with Johannson and that fella from Flaxmere on the couch.
4 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:34am
Kea

If the police abandon chases it will encourage people to escape and could ultimately cause more deaths as a result. It is never the fault of the police if these people crash and die. They really have no choice but to pursue.
20 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:40am
iMP

Here’s something really weird for an intriguing Sunday read in your jammies with toast.

http://conzervative.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/its-sunday-theology-slot-bizzaro/
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:41am
UglyTruth

I say chase the little bastards till the either crash run-out of petrol or give up,then take the car and inprison them for a mandatory 2 years.

When asked the reason for the pursuit the officer said it was “just a routine stop”.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10882573
5 8
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:46am
mandk

Ugly truth – Not sure what your point is.
I am quite happy for the police to stop me routinely to ensure I am not pissed, off my head on drugs or driving an unsafe car.
It helps to keep my (and your) kids from harm.
16 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:51am
UglyTruth

It is never the fault of the police if these people crash and die. They really have no choice but to pursue.

However the officer’s speed of 127km/h in a 50km/h zone was not justified, and the pursuit should have been abandoned earlier.
It recommended both the officer and dispatcher be re-trained on police driving policy.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10882573
1 19
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:51am
UglyTruth

mandk, my point was that some people are quite happy for kids to be killed in the name of law enforcement.

I am quite happy for the police to stop me routinely to ensure I am not pissed, off my head on drugs or driving an unsafe car.

That is your choice. However the right to use a public road in the ordinary way is part of the law of land, as is the presumption of innocence. A agreement by parliament to injure the rights of others is a conspiracy, it is not law.
2 18
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 9:58am
Pete George

Johannson has become more openly biased than Helen Kelly.
15 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:02am
edhunter

Damned if they damned if they don’t.
But they must continue to give pursuit to do otherwise would be to make a mockery of themselves & the law abiding citizens of NZ
15 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:04am
Kea

UglyTruth, I am the first one to restrict the powers of the state. However, the police should never abandon a chase. If they do, then many more people will run.

BUT…

I will say that I oppose random/routine stops, as does anyone who is not an authoritarian worshiping idiot who should be removed from the gene pool.
11 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:05am
UglyTruth

edhunter, the “law abiding citizens” of this country deserve to be mocked. People are not damned for doing the right thing.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:07am
mandk

@ UglyTruth

I don’t think there is a right in NZ to drive cars on the road:

“While the common law courts developed detailed rules about the rights of people on foot, riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles to use roads, they never had to deal with motor vehicles. In a 1981 case (Brader v Ministry of Transport [1981] 1 NZLR 73 at 78, 84), the New Zealand Court of Appeal rejected a claim that the law gave individuals an absolute right to use motor vehicles, stating that the ‘liberty to drive’ is not a natural right and that even the provisions in the legislation imposed restrictions and obligations, rather than granting rights. The court commented further in 1994 (R v Jefferies [1994] 1 NZLR 290, at 296) that there is no traditional approach of the common law to motor vehicles.” (NZTA)

And, whilst the Police must work on the presumption of innocence, failing to stop or driving away when stopped is a clear indication that something needs to be investigated.
12 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:12am
UglyTruth

Kea, threats and intimidation by police are not a form of lawful power. The fact that the majority have voted for something doesn’t make it law.
1 8
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:16am
hj

In Auckland it is not uncommon for residential real estate investors to own five, 10, 20, 50, or even 100 houses. We have been told we have one commercial property investor who has achieved his wealth in exactly this way and is now worth $1 billion.

It is incredible that successive Governments have allowed this rort to continue for so long. Incredible, as it also impinges on so many other issues in our society.

Any Government must take notice. All that is needed are a few simple changes in our tax laws.

Simple? Very simple.

Alan Dudson is an Auckland accountant who has worked in construction and property sales and development.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10865946

But the Property Investors are the Government Alan!
0 10
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:17am
hj

If the “hardest-worked river in the world” can recover to this extent, almost anything is possible.

http://www.monbiot.com/2013/04/26/2642/
………………………
Thisshould be our economic growth. Clean up the ecosystem of Lyttleton Harbour where the early settlers once dredged for oysters.
1 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:22am
Viking2

So, hj whats wrong with a person owning real estate?
Providing houses for people who can’t/won’t/ don’t want to buy their own.

I hope you own yours and pay the rates and insurance and the maintanance, invest your time and money in it.
That you won’t ever sell it when it goes up in value.

No doubt you would like to see the interest content made non deductible.
Well that won’t work either as plenty have the resources and incomes to pay cash for housing.

Shit I despise envious people who are too lazy to get off their arse and make themselves some money but have plenty of time to whinge and moan cause they are broke whne someone else isn’t.

Instead of spending your time on KB whinging go get a paet time job, earn more money and buy yourself another house. Or maybe your first house. Lazy fucking whinger.
14 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:27am
Viking2

Twenty to 30 years ago every married New Zealander had the opportunity to buy a home for their family. Sadly, this is not the case today. For many families, owning their own home is now no more than a dream.

Simply a lie.

They still have that oppourtunity today.

They just have to not spend their earnings on other stuff like holidays etc.

I have three kids with families who have done just that.

Two incomes at around 65k each buys a shit load of real estate compared with one income 30 years ago where the income was more like 20K
14 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:33am
Viking2

If you want to live in Auckland then pay the market price.

