"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

"The internet is a TV that watches you" - Edward Snowden

"Until we have legislation adopted into law to ensure fiduiary accountability we will continue to have human rights breached simply because the existing crown immunity will allow the abuser the legal power either to cause or ignore the suffering." - Katherine Raue


"Question authority, and think for yourself" - Timothy Leary

"Information is the currency of democracy" - Thomas Jefferson


‎"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - Margaret Mead

"The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself."

"I = m c 2 [squared] where "I" am information" - Timothy Leary

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen

"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

Monday, March 17, 2014

IPCA report into perjurous and corrupt actions of local officers and wider systemic issues:

Here is the recently released report into the complaints received regarding the perjurous and corrupt actions of a local officer:  If you have trouble viewing the report below, it can also be accessed at this link.

This shows Police are still in denial and the IPCA is still in the business of minimising complaints instead of dealing with them constructively.

It also highlights the reasons behind the popular policy of delay, deny defer, which is utilised throughout what is ironically known as 'the public service'.



Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Police hire sacked engineering firm to not look at fake engineer:

The NZ Police have announced that they are hiring an engineering firm, Beca, to help them decide who is responsible for the collapse of the CTV building in the Christchurch earthquakes.  One hundred and fifteen people were killed when the building collapsed.

Detective Superintendent Peter Read says police have contacted Beca to give its expert opinion on engineering issues raised in the ongoing assessment.

He says the review is the next phase of the police assessment, which follows on from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission.

While the findings of the royal commission were helpful, it did not make any determination of who is liable for the building's collapse, Det Supt Read says.

I'm not the only one to question this.  Maan Alkaisi, who lost his wife in the CTV building collapse, is a Professor of Engineering at Canterbury University. Appearing on Firstline this morning, he said there was enough evidence presented at the royal commission for the police to lay a charge.

"If you have followed the royal commission hearings and the reports from experts, it's not hard to pinpoint what exactly went wrong with that building," says Prof Alkaisi.

"It's really very clear to us how this building collapsed, why this building collapsed and who is responsible for that."


The former construction manager of the deadly Canterbury Television building, Gerald Shirtcliff, stole the identity of a professional engineer and faked an engineering degree

Shirtcliff stole the identity of an English engineer called William Anthony Fisher in 1970.  He had worked with Fisher in South Africa in 1968 and 1969. Shirtcliff has lived as William Fisher in Australia for over 25 years, he now resides in Brisbane, driving a late-model Mercedes and enjoying a spacious house and a $200,000 motor launch.

When Shirtcliff left South Africa towards the end of 1969 to settle in Sydney he took on Fisher's identity including his birthplace, birthdate and his Bachelor of Engineering degree from the University of Sheffield.

Shirtcliff then used the real Will Fisher's BEng to gain entry into a masters programme at the University of New South Wales in 1971 and also to become a member of the Australian Institute of Engineers in 1972.

He later worked as an engineer for a Sydney firm, then called MacDonald, Wagner and Priddle (to become Connell Wagner and then Aurecon), before returning to New Zealand in the mid-80s, to work under his Shirtcliff name.

In New Zealand he purported to be a "registered" engineer and at one time a "chartered" engineer.

Shirtcliff used his new identity on company documents and also to try to avoid extradition to New Zealand on the fraud allegations. He spent a week in a Brisbane jail in 2003 before conceding he was actually Gerald Shirtcliff.

Shirtcliff, now 67, supervised the construction of the CTV building, which was finished in 1987 and collapsed on February 22 last year, killing 115 people when Christchurch was hit by an earthquake.  He gave evidence at the commission hearings, but was revealed later that he had stolen the identity and forged the qualification.  Despite calls for the commission to be reopened this was refused.

So that's Gerald Shirtcliff, now, what about Beca?  Well let's have a look at the secret deal done between Beca and the Masterton District Council over the Homebush sewage plant for a start.

Beca admitted to culpability for a "bombshell" they dropped on Masterton ratepayers in 2011, a six million dollar error in their quote for the sewage works.  ""Inaccurate advice" was how it was described, and amount of their underestimation was $6.6 million dollars.  It was announced that this would cost ratepayers - to the tune of a 19% rates rise.

