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 a crime by the government there is a 90% chance they will have made up their mind that you are guilty. So what is the practical step that you can take to deal with this. The step you can take is not to talk to them. You dont have to make a statement. In some circumstances you can be compelled under pain of imprisonment to provide information or make statements. However as a rule and I am generalizing here there are very few situations where evidence obtained by compulsion form the accused themselves can be used as admissible evidence in court. The other reason why you should not make a statement to people who are investigating you for a crime is that that statement has the potential if it is incriminating to do all the investigating work for them. Any holes in their case will be filled up by that statement. You will have no option but to plead guilty or be found guilty in those circumstances.Remember it is very easy to arrest someone for committing a crime but it is not so easy to prove it.