Trademe has 11926 listings of houses 300K or less.

HJ you can sart there .
14 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:36am
UglyTruth

mandk,

The state lies about the nature of common law. The state says that common law is equivalent to judicial decisions (case law), but in truth English common law is based on constitutional principles which include due process and the rights of life, liberty, property, etc. NZTA is a misnomer, their authority is assumed, not real. The right to use a public road in the ordinary way is an aspect of liberty. The NZTA also misleads people about motor vehicles, as there is case law that shows that a car used for travelling is not a motor vehicle. Law looks to the intent or the intangible aspect of things, the distinction being that commercial use of a public resource is not ordinary use. A motor vehicle is what it is because of its effect on the rights of others, not its physical characteristics.

The police do not work on the presumption of innocence in the fullest sense. The police assume that people are persons, and this assumption injures the presumption that no personal obligation to the state exists. In law a person is someone or something that is obligated to the state in some way.

person:
A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))
0 3
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:36am
lilman

Uglytruth ,If police abandon a chase in your area and the fleeing driver then proceeded to drive down the road at speed and crash into a car carrying your wife or child, you would be ok with that?
Because I think your full of shit if you say you wouldnt be saying the police had a chance to stop the offenders but I agree that not engaging in pursuit was correct and my wifes death was not anyiones fault.

You are a amazing husband and father,lol ,I really admire you.
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 10:56am
UglyTruth

lilman, the system cannot function without slandering/libelling people. Looks like the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in your case.
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:03am
hj

“Twenty to 30 years ago every married New Zealander had the opportunity to buy a home for their family. Sadly, this is not the case today. For many families, owning their own home is now no more than a dream.

Why? Simply, there is a flawed tax system that favours the rich and punishes the poor.

Today, home ownership is just over 50 per cent, whereas 30 years ago it was a healthy 85 per cent. Previously, Governments helped lower-income families with cheap funding through the Housing Corporation or Maori and Island Affairs. Not any more.

We now have a tax system that favours the investor over any family wanting to own a home of their own, regardless of price. It makes it nearly impossible for those wanting to buy their own home to compete against an investor in the housing market.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10865946
0 13
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:08am
backster

I was bemused at the Police Complaint Authority finding fault with a Police Driver who drove at speed in a pursuit with one hand while operating his radio. What was he supposed to do, he is required to report speed and progress and seek instruction from his control centre.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:10am
hj

Winston Churchill:

Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night
into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains —
and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected
by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those
improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by
every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the
community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to
the process from which his own enrichment is derived. (Winston Churchill, 1909,
quoted by Barker 2003, p. 116).

http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/politics/papers/…/McLean%20Land%20tax.pdf
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:13am
Pauleastbay

However the right to use a public road in the ordinary way is part of the law of land, as is the presumption of innocence.

but like anything and all rights ,there are obligations.

If your driving is of a nature that is not lawful you have lost your right to use the highway. If those young guys had stopped , one would have been processed for driving without a licence and perhaps EBA, all would be alive.

What people don’t realize is that it is the pursuit policy that is resulting in many of these deaths. These young guys know that if they go fast enough the police will pull out, so all the policy is doing is encouraging them to drive faster and faster, that coupled with piss and inexperience result in crashes.

It is only a recent phenomena i.e these types of deaths – it didn’t happen prior to it becoming known that the police will bail if you drive faster and recklessly enough- we were trained to slow them, not let them go faster.
11 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:14am
hj

“But the worst scenario is this. A family which does not own a home rightfully feels disenfranchised from society. They are the underprivileged, who feel that New Zealand is letting them down. Their only hope is to find relief in the successes of the All Blacks or the Silver Ferns – or to move to Australia, where housing is more affordable and incomes are higher.

A property investor can buy a house in Auckland for, say, $600,000. A bank will probably lend the investor 90 per cent or more of valuation, particularly if he has other properties to leverage against.

From annual rental received, say $32,000, the investor can deduct rates, insurance and maintenance, as well as all interest costs on the mortgage, virtually eliminating any tax on income received.

Not a bad investment considering such a small deposit and capital gains of at least 6 per cent to 8 per cent a year – say $36,000 to $48,000 a year, tax free.

It certainly beats working.

Compare this to a young couple trying to purchase a home for themselves and their children.

Say they also buy a house for $600,000. They will be asked by the banks for a deposit of 20 per cent or $120,000, with a loan promised for the remaining $480,000. So they have to find a deposit of $120,000 and interest payments of say 5 per cent on the loan of $480,000, say $24,000, plus rates, insurance and maintenance.

All this has to be paid out of income from salary or wages after tax has been deducted. To raise a deposit, most would need a family which has the funds to be able to help them.”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10865946
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:17am
hj

““The deal of the decade comes along once a week!” says de Roos. “If you believe that, you will find deal after deal after deal.” But you will only amass money, he says, when you come from an abundance consciousness instead of a poverty consciousness; when you tell yourself, “I am a magnet for money!”

Tonight, a pumped de Roos tells his audience that he wants people to invest in property and write to him 12 months down the track and tell him they’ve “made one million or three million, or you’ve got 16 properties, or we’re taking six months off because our cash flow now exceeds our outflow!” He says, “I don’t know any other activity where the rewards are so huge. If you want to invest a million dollars in the sharemarket, you need a million dollars. If you want to invest a million in real estate, you only need $100,000.”