The Masterton District Council blustered on about taking legal action, after strong pressure from the community.  They sought legal advice from a Queens Counsel - and I wonder what that advice cost them (will be making enquiries, watch this space), and claimed to have initiated action of some sort although there is no evidence of that.

Beca were sacked for this, and replaced with a more competent firm.  The project has been an utter disaster for ratepayers, running well behind schedule and "contractual difficulties" led to thirteen people's jobs being cut.

Finally, in October 2012, Masterton Mayor Gary Daniell announced that a secret deal had been reached with Beca.  Other councillors were outraged that the deal was so secret event that even they didn't know about it.  Makes a mockery of the tender process, that's for sure - Beca knew full well they couldn't do it for the price they quoted!

One hundred and fifteen people died when the CTV building collapsed, and the Police are hiring an engineering company who are clearly dishonest AND incompetent, to 'help' them decide who's responsible?  - What a joke!  - What an INSULT to the tax payers of NZ!




Wednesday, January 15, 2014

So called Ministry of Justice continues to corruptly assist fraudsters to pervert the course of justice:

Michael Murphy and Michelle McGreal defraud taxpayers of over $88,000 plus another similar amount - and are let off for it by the Police and the so called Ministry of Justice:



Michelle McGreal was charged with ten counts of benefit fraud.  She is the partner and co-offender of Michael Francis Murphy, local violent criminal and Police informer.  After Murphy's violent attack was publicised many other people in the community came forward with other information about them and their activities.

Together Murphy and McGreal deliberately planned to defraud the tax payers and government of New Zealand and did so to the tune of over eighty eight thousand dollars over seven years.  Murphy is also the person behind the untrue allegation contained in the letter to me from the Board of Trustees of the South End School - that I had 'recently been charged by the local Police with an offence involving a child' - McGreal and Murphy were guilty of an offence involving a child!  Of course Murphy was never charged - being a Police informant and a member of the Wairarapa Paedophile Network!

In addition to this, during the same period of time, Murphy successfully sued the 'Ministry of Social Development' for a sum of money that is apparently roughly equal to the other amount they defrauded us of, for "alleged" abuse he suffered as a child.

It is now clear that the charges against McGreal never included any pertaining to the very considerable amount of paid employment she and Murphy have been failed to declare to the IRD - or MSD or anyone else - over the years.

The so called 'news' paper reported that McGreal and Murphy defrauded us of around $77,800 - the actual amount was $88,130.69.  The so called 'news' paper also failed or willfully omitted to mention anything about the sentence McGreal received - Murphy got off scot free of course - and then the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Development procrastinated and applied the policy of "defer, delay, deny" to the requests made under the Official Information Act from interested parties - as of course did the local "reporters" - who had been in Court and heard the sentence but refused to publish it.








Finally, nearly two years after these requests were made, a copy of the Court decision - of Judge Kelly - was delivered. 

The sentence?  Six months home detention - to the home she shared with Murphy - in other words nothing, and 200 hours "community work" - and NO order for reparation - crime obviously pays in the Wairarapa, where we have the most corrupt Police in New Zealand. 

McGreal and Murphy continue to actively defraud the Ministry of Social Development, and the Police continue to turn a blind eye to it.

The decision can be viewed at THIS LINK.


Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Joanne Ufer's open letter to help keep workers safe:

Joshua-Ufer2-1.jpg

Joshua Ufer's mum has worked tirelessly to make working conditions safer for all in the mining industry, in Australia, New Zealand and around the world, following the death of her only son Joshua, aaged just 25 years old when he was killed in the Pike River mine explosions, after a litany of criminal negligence and failure by the corporations running the mine and the government agencies who should have ensured that the mine was shut down long before the day it exploded, killing Joshua and twenty eight other working men, family men, dearly loved men.

