Skip to main content


Showing posts from May, 2012

Gwaze trial

Congratulations to my good friend and fellow traveller in christchurch mr james rapley for his fine defence of mr gwaze.
Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

The media

No surprise to see the state propaganda on the outcome of the urewera four case. The complete lack of investigative journalism in nz is a truly woeful situation. People complain about the government controlling the media in other countries. Here the state control is so complete that we dont even know its happening. Why was it that an overseas expert had to be brought in to completely review the intelligence gathering in operation 8.  Why did the police allege the use of napalm in the media. The only evidence of so called explosives in the trial was evidence of firecrackers. The running of leader articles in the national media by those who have never read the evidence demonstrates this case is simply about

Fearmongering and the engendering of racial hatred. It will be interesting once the judges summing up to the jury comes out to contrast that with comments made during the sentencing process.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4


If the extensive evidence at the urewera four trial of training for security work in iraq is so laughable why were the jury unable to convict on the charge of participation in an organized group. One can only surmise that the jury did not find the evidence placed before them laughable at all. On the contrary they probably found the prosecution footage of supposed training for guerilla warfare a complete crock.
Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

The Urewera Four now the Urewera two

In the face of a media which only presents the point of view of the court,  prosecution and the police re the sentencing the following point can be. The whole process has been a large incentive for the police to act illegally in the future as they did in a sustained and comprehensive fashion in this case. As the sentencing Judge said in relation to Tame Iti and Rangi Kemara the end does not justify the means. Equally the same could have been said of a case where the means being the illegality of the NZ Police has been allowed to justify the end being the vindication of the establishment. What a very sad day for New Zealand. If ever there was a case where some restraint was required for the good of all this was it. That opportunity has been lost. Its simply a case of short term gain for long term pain.

More information for the people

I described the process earlier by which a criminal prosecution commences. Often people say to me oh i admitted it in the police station so i have to plead guilty. Its like they think that the court and the police station are somehow connected and that the police station is part of the court process. It is important to realize that the police are part of the executive branch of government and the courts are part of the judicial branch of government. The police investigate alleged crimes they do not decide whether a crime is or has been committed that is the function of the courts. When you go to court the fact that you may have confessed to the police is evidence put to the court by the police but it does not determine the matter. It is the judge who makes the decision on whether a crime ahs been committed. For instance someone may have made a false confession and a judge may not believe the confession the police have no power to make decisions regarding guilt or innocence in court. …

compulsory contraception for beneficiaries

Oh this is weird being told by some creep at Winz to get contraception. How many women who are not beneficiaries would put up with this. Not many if any. I suggest this be made compulsory for all female government employees as well. And dont tell me that it will not be made a condition of obtaining a benefit, It may not be officially so but we all know how pressure will be brought to bear. All part of the creeping tide of Nazism that never went away. Where is the blood in their veins.

more nuts and bolts

A criminal case is like anything it needs to be managed properly otherwise it can go off on its own like air escaping from a balloon. This involves preserving the balance of power. The only way to do that is to plead not guilty. This maintains what little negotiating power you have left. Criminal lawyers are used to dealing with very little in the way of cards. But it certainly is silly to throw all your cards away without seriously thinking about it. You may be one of those people who does that without thinking  regardless of  advice you receive. If that is the case there is not a lot that can be done. Sometimes people with terminal illnesses refuse treatment. They have simply had enough and that is their way of maintaining their dignity and control over their own destiny.Few criminal cases are terminal though there is always something that can be done. It is rarely a matter of life or death. There are a large number of extremely successful people who have had a brush with the crimi…


These can either be known to you or what is called covert or not known to you. For instance your phone may be bugged without you knowing it or your bank accounts may be looked at without you knowing. As opposed to a situation where a search warrant is executed on your house and you can see the investigation happening while you sit on your couch with a policeman.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

The nuts and bolts

The court process is kicked off with a document called an information. This is the allegation against you and this document is filed in court and often a defendants copy will be issued which is served on you. It will have the date in the right hand corner when you have to attend at court. The allegation on the information will be under a particular section of a statute. Often it will be the Crimes Act if it is alleged you have committed a crime or it may be under another statute such as the Transport act or the Summary Offences Act. Parliament gives the courts jurisdiction to deal with these informations under the Summary Proceedings Act. The Summary Proceedings Act is the procedural statute which governs the process by which you are initially prosecuted. If the information is laid indictably then the matter must proceed through the indictable process of the District Court which involves firstly a preliminary hearing and then a jury trial. Sometimes a person or the Crown can seek a j…

David Tamihere

Only the Parole Board could describe David Tamihere as "stupid" to publicly protest his innocence. I dont think he is stupid. What happened to the principle of open justice?

More of what you need to know part 2

So the first rule is to never trust an investigating official whether they be a policeman, from social welfare, Housing New Zealand or whatever. This is principally for two reasons. One is they may not have proper training as an investigator and so they come to their work with a preconceived position. And two if they have received training within an institution such as the police or the serious fraud office or someother bureaucratic organization they will be embued with a certain culture. That stems from the fact that the government is a monopoly and is accordingly accountable to no one. You can count the elections we have as accountability because all that is doing is electing representatives and we all know what they are like. No the real government is unelected and it consists of government departments and those who run them. They are accountable to noone and you cant count the state services commissioner because he is one of them. So accordingly if you are being investigated for …

i read the other day its good to make a success of others. you might be losing sleep or you just might not know what to do. you might be frightened that someone else is going to knock on your door. or you might be alongside someone who has done something extremely serious. whatever your situation there are certain rules which in our judicial system you should always follow. the first is that you should never trust a government official of any kind. i am talking about investigating officials not all government officials tho i accept there is a moe than convincing argument that all government officials are investigating officials.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4