You can buy one property, get it revalued, use the equity to buy another property and then buy another and another. “And you do it all with OPM. Other people’s money. OPM. It’s like being high on drugs!” What’s more, the wonder of depreciation claims on the building and contents means “the government subsidises your investment! It’s delightful!”

House of the rising sum

by Pamela Stirling
Listener.

Meanwhile other New Zealanders are just kneeling down and pulling the weeds.
0 9
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:21am
Pauleastbay

hj

grow up

Please explain how its a rort that some one has worked hard to own multiple properties.

You have obviously never had tenants, if you are stupid enough to believe that the money just rolls in, that tenants always pay their rent, never fuck your property, never wear anything out, or the fact that properties are not always tenanted ( banks are funny about wanting their mortage though ) you are dimmer even than your comments above suggest.
17 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:26am
UglyTruth

but like anything and all rights ,there are obligations.

They are called correlative rights and duties. At common law the the correlative duty for the right of ordinary use of a public road is the duty of care for other road users.

If those young guys had stopped , one would have been processed for driving without a licence

Assuming that they were traveling lawfully, the processing would have been fraudulent.
0 12
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:26am
Pauleastbay

They weren’t travelling lawfully, the driver was unlicenced for a start.

There is also provision under law for random breath testing of drivers.

The processing would not have been fraudulent, stop assuming.
15 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:31am
Chuck Bird

Did anyone else who watched Q+A think that the leftie so called political scientist, Jon Johansson did not know MMP worked.

I wonder also if former Principal Family Court Judge, Peter Boshier realises what a hypocrite he is calling on men as a group to accept responsibility for domestic violence. When has he or any of his mates accepted any responsibility even when their decisions have cost people’s lives?

He disagrees with Prof Greg Newbold in regard Maori domestic violence. He thinks they learned that off the colonialists.

He also thinks that domestic violence is equally spread across all socio-economic groups. If that is the case then why are not more judges had up for domestic violence? I cannot recall one. Either his theory is crap or judges are protecting their mates.
11 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:43am
UglyTruth

They weren’t travelling lawfully, the driver was unlicenced for a start.

I guess you missed the bit about ordinary use of a public road being a right.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/license

There is also provision under law for random breath testing of drivers.

Under the legislation drivers are persons. Do you have any evidence that Kingi was legally a person?

The processing would not have been fraudulent, stop assuming.

The processing would have been fraudulent for two reasons. Firstly because the state lied about the right of ordinary use Kingi couldn’t have been reasonably expected to present a defence to the unlicenced driver charge. Secondly if Kingi had presented a defence and the cop had proceeded, the court would have committed fraud in assuming jurisdiction necessary to proceed with processing (presuming Kingi to be innocent of obligation).
0 9
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:44am
UglyTruth

Either his theory is crap or judges are protecting their mates.

Or judges, having knowledge of the law concerning domestic violence, are not your typical spouse.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:50am
stigie

Is it just me or does most people agree about that prick Johhanson on Q+A this morning
being anti govt and not at all having a balanced view ?
Sounds to me like he is an extreme leftie and being a political scientist at Victoria University,
i wonder how he could not bring his bias views to his students !!

Would like to hear other views about this guy.
13 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:55am
Pauleastbay

There is also provision under law for random breath testing of drivers.

Under the legislation drivers are persons. Do you have any evidence that Kingi was legally a person?

Ugly Truth

I stand defeated, in the face of such utter fuck wittisim I admit for once I am utterly speechless.
12 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 11:56am
UglyTruth

I stand defeated, in the face of such utter fuck wittisim I admit for once I am utterly speechless.

Paul, I refer you to the definition of “person” from Black’s dictionary of law.

person:
A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. no. 137. A human being considered as capable of having rights and or being charged with duties, while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised. (Black’s 2nd (1910))

Do you have any evidence that:
a) The authors of Black’s dictionary are fuckwits
b) Kingi was a man who held rank
c) Kingi was a human being

Hint: in law human beings are civil subjects.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
0 9
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:03pm
Kea

The state lies about the nature of common law. The state says that common law is equivalent to judicial decisions (case law), but in truth English common law is based on constitutional principles which include due process and the rights of life, liberty, property, etc.

Pauleastbay, here is your problem 🙂

Uglytruth is a Freeman-on-the-land. Am I right Ugly ?

You are wrong about common law. It is Judge made law. The principles you talk about were themselves developed from Judges decisions in the Court of Common Pleas, long ago in England.(from memory)

You Freemen need to put aside the garbage on the internet and read a basic introduction to the legal system. If you did that you may actually win the odd challenge. I have seen you guys in Court and you never get anywhere.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:12pm
cha

With patriots like this the Republic will be ~~saved~~ doomed…

http://wonkette.com/515523/minnesota-terror-suspect-patriot-gun-fondler-juggalo
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:15pm
Kea

Uglytruth, like I said, read a basic intro to the legal system. It is not complicated, unlike your conspiracy theories.

All humans are natural persons. Then you have legal persons like companies.

1. Everyone is subject to the law.

2. The government can make ANY law it likes.

3. Law is enforced by force. Reasonable force, which means as much force as it takes !

Playing silly word games and shopping around for various definitions of a word will not change that fact. There are people who successfully stick it to the system and drive the Courts mad, but they are never “Freemen”.
8 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:18pm
Scott Chris

They really have no choice but to pursue.