Joanne Ufer has written the following open letter to the Australian mining industry - it should be mandatory reading in a range of New Zealand industries and framed and hung on the wall in every smoko room and workplace, and every office of what used to be called the Department of Labour (now known as the MoBIE dicks) - particularly our forestry industry.  Joanne's approach is a holistic one, and while it's not heavy on sentiment, focusing on constructive action, this letter touches deep into the heart of any parent, any wife or partner, any mother, grandmother, and any bereaved child, it's profoundly moving, and deserves to be published far and wide in my humble opinion, and re-read often.
To all in the Australian mining industry,

It has been with a heavy heart that I have watched the news over the past two weeks. Four fatalities in the industry in nine days, Western Australia, New South Wales, with the most recent the two fatalities at Mt Lyell in Tasmania on Monday. 

This brings the total fatalities in Australia’s mining sector to six in 2013.

Firstly may I say that my thoughts and condolences go out to all the families, friends and colleagues affected by these tragic and what would appear to be totally avoidable deaths. 

I know all too well the feeling of hopelessness, despair and grief associated with losing a loved one in a mining accident. I have been there and I am deeply saddened that it still appears that the lessons of the past, the lessons given by all those who have given the ultimate sacrifice are not being taken note of.

My son died in an underground coal mine disaster but the environment doesn’t really matter.
In any sector of the mining industry, coal or metalliferous, underground or open cut - it is a risky business.

Many of us get up, go to work, do our day’s toil and go home with little thought to the enormity of that risk.

I myself did not for one minute ever think that there was the chance that my son would go to work one day and that would be it, I would never speak to him, or see him or hold him ever again but that is the reality for me and for all those who have suffered the same loss, parents, partners, children and friends.

While this time of year brings with it much joy, it is also a time that brings added stresses to many.
Allocating time to spend with all the family, spending too much money, not having enough money, going on holidays, not getting holidays approved, the fatigue that comes with the additional socialising inherent with the festive season.

For the companies, it means pressure to reach end of year targets, ensuring staffing levels are adequate when employees may be throwing the odd sickie.  I have worked in the industry myself and witnessed first-hand the pressures that are felt from all sides.

A lot of people may say: ‘it won’t ever happen to me’. But do you know what?

It can and does happen to ordinary people.  My son said not long before his death that he would be around forever and sadly that was not so. I am now looking at spending my third Christmas without him being a part of it, and it does not get any easier.

My little grand-daughter never got to spend one Christmas with her Daddy, she was born six months after he died.

Can you imagine never seeing the joy on your children’s faces on Christmas morning?

As a parent can you imagine never seeing your child’s face ever again, it is still something even after three years I find hard to comprehend.

So I plead with you all please, please remain vigilant.

Look out for the signs that things may not be all right.

Watch yourself and have your mate’s back.

Don’t be afraid to say something if you feel your safety is being compromised. 

Remember too that safety doesn’t begin the moment you clock on.

As soon as you step foot out of your home, or your camp, it begins.

Don’t become another statistic.

Don’t let your family face Christmas and New Year without you.

Stay safe over the festive season and always.

Kind regards,
Joanne Ufer


 This is the ladder that the corporate Scrooges deemed adequate for Joshua and his workmates to escape from the mine in an emergency - workmates like Joseph Dunbar - killed on his first day of work, aged just seventeen years and one day - this ladder was NOT fit for the purpose and management KNEW that and so did the Department of Labour and the Union!  Indisputable evidence was given at the commission of inquiry that the ladder was NOT fit for the purpose!

There is more information at these links about the Pike River mine, including a link to the Trust fund set up for the families of the miners, to provide for their children.  Please spare a thought for these families, now facing their third Christmas without their loved ones, their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers and friends, used as a pawn by this government, the innocent victims of corporate greed and systemic government failure, incompetence and corruption.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

South End school Carterton - update on the ongoing corruption and incompetence:


The ongoing corruption and incompetence of the Ministry of Education and the administration and governance of the South End school is exposing the lack of oversight of our schools, which presents a massive risk to our children and is particularly relevant as the implementation of Charter Schools looms.

