If you thought you'd get a rational response from an irrational person, then, and in this instance I am sorry for saying so, you picked the wrong battle or tactic. This isn't limited to the artificially-coloured coof-banshee with no real scientific capability. It is widespread in the Public Service and in Parliament. Endless ways have been developed to waste the taxpayer/voter time and effort spent making good arguments, providing good data; endless mis-directions and recapitulations are available; endless apologies and misguidance can quell the greatest determination. And all of these things mitigate the obligations given by legislation that "binds the Crown", legislation which only a few Crown agents read.
In order to rout out these scum we are going to have to use dirty , but legal , tactics, and concentrate our forces on one of these wankers at a time. Remove one, move on to the next. The Wiles creature is a liability for future generations, and should be one of the first targets.
Karma will come. But I’m not sure it will be though the Crimes Act. More likely a highly-public lamppost. And as Klemperer stated, these particular people will hang one metre higher than the others, and for ‘as long a hygiene will allow’.
A second reply; It's obvious you haven't taken me seriously, CF the mention of Karma instead of doing the research. And since you're from the UK , you may [ probably, [85% chance]]be a bad actor. Instead of reading the law as I suggested, you poo-poo'd it and referred to an unspecified Klemperer. I still haven't given the core argument. If you are a foreign agent, relocation is advisable.
I poo-poo’d NZ judicial system because I studied it, tried to use it, continue to pursue justice and recognise the whole sector is corrupted, captured and utterly broken. If you have a suggestion for seeking accountability, I’m all ears. At this current time, the NZ legal route is not that path.
No judicial system is anything but broken and corrupted. But in spite of the risk, the best arguments have to be presented. Yes, they'll change the law to suit themselves, Yes, they'll come up with arguments against anything you provide....but the point is to expose them.
The crimes act clearly states a duty to preserve human life (S150-157) in respect of culpable homicide (S160)
That act “binds the crown”
Actions made in respect of Fraud are not excluded. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as judges are fond of saying.
We cannot rely on the judiciary, but we must put forward the best argument, so they have no choice. From the cabinet of the recent Labour govt. down, people have made negligent choices which have ignored the law. They have made choices predicated upon fraud. The recent Labour cabinet and all agents of the Crown who undertook a foreign directive to vaccinate [poison] people here, are guilty of homicide.
The fundamental problem, from my POV is that of standing. S48 allows defence of oneself or another, and if one hasn’t suffered any injury , then it the law requires someone who has suffered injury, to initiate a prosecution.
48Self-defence and defence of another
(1)
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
BTW, my earlier msg was erroneous in that I said 1960, the Crimes Act is 1961
So if you find someone injecting an unknown substance [with a track record of causing death!] into a healthy person, you may use such force as, in the circumstances as you believe them to be, reasonable to use.
If you aren’t vaccinated, you can only prosecute, or obtain writ , under S48, but someone who has suffered loss or injury can file an information with the court in respect of such, under other sections.
"which by the way earns my University academic brownie-points" -- what does this even mean? Do they gain $, or just perceived kudos? Hopefully future generations will get to write high school essays about the insanity that was visited here and elsewhere by this generation of politicians, decision makers, order followers, public servants, grifters, grabblers, deeply indoctrinated/brainwashed...
Lol. Yes, both. See the hyperlinked citation. Promotion application forms even have a space for social media impact! And I’ve seen it quantified on Annual Reports !
If you thought you'd get a rational response from an irrational person, then, and in this instance I am sorry for saying so, you picked the wrong battle or tactic. This isn't limited to the artificially-coloured coof-banshee with no real scientific capability. It is widespread in the Public Service and in Parliament. Endless ways have been developed to waste the taxpayer/voter time and effort spent making good arguments, providing good data; endless mis-directions and recapitulations are available; endless apologies and misguidance can quell the greatest determination. And all of these things mitigate the obligations given by legislation that "binds the Crown", legislation which only a few Crown agents read.
In order to rout out these scum we are going to have to use dirty , but legal , tactics, and concentrate our forces on one of these wankers at a time. Remove one, move on to the next. The Wiles creature is a liability for future generations, and should be one of the first targets.
I’m in. Where do we start?
Read the entire crimes act 1960.
Then focus on S150-157, S160-169, S200,201
The arduous and tormenting part is reading any Medicine legislation. or HDC legislation and codes. Despair is a side effect.
But what I'm getting at here is negligent homicide. it only takes one to go down...
Karma will come. But I’m not sure it will be though the Crimes Act. More likely a highly-public lamppost. And as Klemperer stated, these particular people will hang one metre higher than the others, and for ‘as long a hygiene will allow’.
A second reply; It's obvious you haven't taken me seriously, CF the mention of Karma instead of doing the research. And since you're from the UK , you may [ probably, [85% chance]]be a bad actor. Instead of reading the law as I suggested, you poo-poo'd it and referred to an unspecified Klemperer. I still haven't given the core argument. If you are a foreign agent, relocation is advisable.
I poo-poo’d NZ judicial system because I studied it, tried to use it, continue to pursue justice and recognise the whole sector is corrupted, captured and utterly broken. If you have a suggestion for seeking accountability, I’m all ears. At this current time, the NZ legal route is not that path.
No judicial system is anything but broken and corrupted. But in spite of the risk, the best arguments have to be presented. Yes, they'll change the law to suit themselves, Yes, they'll come up with arguments against anything you provide....but the point is to expose them.
The crimes act clearly states a duty to preserve human life (S150-157) in respect of culpable homicide (S160)
That act “binds the crown”
Actions made in respect of Fraud are not excluded. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as judges are fond of saying.
We cannot rely on the judiciary, but we must put forward the best argument, so they have no choice. From the cabinet of the recent Labour govt. down, people have made negligent choices which have ignored the law. They have made choices predicated upon fraud. The recent Labour cabinet and all agents of the Crown who undertook a foreign directive to vaccinate [poison] people here, are guilty of homicide.
The fundamental problem, from my POV is that of standing. S48 allows defence of oneself or another, and if one hasn’t suffered any injury , then it the law requires someone who has suffered injury, to initiate a prosecution.
48Self-defence and defence of another
(1)
Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or herself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.
BTW, my earlier msg was erroneous in that I said 1960, the Crimes Act is 1961
So if you find someone injecting an unknown substance [with a track record of causing death!] into a healthy person, you may use such force as, in the circumstances as you believe them to be, reasonable to use.
If you aren’t vaccinated, you can only prosecute, or obtain writ , under S48, but someone who has suffered loss or injury can file an information with the court in respect of such, under other sections.
"which by the way earns my University academic brownie-points" -- what does this even mean? Do they gain $, or just perceived kudos? Hopefully future generations will get to write high school essays about the insanity that was visited here and elsewhere by this generation of politicians, decision makers, order followers, public servants, grifters, grabblers, deeply indoctrinated/brainwashed...
Lol. Yes, both. See the hyperlinked citation. Promotion application forms even have a space for social media impact! And I’ve seen it quantified on Annual Reports !