Yes they do. They have to assess the risk to the general public as well as the perps.

Simplest solution is to build a remote off-switch into all cars and give cops a master key.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:29pm
Kea

Scott Chris, how about we have a remote off switch to disable police cars instead ?

We are not there to serve the police or the law. They are there to serve us. You are living in the wrong country.
2 1
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:33pm
UglyTruth

Uglytruth is a Freeman-on-the-land. Am I right Ugly ?

No.

You are wrong about common law. It is Judge made law.

You’re wrong about that as well. Judges cannot give anyone the privilege of oath. Also the original legal code which formed the basis of common law was not judge made.

common law:
As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.
(Black’s 5th)

lex terre:
The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)

1. Everyone is subject to the law.

No, people are only subject to law when they are under its jurisdiction. Australians are not subject to NZ law.

2. The government can make ANY law it likes.

No, any agreement to act unlawfully is a conspiracy, regardless of whether or not it is done by people who are called “government”. Put another way, people who act unlawfully are not a part of lawful government.

3. Law is enforced by force. Reasonable force, which means as much force as it takes !

What you describe is the law of the strong, aka anarchy.
0 8
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:42pm
UglyTruth

Simplest solution is to build a remote off-switch into all cars and give cops a master key.

The simplest solution usually isn’t the best one. Your solution injures property rights.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:44pm
Kea

Uglytruth, so you are not a Freeman, you just parrot all the things they say and think the same. Ok.

It is hard to argue this with someone who has not read even a basic introduction to law. I do note that you seem happy to claim legal rights and protections, while exempting yourself from legal obligations.

The main difference between your approach and mine, is that mine works. You will be forced to comply. Like it or lump it, that is what actually happens in real life.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:48pm
Harriet

“……Today, home ownership is just over 50 per cent, whereas 30 years ago it was a healthy 85 per cent…..”

Listening to the left, anyone would think that home owners are NOT ALLOWED to go on the pill in NZ! 😎

30yrs ago 85% were probably Married, thinking about it, and in doing so, needing a house.

Also, there was a lot more available land then.

So that then raises the question “why would 2 people who aspire to homeownership now be putting it off 10 yrs, and when housing prices double on average in 8 yrs?”

Seems to me that those who now blame capitalism for their own ‘poverty’ are the very same people who believe that women ‘should’ have a career!

Labour is pathetic if they think others are to blame for the actions of their own true ‘believers’. 😎
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:49pm
Nostradamus

Kea:

You’re wasting your time with UglyTruth.

On this thread, Another repeat drink driver, UglyTruth provided such gems as:

UglyTruth (699) Says:
December 1st, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Ordinary use of a public road is a common law right. The NZ civil government promotes the absurdity that this right is a privelege by using the ambiguous legal language of driver licencing. While the ostensible reason is road safety, the real effect is control by fraud and injury of the public right to freedom of movement.

UglyTruth (699) Says:
December 1st, 2012 at 7:08 pm
calendar girl, I think we agree that careless use isn’t the same as ordinary use. The point I’m that I’m trying to make is that the system currently employs fraud to bring a prosecution.

scrubone, you have the right to use a car when it constitutes ordinary use. Driving is a legal term that relates to a vehicle, and because of the ambiguity of the terms people think that using a car to travel somewhere is the same thing as driving a vehicle. There is case law that makes it clear that ordinary use of a car is a right and not a privilege.

UglyTruth (699) Says:
December 1st, 2012 at 9:37 pm
calendar girl,

The fraud is the misrepresentation by the body politic that it is sovereign, or that the elected representatives (MPs) are honourable, combined with the injury of rights which occur when the body politic assumes that people are obliged to obey their rules. NZ statutory provisions are not law any more than the resolutions of a corporation are law. The NZ body politic utilizes the civil system, and as such it has no claim to statutory authority which may have existed under English common law.

NZ parliament is not supreme because the NZ government was founded on lies and lawlessness, and it attempts to justify its existence through deception. Statute law does not override common law for the same reason as why a contract with unlawful purpose in unenforceable.

Sematic arguments are relevant for two reasons: firstly that licences, as contracts, are interpreted against the interests of the issuing authority (contra proferentem), and secondly, that ambiguous legislation is interpreted according to the principles of common law (eg Baron Parke’s rule). Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but in this case the ignorance is both widespread and extensive.

To elaborate, the legislation is binding only upon persons, and legal contests concerning the legislation occur within personal jurisdiction (also called jurisdiction in personam). In personal jurisdiction the contesting parties (called persons) owe an obligation to the state, so in this context the assertion that the people of NZ are persons is defamatory when no obligation actually exists.

With such ignorance and fuckwittery, to pick up on what Pauleastbay said, where would you begin?
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:57pm
UglyTruth

I do note that you seem happy to claim legal rights and protections, while exempting yourself from legal obligations.

Same old same old Kea. Start with the slander when when you can’t cope with the facts.

You will be forced to comply.

How’s predicting the future working out for you, are you sitting pretty after cleaning up at the races?
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:57pm
Kea

Harriet, there is no shortage of land, materials or builders. House prices do not work on demand and supply of houses but on supply of credit. The so called housing boom was really a debt boom and nothing more. The money was never there. That is why the tax payers had to bail out the banks, the same banks they owed their mortgages to ! Remarkable stuff, until you understand the money never existed.