Hekia Parata is completely incompetent and has dealt with this matter in a deliberately corrupt manner.  There is no misunderstanding, just a deliberate and ongoing attempt to lie and decieve, on the part of the school Board of Trustees, the Ministry of Education, and the Minister herself.  Here's the most recent correspondence regarding this matter - the complaint is ABOUT the Board and any attempt to pass it on TO the Board is ridiculous - they have refused to respond to communications since sending me the slanderous and defamatory letter sacking me in 2009!  Furthermore, the incompetence and corruption has continued to be revealed and I was handed private correspondence between the Principal and another staff member showing that he was sacked in a similarly outrageous manner, and his privacy breached in a disgraceful manner.
Jilly Tyler knows perfectly well that I have sent over thirty emails to the Board of Trustees regarding this matter, and made numerous attempts to resolve the matter according to their 'procedures' and they have REPEATEDLY refused to respond or engage with me in any manner whatsoever - which is why I wrote to the Minister in the first place!  Jilly Tyler also knows perfectly well and so should Hekia Parata, that a Statutory Manager was appointed specifically to deal with "personnel matters" and that the appointment of the Statutory Manager was a direct result of the incompetence and dishonesty of the Board of Trustees!

When I complained about this insulting response from Jilly Tyler of the Ministry of Education to the Minister, Hekia Parata, I received this equally ridiculous response, which shows that the Ministry is seriously dysfunctional and the Minister is seriously incompetent - this matter is clearly a breach of natural justice, it clearly involves a conspiracy to lie about the original false allegation, which has now been compounded by the further defamatory and untrue allegation regarding the documentation regarding the sacking of the former groundsman Mr R and the correspondence between Mr R and the former Principal, which was handed to me by another concerned parent, and the continuation of the lies and the bullying from the Board and staff at the South End school.  Here's the totally inadequate response from the Minister:



There's been no response whatsoever from the Board - as Parata well knows!

Labour MP Chris Hipkins was asked to present a petition to parliament regarding the matter - here's his response - cunningly referring to the matter as "the manner in which you were dismissed from the school - blatantly ignoring the REST of the problem!  And how it's not just me - the former groundsman was dismissed in the exact same incompetent and unlawful manner and it's not just the dismissals - it's the unlawful BULLYING - and the blatant and ongoing DISHONESTY and attempts to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE - and the fact that this matter directly involves some of the most vulnerable children in New Zealand!  Wairarapa regularly has over TWICE the national rate of suicide in a country with some of the highest rates in the world and while the mainstream media are fond of reporting all sorts of happy clappy school garden 'stories' as 'news' they refuse to report on THIS matter because it inconveniently exposes the truth about our so called community leaders and representatives and exposes the fact that the Emperors have no clothes and are masquerading - if a simple matter like this is beyond the scope of their abilities, they need to STEP DOWN:

Transparency in New Zealand are documenting this outrageous abuse of taxpayers money - spent corruptly covering up gross incompetence and a pack of slanderous LIES!  Nothing but a great big gravy train!  The Emperor has no clothes and Hekia Parata and Chris Hipkins and others have NO integrity!  No wonder New Zealand has such a disgraceful record of child abuse and child mortality!

Here's why the Ombudsmen's Office is snowed under and not dealing with complaints - they need to just stop covering up corruption, because it's obvious that this matter could have been sorted out at the FIRST complaint I made back in 2009 and that the only reason it is NOT being dealt with is because of the level of blatant corruption and incompetence funded by the taxpayers of New Zealand and the lack of any accountability.


Corrupt local Police officers lied to the Board of Trustees and it's time everyone involved admitted it and put it right!  I will be filing action in the Court within the next two weeks regarding this matter and every parent and every taxpayer in New Zealand should be outraged and sickened at this blatant ongoing corruption!

Saturday, November 23, 2013

More on violent fraudster Michael Francis Murphy and taxpayer funded litigation:

More on the secret life of information, and how the media mediate between us and reality:

The local 'news media' recently 'reported' the fact that local woman Michelle McGreal, and her partner Michael Francis Murphy (who committed a violent home invasion and physical attack on me in my home in 2009, for which corrupt local police officers refused to charge him) stole at least $77,800 of taxpayers money by defrauding the Ministry of Social Welfare.  The report states:
"Roll of shame:
Carterton woman Michelle McGreal was sentenced to six months home detention and 200 hours community work after being convicted on fraud and dishonesty charges in June 2010. She was overpaid by $77,800 after not informing Work and Income that she was living with her de facto partner."

