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

Until we have legislation adopted into law to ensure fiduciary accountability and transparency in public affairs we will continue to have human rights breached because the existing crown immunity and lack of any independent oversight invites corruption to flourish.


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


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


"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

"The internet is a TV that watches you"

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.

Friday, October 4, 2013

Independent report damns EQC as they gang up with Her Majesty's Solicitor General and the Clown Law Orifice to persecute whistleblower:

Marc Krieger cast transparency over the 'work' of the Earthquake Commission (EQC), and provided an independent report into their activities , and was recently served with an application by Her Majesty's Solicitor General in respect of alleged contempt of Court for his efforts.  The application is astounding - and deeply concerning if it indicates the calibre of the writers and the focus of their efforts.

Wellington consultancy Martin Jenkins (MJ) and Associates and insurance expert Derek Scott were asked to conduct an independent review of EQC’s response to the Canterbury earthquakes.

They have reported that the Earthquake Commission planned poorly for a major catastrophe and therefore lacked the leadership and systems needed to cope with the Canterbury earthquakes.

The consultants interviewed 75 EQC staff and contractors late in 2011 and early 2012 and found:
  • Only three of the theoretical list of 20 executive support people for EQC were available on September 4, 2010, the date of the first major earthquake.
  • It took a year for EQC to appoint a general manager with the management capabilities to deal with a large scale disaster effort. 
  • EQC’s poor response was determined by its pre-earthquake family culture – “nothing will happen until I retire.”
  • People were tossed into the field which worked well where individuals were highly experienced and capable … But there were many cases “where initially we had no idea what we were doing.”
  • iPads using Comet software were introduced with minimal cost benefit analysis and proved incompatible with EQC’s IBM claims software (ClaimCenter). The iPad application could deal with only one assessment per property and was therefore unsuitable for multiple events.
  • Despite EQC having invested in a web-based, field orientated software system, it initially used paper data recording in the field.
  •  Input staff did not fully understand ClaimCenter and by November 2011, ClaimCenter had 112,000 entries against which no activity had been entered. There was also a discrepancy of 40,000 building exposures between ClaimCenter data and Canterbury-sourced data.
  •  Apportionment of damage between events was “largely subjective” despite best efforts.

EQC had a permanent staff of 22 and outsourced all core functions – call centres for claims lodgement, claims administration and processing (to Brisbane) and field operations.

“In the absence of overarching direction individual solutions were created on the spot with negative downstream consequences,” the report said.

It also criticised EQC for its lack of expertise on its systems capability. The expertise “needed to be at hand to constantly advise the management of realistic possibilities”.

“Without adequate reflection new challenges were often met with more resources or new teams rather than working smarter eg experienced staff claimed better use of the ClaimCenter system could have saved 100 staff.”

What happened was that a group of greedy public servants saw an opportunity to create a lot of overpaid jobs for their mates and because of a total lack of accountability in NZ at present regarding the public sector, they got away with it, to the cost of all NZ taxpayers, and the people of Christchurch and Seddon in particular.

EQC’s lack of planning and project management skills meant suppliers took advantage charging premium rates, the MJ report said. Hourly rates were set which were more costly than fixed-term contracts and the report gave the example of Datacom charging a scanning cost of $6 per page.

The Scott report said EQC found it difficult to maintain standards as leaders at its various field offices and imported assessors were inconsistent and the pods were all managed differently.

“The training function experienced difficulties in responding to continual changes in form and work processes made by individual field offices, whilst the Canterbury Events office frequently changed the names and functions of teams.”

Further thought also needed to be given to better prescribing jobs to the provider agencies.

“… A number of assessors provided by Verifact (Brisbane-based firm that supplied 210 Australian assessors) were either physically unsuitable for the job or lacked the necessary skills including those of basic numeracy. Many assessors and estimators appear to lack knowledge of EQC cover, the 1993 Act, building code or repair strategies even after induction and training,” the Scott report noted.

Unrest occurred when inexperienced and untrained staff were paid the same rates as personnel previously contracted to EQC.

Effective performance management did not appear to be part of EQC culture, Scott said, with the focus on quantity rather than quality.  Judge Noble said "I'm left with the uneasy impression that the understanding of accountability is blurred" regarding Crown accountability.

The NZ High Court sits on shaky ground records the application of Her Majesty's Solicitor General and the Clown Law Orifice, and Mr Krieger's response, and other reports show that lawyers and Judges are fiddling with themselves while New Zealand democracy and human rights go up in a puff of smoke and flames.

Corrupt Police prosecutors like Garry Wilson and Gregory Peters regularly conspire with Wilson's partner, Masterton Court registrar Liz Harpleton, and other Police, lawyers and Court staff, etc, to pervert the course of justice in the Masterton Court - they are incompetent and corrupt in the extreme. 

Complaints are routinely fobbed off and ignored, and the social and economic costs mount up - a dysfunctional legal system masquerading as a 'justice system' - used as a trough for pigs like Bryan Yeoman and the above mentioned police officers, ex police officers, lawyers, etc, and some of the highest rates of suicide in the world.