If you want to know the true value of houses, then remove credit so you pay cash on the barrel head.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 12:58pm
UglyTruth

With such ignorance and fuckwittery, to pick up on what Pauleastbay said, where would you begin?

You could start by addressing the issue of the state lying about the basics of law, i.e. the nature of common law.
Common law is more than just case law, as I’ve shown from Black’s dictionary, a respected source unlike the bunch of muppets who pontificate from Wellington.
0 10
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:03pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

Four questions for you:

1. Do you have a law degree from a recognised tertiary institution; if so, which one?

2. Do you drive a car? (Having regard to your point above that driving is “a legal term that relates to a vehicle”, I use drive in the ordinary dictionary sense of using a car or other form of motorised vehicle to travel somewhere).

3. Do you have a current driver’s licence?

4. Are you able to point me to a peer-reviewed published journal article where “the issue of the state lying about the basics of law” is discussed?
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:10pm
Kea

Uglytruth, there was no slander intended, or given, in what I said. I have no idea what your on about regarding the future ?

Can you provide any examples of where your approach has ever worked ?

There are plenty of youtube vids alleging to show police and Judges on the back foot, but actually showing people like you losing, getting arrested, held in contempt and thrown in the cells. And this on sites showing the “wins” lol 🙂

I have had the benefit of seeing this in real life. Just recently I was taken to Court by one of you lot as the respondent. The applicant lodged pages and pages of exhibits. He had really spent some time on it and knew his stuff. My response was one paragraph long. It went badly for the applicant. Very badly. At one point he was dragged screaming to the cells for contempt of Court. I actually felt sorry for the deluded fellow. He was not unpleasant and really seemed to believe the sort of garbage your talking.

You will comply with the “system” because it will force you to. That is the Uglytruth my friend.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:13pm
PhilP

stigie says;

“Is it just me or does most people agree about that prick Johhanson on Q+A this morning
being anti govt and not at all having a balanced view ?
Sounds to me like he is an extreme leftie and being a political scientist at Victoria University,
i wonder how he could not bring his bias views to his students !!”

I to watched Q+A this morning and found that prick Johansson to be totally biased. Fancy having a go at Paul East, you would have thought he was the interviewer at one stage. He certainly shows his true colours every time he is on the panel. Then the real old snarkyness coming out when he mentioned that Wellington couldn’t wait for the 2014 election in reference to John Key’s Wellington comment. Stigie, I agree with you, just what leftist crap is he indoctrinating in to his students at Victoria University. He’s a complete C**t.
10 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:23pm
Scott Chris

Cops are entitled by law to stop you any time, ostensibly to check your licence or blood/alcohol level. An off-switch makes no real difference to your liberty status.

Unless you wanna try out-run them of course.
4 2
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:26pm
UglyTruth

Uglytruth, there was no slander intended, or given, in what I said.

You said: I do note that you seem happy to claim legal rights and protections, while exempting yourself from legal obligations.

I have no idea what your on about regarding the future ?

You said: You will be forced to comply.

Can you provide any examples of where your approach has ever worked ?

It won’t work in the expected sense because the civil system isn’t built for people who assert their rights.
Fundamentally, my approach is to learn about the origin and nature of law and to refuse to be part of a predatory system.
As for it working, probably the most visible form of success is getting a district court judge to admit that he had committed fraud.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:29pm
Scott Chris

Incidentally, I doubt any of us will be driving ourselves on main roads in 30 years time. No lights, no drivers, no crashes, bumper to bumper road-trains I reckon.

Oh, and all under the central control of a traffic a.i.

Muahahahahahahhahhahahhhaha!
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:31pm
UglyTruth

Cops are entitled by law to stop you any time, ostensibly to check your licence or blood/alcohol level.

Yes, that is the standard party line. But it is in conflict with the common law presumption of innocence and right of ordinary use of a public road.
1 9
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:32pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

How are you going with those four questions?

Fundamentally, my approach is to learn about the origin and nature of law and to refuse to be part of a predatory system.

Ah, yes, a convenient pathway back to my first question: do you have a law degree from a recognised tertiary institution; if so, which one?
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:38pm
Kea

Uglytruth, so who gives you these rights you talk about ?

Are you aware that back when the common law begun, people were ruled by a unelected elite ?

Ordinary people had no rights at all, other than what the dictator of the country chose to give them, if they felt like it, which often they did not.

As for it working, probably the most visible form of success is getting a district court judge to admit that he had committed fraud.

Oh please tell us more …:)

my approach is to learn about the origin and nature of law and to refuse to be part of a predatory system.

Big words. But entirely empty. You are part of the system and if you step out of line you will be forced to comply. I am not saying I agree with it, but that is the reality.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:40pm
UglyTruth

How are you going with those four questions?

How are you going with addressing the issue of the state lying about the basics of law?
0 8
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:48pm
Kea

But it is in conflict with the common law presumption of innocence

If it is in conflict then Statutory law prevails. The government of the day can make ANY LAW IT LIKES. It can change, or throw out any existing law, including common law. No other authority can dictate to our elected government. We m
may be party to international agreements, but that is voluntary.

You will find this in the first few pages of a childs introduction to the legal system.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:51pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

How are you going with addressing the issue of the state lying about the basics of law?