Conspicuously absent from this 'news report' is any mention whatsoever of whether or not Murphy and McGreal were required to repay any of this money.

Murphy has been boasting loudly that not only have he and his partner not been required to repay ANY of the money they stole, but that he has ALSO recently received a sum of money believed to be well over $50,000 as a result of a claim he made about being abused in foster care when he was younger, on top of the nearly $80,000 he and McGreal stole.

After a number of local people contacted me enquiring how they could find out whether any of the money had been repaid, I made an Official Information Act request to the Ministry of Social Development, which was refused.

The Ministry of Social Development advised me to write to the Ministry of Justice, which I did - the Ministry of Justice refused the request and told me to write to the Ministry of Social Development.

The responses are published below to show you how your taxes are being spent - covering up blatant corruption - the taxpayers have a right to know whether or not any of this money was repaid, and whether or not any attempt whatsoever was made to seek repayment of ANY of the money - particularly as Murphy is boasting of receiving a very large payout from the Ministry of Social Development as a result of his unproven allegations of mistreatment - it is outrageous that the amount of the money he and McGreal stole was not deducted from this payout, which indicates that Murphy has received over a million dollars by fraud, he seems to be immune from prosecution for the violent attack on me and other crimes he regularly commits, and even when he is prosecuted, it seems that the prosecution, as well as the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Social Development and other parties involved will go to any lengths to cover up the fact that Murphy and his partner were virtually let off without penalty for this deliberate fraud.

It seems that the same lawyers who are telling me that they can't do anything about the gross injustices documented on this website unless I pay them exhorbitant sums of money, have no such qualms about assisting Michael Francis Murphy steal even MORE money from the tax payers of New Zealand, while the same public servants whose incompetence allowed Murphy and his partner to steal our money, refuse to tell us whether or not they even sought reparation and if not why not - read it for yourself:







The responses from these government departments are shameful!  It is obviously in the public interest to know this particular information and clearly ridiculous time wasting procrastination to refuse or delay the provision of it - particularly as the media have released all the other information but not the vital bit about whether McGreal and Murphy were even asked to pay any of this money back!.

We have today sent the following email to the Court:
To the Registrar,
Masterton District Court:   masterton.dc@justice.govt.nz
I request a copy of the judicial decision and any other information regarding whether Michelle McGreal was required to repay any of the reported $77,800 she was found guilty of defrauding the Ministry of Social Development of, according to this newspaper article.  It is in the public interest to know whether McGreal was required to repay the money or whether any attempt to have any of it repaid was even made by MSD and if not why not.  The article refered to is at this link:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapa-times-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503414&objectid=11065521

Friday, October 11, 2013

Standing Up For Democracy in NZ – by Lewis Verduyn:

Standing Up For Democracy in NZ – YOU Hold The Key

by Lewis Verduyn - October 11, 2013

We are all born equal, and sovereignty resides in the People, whose power is the source of law. But if you don't know the basic rules of the game, you will be incapable of defending your rights and freedoms, while your Public Servants will become your government masters.

People create governments to serve, not rule. Our representatives are elected into office, not power. So when our government repeatedly defies the will of the People, rolls back democratic processes, avoids debate by acting under urgency, and passes legislation that violates our Bill of Rights, it's time to examine our “democracy”.

The John Key government has dismissed widespread opposition to asset sales, the secret TPP talks, the planned cuts to RMA protections, and the controversial GCSB spying act which rejects the democratic precept that natural rights cannot be overridden without demonstrable cause. Ministers have ignored and demeaned the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and the Privacy Commissioner. Even more concerning is the apparent suppression of critical resource consent information in favour of vested interests.

So is our Kiwi democracy being steadily eroded by those who would take advantage of their positions of trust, and what are the fundamental principles that underpin our rights and freedoms? What exactly is a democratic government?