How are you going with those four questions?

Question 4, as you’ll recall, was: are you able to point me to a peer-reviewed published journal article where “the issue of the state lying about the basics of law” is discussed?

Until you put up something substantive and relevant about your claim that the state lies about the basics of law, there’s nothing for me or anyone else to address regarding that issue.

So back to those four questions – over to you.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:51pm
Chuck Bird

Kea, it sounds like you are a lawyer?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:54pm
UglyTruth

Uglytruth, so who gives you these rights you talk about ?

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

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” – US Constitution.

“Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God.”
http://www.blackstoneinstitute.org/sirwilliamblackstone.html

Oh please tell us more

In 2011 Judge Richard Russell, of Nelson, admitted to committing fraud in a preliminary hearing. The fraud related to the assumption of jurisdiction by the court.

You are part of the system and if you step out of line you will be forced to comply.

So you say. The system has had a remarkable lack of success to date.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 1:58pm
UglyTruth

Nostradamus, why should I answer you questions when you refuse to answer mine?
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:00pm
Kea

Ugly, Parliament is our supreme law making body. The Judiciary is independent, but subordinate to Parliament. (they have to do as they are told, just like you do !)

I know it is very hard for you to accept that Johnny Key and his gang have total and complete control over you. 🙂

There is no supreme being to appeal to, no higher power of law. You are all alone. Law is an artificial construct made by mortal flawed men. There is no “natural” law that is conferred on us, unless you mean survival of the fittest. So pick a number, bend over and take it like the rest of us. You will comply !
9 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:04pm
dime

this scumbag recently settled on an 800k rental property.

I didnt put a Dime down! not even a fuckin nickel 🙂 🙂

after rent its costing me 2 hundy a week, but its already gone up 40 grand!

the way i figure it, the tenant covers the interest, im paying the principal and should pick up a juicy 12% on 800k in the next year or so. tax free motherfucker 😀 😀

once ive finished my next project of putting a giant swimming pool in, ill buy another rental. then, just for shits n giggles, i might buy another.

now, part of me feels bad. but then my darkside comes out and i think – fuck everyone else. i pay a huge amount of tax and i never get a thank you, i get a “fuck you, pay more” from the opposition.

heres the thing, even if there was a cap gains tax, id still be doing it! in 5 years the rent will be close to covering the full mortgage. ill own the thing forever. ill have a nice income stream when im an old, even sleazier Dime.

hell, i may even chuck some money in so it covers itself.

oh yeah, the people renting it are stoked. they are living in a beautiful home. its win win 🙂 🙂

im over hearing about these assholes who cant afford a house. no, you can afford one, just not the dream house you want. since when did people start out in their dream house? it even took Dime 10 years to get into his.

lots of houses in glen eden and places like that in the 300’s. fill ya boots. move in. do it up. paint the thing. go room by room. insulate it. upgrade the bathroom/ kitchen over time. put in a nice garden. make it a home. then after a few years, sell it and move up the chain. repeat the process.
14 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:05pm
lilman

Ugly truth where did I slander you?
IF you agree that fleeing criminals are not culpable in the death of others then thats fine.
But if you blame police, then explain why only police are culpable?

Your argument doesnt stack up, as I said I really think your misguided atleast,full of it at best.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:08pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

Let me clarify the position for you:

1. You claimed that the state lies about the basics pf law.
2. I asked you to substantiate your claim.
3. Further, to enable us to move forward, I asked you to substantiate your claim not by reference to definitions in Black’s Law Dictionary, but by reference to a peer-reviewed published journal article. That’ll establish a good starting point for discussion. So far, you’ve failed to provide a link to an article.
4. I’ve also asked if you have a law degree from a recognised tertiary institution, so I can ascertain whether or not you’re capable of engaging in informed legal debate.

But if you want to hide behind “why should I answer you[r] questions when you refuse to answer mine?”, then I’ll go back to where I started: with such ignorance and fuckwittery, to pick up on what Pauleastbay said, where would you begin?
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:08pm
Kea

UglyTruth (706) 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.

Silly me. Here I was thinking this was a secular society. Help me out here, I need some more details.

1. Which Creator ?

2. What is the effect of giving an affirmation rather than swearing ?

3. Am I exempt from the law because I am an atheist ?

4. Who decided all this anyway ?
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:09pm
UglyTruth

If it is in conflict then Statutory law prevails.

Wrong. If it is in conflict then parliament is engaged in conspiracy.

The government of the day can make ANY LAW IT LIKES.

Fraud is inherently unlawful, a lawful government cannot be engaged in fraud.
And yet we have seen that parliament is engaged in fraud because of its misrepresentation of the nature of law. It logically follows that parliament is not lawful government.

It can change, or throw out any existing law, including common law.

That is insane. If people conspire to break the common law, then they are criminals. The fact that they are ministers of parliament does not change this. The very nature of a constitution prevents a government from making any law that it likes.

No other authority can dictate to our elected government.

You are assuming that parliament is sovereign. It isn’t. Hobson lied about sovereignty being ceded by Maori in entirety.
Sovereignty doesn’t flow from the barrel of a gun, and it doesn’t mean that you can do anything you like.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:12pm
wat dabney

“Ordinary people had no rights at all, other than what the dictator of the country chose to give them”

Ordinary people had the same full rights as you and I. It’s a question of what the dictator of the country chose to recognise.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:15pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

In 2011 Judge Richard Russell, of Nelson, admitted to committing fraud in a preliminary hearing. The fraud related to the assumption of jurisdiction by the court.