Some basic principles of democratic governance:
• All people are created equal, with inalienable rights and freedoms.
• Sovereignty resides in the People, whose power is the source of Law.
• Private people institute public governments to serve them with Public Servants.
• Officer holders of governments are accountable to their employers, the People.
• The State cannot grant any privilege that is not already a sovereign right.
• A government that ignores the inherent right of consent is not democratic.
• Rights carry duties, starting with the eternal vigilance needed to protect them.

The right to self-determination is an imperative principle of democratic governance and national sovereignty. But it is easier to describe the inherent rights and freedoms of the People than it is to design and protect a democratic society.

In any governing arrangement it is essential to define the roles of those involved to clearly establish duties and responsibilities.

A democratic government is a Public Trust:
• A freely-elected government is a Public Trust instituted by private sovereign people, together called “the State”.
• Government officers are Trustees called “Public Servants”. All Public Servants have a Fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the Beneficiaries, called “the People”.
• As grantors and underwriters, the People are burdened with the ultimate responsibility for their Public Trust.

The People delegate limited powers to their Trustees, giving them authority to act on their behalf in the role of Public Servants. These Public Servants perform their management duties subject to their jurisdictional authority.

Public Servants often presume that they have authority over you, which is not always true, such is their conditioning, and ours.

Jurisdiction follows a natural hierarchy. The order of jurisdiction is logical:

Nature/God > Man/Woman > State/Government > Corporation/Person

Men and women live in the jurisdiction of the Common Law, which is de jure “in law”.

The jurisdiction of the State is de jure Common Law.

New Zealand's system of government is a de jure constitutional monarchy. Every office holder including the Head of State, the Queen – who governs “in the right of” the People, swears an oath to serve “according to law”, which is de jure Common Law. Therefore, the highest recourse is to the People directly, not their government, hence the constitutional importance of Trial by Jury.

The People's Common Law power of justice is “Judicial”, while the government's delegated power of management is “Executive”, and exercised as “Legislative”.

From the beginning, the People knew that the democratic State would be destroyed if the power they vested in the Judiciary was ever corrupted by self-serving interests through the Legislature, for in this way the People's access to the Common Law could be restricted, and their democratic rights and freedoms could be eroded, quietly reducing them to a life of servitude. As a precaution against corruption, the People have separated the powers and functions of the State.

The three branches of “democratic” government:
• Legislature: Enacts statutes to regulate legal entities in society, prescribing “terms and conditions” which depend for their effect upon the consent of the governed. Statutes franchise benefits and privileges in exchange for freedoms and rights, as services that should promote order, welfare and equality.
• Executive: The Cabinet with Departments. They are the managers of the government answerable to their employers, the private sovereign People, who will either support their Executive by giving consent, or will oppose their Executive by withdrawing consent, which can be done at any time, not only during a government election, because democracy is not a three-yearly event.
• Judiciary: The People's Courts, for the preservation of the State and Justice. Lower courts apply “the statutes” to the legal entities created and approved by the government according to prescribed legislation. Higher courts, with Juries, decide “the Law” according to evidence and precedents in the Common Law.

Notably, over time, “administrative courts” have arisen in commerce presided over by “commercial list” judges.

The Law and Statutes (Statutes are not “Laws”!)

We hear almost every day that the government is “passing a law”, which strictly speaking is not true, because governments enact statutes, not laws. Statutes are not called laws for the simple reason that they are different in origin and effect. In practice, statutes only have the “colour of law”, not the “power of law”. The use of the word “law” in respect of statutes, without clarification, is misleading.

Statutes are Acts, Bills, and Legislative Instruments:
• 'Act, civil law, contracts. A writing which states in a legal form that a thing has been said, done, or agreed.' – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
• 'Bill, legislation. An instrument drawn or presented by a member or committee to a legislative body for its approbation and enactment.' – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856
• 'Instrument, contracts. The writing which contains some agreement, and is so called because it has been prepared as a memorial of what has taken place or been agreed upon. The agreement and the instrument in which it is contained are very different things, the latter being only evidence of the existence of the former. The instrument or form of the contract may be valid, but the contract itself may be void on account of fraud.' – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856

All statutes are legislation prescribing “legal” instruments, which are contracts. The origin of all legal jurisdiction over you is your given consent.