A quick drive through Wikipedia:

North v. Russell, 427 U.S. 328 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that a non-lawyer jurist can constitutionally sit in a jail-carrying criminal case provided that the defendant have an opportunity through an appeal to obtain a second trial before a judge who is a lawyer.[1]

Not sure how you reconcile this with your claim that “a district court judge … admit[ted] that he had committed fraud”. Or how that is relevant to your broader claim that the state is lying about the basics of law. No doubt these are matters that you can clear up… right?

By the way, how are you going with those four questions?
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:17pm
UglyTruth

1. Which Creator ?

The Creator referred to in King Alfred the Great’s legal code, which began with the ten commandments.

2. What is the effect of giving an affirmation rather than swearing ?

An affirmation is not an act of religion, it makes no reference to deity.

3. Am I exempt from the law because I am an atheist ?

No. The law is consistent with facts and reason, not belief.

4. Who decided all this anyway ?

The question of who isn’t important, it’s effectively an ad hominem.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:21pm
Kea

In 2011 Judge Richard Russell, of Nelson, admitted to committing fraud in a preliminary hearing. The fraud related to the assumption of jurisdiction by the court.

You mean Judge Russell thought he had jurisdiction to hear the matter and was mistaken. That is not fraud.

He has warrants for a bunch of jurisdictions, so maybe he got confused. Was it a case involving the “common law creator” 🙂
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:22pm
hj

Pauleastbay (3,691) Says:

hj

grow up

Please explain how its a rort that some one has worked hard to own multiple properties.

You have obviously never had tenants, if you are stupid enough to believe that the money just rolls in, that tenants always pay their rent, never fuck your property, never wear anything out, or the fact that properties are not always tenanted ( banks are funny about wanting their mortage though ) you are dimmer even than your comments above suggest.
………………………..
The issue isn’t just about whether it is work or not. Bank robbery is work (and carries risk). The issue is allowing rules that over reward some people at the expense of others.
1 7
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:24pm
UglyTruth

By the way, how are you going with those four questions?

I see that you refuse to contest the issue of the state lying about the basics of law.
I asked the initial question, then you responded with a series of unrelated ones.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:25pm
UglyTruth

You mean Judge Russell thought he had jurisdiction to hear the matter and was mistaken. That is not fraud.

No, I mean that I said “you have misrepresented my position, and that is fraudulent”, and he said “yes”.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:27pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

You seem to have reading comprehension issues.

Just to be clear, you didn’t ask the initial question. You made a claim. The claim was that the state lies about the basics of law. I asked you to provide a reference to a peer-reviewed published journal article that backs up (and provides context to) your claim that the state lies about the basics of law. So not a matter of me refusing to contest the issue, but of you refusing to properly substantiate your claim.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:30pm
alex Masterley

Bleeding heck Nostrodamus, you are wrestling with a pig there son.
4 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:30pm
Nostradamus

Alex:

Yes, you’re right. I was hoping we might get somewhere with UglyTruth, through reason and logic. I think it’s now apparent that UglyTruth is impervious to reason and logic. Now I know how judges must feel when these sorts of nutters appear in their courtroom!

My first sentence on this thread was:

You’re wasting your time with UglyTruth.

Time to follow my own advice 🙂
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:32pm
Kea

Ordinary people had the same full rights as you and I. It’s a question of what the dictator of the country chose to recognise.

Wrong wrong wrong !!!

You are making the same mistake as Ugly and fantasising that we have some intrinsic rights conferred on us at birth. That is pure fantasy and has no basis in reality or law.

Rights are created by man. The very notion of a “right” is an artificial construct. Who provides these “rights” you refer to ? Are you going to claim “the creator” like Ugly did ?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:33pm
alex Masterley

Nostradamus, he has had no exposure to reason and logic. You are right about unrepresented litigants. It drives the judiciary mad.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:36pm
UglyTruth

You seem to have reading comprehension issues.

Just to check that you know what you’re talking about, here’s a reading comprehension exercise for you, Nostradamus:

In the following text is common law equivalent to the judgements of courts, or is there more to it that that?

common law:
As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.
(Black’s 5th)

lex terre:
The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath. (Blacks 5th)
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:41pm
UglyTruth

You are making the same mistake as Ugly and fantasising that we have some intrinsic rights conferred on us at birth. That is pure fantasy and has no basis in reality or law.

The fantasy is all yours Kea. The basis in law is that Blackstone, an acknowledged source of the common law, wrote about it. There is also historical basis from the legal code of King Alfred the Great.

The very notion of a “right” is an artificial construct.

Only for human beings, not for mankind in general.
0 4
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:45pm
Nostradamus

Alex:

I think you’ll enjoy reading this article about a self-represented litigant appearing before the High Court of Australia. That was back in 2003.

Fast forward to 2013, and Ms Luck is still trying her, er, luck. Indeed, she appears to be a tenacious self-represented litigant, as she’s already appeared before the High Court of Australia twice this year. The first transcript is here, and the second transcript is here. Spare a thought for Gageler J, who was appointed to the High Court in October 2012!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:49pm
Kea

Ugly, you have failed to convince me that “The Creator referred to in King Alfred the Great’s legal code” is the ultimate authority for law. How about Hindus, Taoists, etc ?