The foundation of democracy is the consent of the governed.

If you accept that we are all created equal, and presumed innocent, then how can anyone have authority over you without your consent? It's not possible.

Statutes, by right, require consent. The New Zealand Police website correctly says: “It's important for us to know what people think of our service - in New Zealand we police by consent and cannot afford to lose the support of the people we serve.”

You can never be forced to give your consent, because that would be “under duress” which is not genuine consent. Your right to contract, or not to contract, is unlimited. The State cannot remove a right without due process of law, including notice and opportunity to defend. Otherwise, you retain the right to say: “I do not consent”.

Implicit in the right of consent is the right to withdraw consent. Indeed, the People have a duty to do so in order to defend their rights and freedoms, because only the People can redress the corruption of their democratic government. These people may waive societal benefits. But when the imposition of liabilities outweighs the benefits, such a waiver may be justifiable. The choice must be theirs to make.

The de jure jurisdiction is the last line of defence. It divides living men and women from the inferior “legal fiction” government.

Governments create and control legal fictions.

The government is but an agency created by the sovereign People, which therefore cannot rise above its creators. It is brought into our consciousness from nothing. It has no life or will of its own. It is something created and perpetuated in the minds of the participants – it is a “legal fiction”.

A government, as an artificial construct, can create more artificial legal fictions such as corporations or “legal personalities”, over which it has control.

You are born into your own sovereign jurisdiction, as a living entity with inalienable rights and responsibilities. This is your “private capacity”. The government later creates a second legal entity on the Birth Certificate, providing you with a “public capacity”. Since the government controls what it creates, anyone who “acts” in a “public capacity” as a “legal personality” is giving their consent to the government.

Public Servants routinely make the presumption that we are all “in the public”, which is why retaining your rights “in the private” is difficult. To achieve “lawful standing”, as a living man or woman, it is necessary to “rebut the presumption” that you are acting in “joinder”.

Since jurisdiction equates to power, and power equates to money, it is not surprising that a mysterious language has evolved for all legal and lawful matters, called “legalese”. Inevitably, the most important knowledge is obscured and manipulated by those who would subvert the de jure State for their own purposes.

Any court without a jury is an “administrative court”.

Importantly, any court without a jury is an administrative court, without the Common Law authority of the sovereign People. Administrative courts require the free and genuine consent of living men and women, and otherwise have no jurisdiction.

'The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country, and no Act can be passed to legitimise them.' - Halsbury's Law 2011

Administrative courts operate with a subordinate de facto “in practice” jurisdiction for the quasi-administration of statutes.

The de facto jurisdiction is Admiralty Maritime, also called the “law of the sea”. It is essentially for settling commercial disputes among publicly registered corporations, including people who consent to “act” as “legal personalities”.

The de jure jurisdiction is Common Law, also called the “law of the land”. It is for the provision of justice among living men and women, whereby decisions of law are made by living men and women on juries, who are not “actors”.

“You get the democracy you are prepared to stand up for.” - John Key, 2007.

We the People are responsible for the failures of our government. Every power exercised by our government is delegated from us.

As a culture, we have become increasingly dependent on the government, and wary of its inflated power. We have been deceived by the corporate media, psychologically conditioned to be subservient, and trained to be material consumers and debtors even if we destroy ourselves and our planet while enriching a parasitic hegemony.

We have forgotten that our Public Servants are indeed our “servants”.

Democracy, by definition, requires the active participation and oversight of the People. If we are not prepared to “stand up” for what we believe in, our lack of rebuke allows corruption to take hold, eroding our democratic rights and freedoms.

However, the People should remember that the “legal personality” has no arms and legs – it has no “standing”. It cannot “stand up”. It is a servant of the State.

People commonly surrender their inherent democratic rights whenever they do not expressly reserve their rights in everyday legal matters, in documents and verbally.