You claim this creators law binds other faiths and atheists, but have failed to explain how this can work.

You claim law is about facts & reason, then reference a bronze age desert cult !

I asked who decided your definition of law was binding on us all, and you bizarrely accused me of an ad hominem attack.

Does this “creator” hear appeals from the lower Courts and what is the process for lodging an appeal ? (please reference some leading cases for my benefit)

Effectively you are declaring law by fiat (Because YOU say so) The very thing you claim to be resisting.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:49pm
Manolo

Scrutinising the infallible Messiah: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-obama-suffer-the-second-term-curse/2013/05/11/3d6b3cde-ba61-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_print.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:50pm
wat dabney

“Who provides these “rights” you refer to ?”

Nobody.

They are simply the default position.

You don’t create my rights for me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:55pm
Kea

The fantasy is all yours Kea. The basis in law is that Blackstone, an acknowledged source of the common law, wrote about it. There is also historical basis from the legal code of King Alfred the Great.

1. Blackstone was written by legal people, same as our law is. It has no higher authority.

2. King Alfred was a dictator born into an elite ruling class. He has no authority over us.

3. The law is what ever our Parliament says it is. Not what some deity from a desert cult, or some unelected king from the 800’s in another country, says it is.

I like people who challenge authority. I really wish your arguments were stronger. But the fact is your a nutter and a lazy thinker.
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:56pm
F E Smith

Can I just say that Ugly, of the family Truth, has given me a great laugh. I have also very much enjoyed the tear down by Kea and Nostradamus: well done, guys.

Ugly, I would be interested to hear how the Norman invasion of England in 1066 and the subsequent adoption of Norman French legal precepts (such as trial by combat) into the common law affected the validity and standing of the Legal Code of King Alfred the Great of Wessex.

Dime, congrats on the success with the rental.

EDIT: Oh, and Blackstone is not a source of the common law. It is a text book about the common law. Those are two different things.
6 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:57pm
Kea

wat dabney (2,671) Says:
May 12th, 2013 at 2:55 pm
“Who provides these “rights” you refer to ?”

Nobody.

They are simply the default position.

You don’t create my rights for me.

Give me three examples of these default rights ?
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:58pm
alex Masterley

Nostradamus,
Thanks for the links.
And that was all about time tabling! The substantive hearing would be a doozy.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 2:58pm
UglyTruth

Ugly, you have failed to convince me that “The Creator referred to in King Alfred the Great’s legal code” is the ultimate authority for law. How about Hindus, Taoists, etc ?

That wasn’t the purpose of my argument, which was limited to English common law. The theory is that the created is subject to the law of the creator.

I asked who decided your definition of law was binding on us all, and you bizarrely accused me of an ad hominem attack.

No, you didn’t ask me about universally binding law, and I didn’t accuse you make making an attack, only a fallacious argument.

Does this “creator” hear appeals from the lower Courts

Deities do not hear appeals from atheists.

Effectively you are declaring law by fiat (Because YOU say so)

No, I am arguing the truth. Anyone can challenge my sources and anyone can challenge my reasoning.
0 5
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:00pm
alex Masterley

Kea, scoring for points there mate.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:00pm
UglyTruth

Can I just say that Ugly, of the family Truth, has given me a great laugh. I have also very much enjoyed the tear down by Kea and Nostradamus: well done, guys.

The joke is on you, F E Smith.

Blackstone is not a source of the common law. It is a text book about the common law. Those are two different things.

Sources of the law. The origins from which particular
positive laws derive their authority and coercive
force. Such are constitutions, treaties, statutes, usages,
and customs.
In another sense, the authoritative or reliable
works, records, documents, edicts, etc., to which we
are to look for an understanding of what constitutes
the law. Such, for example, with reference to the
Roman law, are the compilations of Justinian and the
treatise of Gaius; and such, with reference to the
common law, are especially the ancient reports and
the works of such writers as Bracton, Littleton, Coke,
Fleta, Blackstone, and others.

Blacks 5th
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:05pm
Nostradamus

UglyTruth:

Anyone can challenge my sources and anyone can challenge my reasoning.

You remind me of Gaye Luck:

Amid shouting and tears from the bar table, Justice McHugh at one point threatened to withdraw Ms Luck’s right to appeal “unless you behave yourself”.

When Ms Luck was railing against the registry staff, Justice McHugh asked: “Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the officers of the court in the registry have taken the view that your documents are not in order?”

Ms Luck replied: “Well, I am sorry, but they are and if you would like to have a look at them you will find that all of them are in order.”

“Well, I spent several hours examining your material,” said Justice McHugh.

“And it is all rubbish, is it?” she said.

“For the most part, I am afraid it is incomprehensible from a legal point of view,” said Justice McHugh.
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:06pm
nasska

Well, that’s us atheists scuppered port & starboard…..if we can’t reference a creator then no Court of Appeal.

Bugger. 🙂
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:08pm
Kea

Ugly, were is the case law ? I asked for some references to leading cases ?

I know there MUST be case law, because that is how common law is made and your whole argument is based on common law. So just provide a link or a reference to those cases.

Thanks 🙂
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 12, 2013 3:08pm