Your consent is your signature. Your consent is your silence. YOU hold the key ...

[IMPORTANT: This article reflects the considered opinions of the author, a jurisprudence researcher, and should not be construed as legal advice. By: Lewis: Verduyn, All Rights Reserved, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-308]

______________________________________


The Law    Statutes
PEOPLE make The Law
by the acceptance/validation of Jury verdicts    PARLIAMENT makes Statutes
by the en-Act-ments of Legislation
“The Law” is the People's “Common Law”,
unlike Statutory “Colour of Law”    “Statutes” are “Legislative Instruments”,
unlike the “Common Law”
Laws are moral CUSTOMS made effective
by the CONSCIENCE of the People    Statutes are offered CONTRACTS made effective by the CONSENT of the Governed
'LAW. As a compound adjective “common-law” is understood as contrasted with or opposed to “statutory.” ' [Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Edition]    'STATUTE. The written will of the legislature...; This word is used in contradistinction to the common law.' [Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856]
THE LAW PROTECTS THE PEOPLE
from harm, loss, and deceit    STATUTES GOVERN LEGAL ENTITIES
as a franchise benefit to the State
We are ALL EQUAL
in the eyes of The Law    We are NOT ALL EQUAL
in the books of Statutes
Laws are based on PRINCIPLES    Statutes are based on PRACTICALITIES
Laws evolve over TIME and often endure    Statutes can QUICKLY come and go
LAWFUL refers to THE LAW    LEGAL refers to LEGISLATION
A Jury of People can overturn a Statute    The Legislature cannot overturn Case Law
Laws can be taken into Statutes
but if repealed in Statute they remain in Law    Statutes can serve The Law
but cannot diminish or expand The Law
De jure “in law”    De facto “in practice”
The People's Common Law
“Law of the Land”    Admiralty Maritime Commercial
“Law of the Sea”
           

Inalienable Rights
Inalienable Rights are the Inherent, Sovereign, Natural Rights that existed before the creation of the State, and which, being antecedent to and above the State, can never be taken away, diminished, altered, or levied by the State, except by Due Process of Law. Nor can any Inalienable Right be fundamentally removed or waived by contract, whether by non-disclosure, which is fraud and unenforceable in Law, or knowingly by sufferance, which is contrary to the Spirit of the Law and prejudicial to Sovereignty.

The Original, Permanent, Inalienable Rights of every Man or Woman, include:
The Right to Life, Freedom, Health and the Pursuit of Happiness
The Right to Contract, or Not to Contract, which is Unlimited
The Right to Earn a Living Income by being Compensated with Wages or a Salary in a Fair Exchange for one's Work
The Right to Travel in the Ordinary Course of one's Life and Business
The Right to Privacy and Confidentiality, free from Unwarranted Invasion
The Right to Own, and Hold Property, lawfully without Trespass
The Right to Self-Defence when threatened with Harm, Loss, or Deceit
The Right to Due Process of Law, with Notice and Opportunity to Defend
The Right to be Presumed Innocent, suffering No Detention or Arrest, No Search or Seizure, without Reasonable Cause
The Right to Remain Silent when accused, to avoid Self-Incrimination
The Right to Equality in the eyes of the Law, and to Equal Representation
The Right to Trial by Jury, being an Impartial Panel of one's Peers
The Right to Appeal in Law against Conviction or Sentence, or both
The Right to Expose Knowledge necessary to one's Rights and Freedoms
The Right to Peaceful Association, Assembly, Expression, and Protest
The Right to Practice a Religion, and to have Beliefs, of one's choosing
The Right to Love, and to Consensual Marriage with Children, as a Family
The Right to Security from Abuse, Persecution, Tyranny, and War
The Right to Refuse to Kill under command, by reason of Conscience
The Right to Live in Peace and be left alone when Law-Abiding

Surely, the most critical failure of The People is their failure to ensure the teaching and common knowledge of their Inalienable Rights. If you do not know your Rights, you effectively have none. By the path of Ignorance, whether by Apathy or Deception, The People arrive in a State of Exploitation, Oppression, and Tyranny.