The Legal Foundations of Privatisation Lack Integrity (Legal)

Is “Honour” [As in- ADHERANCE TO WHAT IS "RIGHT" OR TO A “CONVENTIONAL STANDARD OF CONDUCT”] not a Prerequisite to Rule of Law?


Some of the “Criminal” aspects of Privatisation Defined by Pre-Existing Legislation?

Assets Known as “Public Assets” were funded by
Nationally………Taxation of Public- (not exclusively- their elected representatives)
Locally………….Ratepayers- (not exclusively their elected representatives)

Prior to the Criminal Activities Elected Representatives would inform the investors of any new loans and Taxes/Rates were adjusted accordingly Ratepayers were informed of which loans their rates were servicing- on each rates demand

Is there not a reasonable presumption supported by law that if you are helping to pay off a loan that you have an Interest in the Property secured by that loan- especially when those Investments relate to ones own Local/Nation’s infrastructure?

There are Reasonable Rights and Expectations/Interests of any Investor in Property while some (such as Rights) are often intangible there are other reasonable expectations that should be tangible [for example when all loans are paid off- use of your property would become cheaper (much) as only maintenance and a reasonable savings budget for improvements could be prudently envisaged]

Another Reasonable Expectation of investors in property would be that they would have some say in who is going to be administrating their investments (as elections suggested) and the type of administration – [Continuity and Stability are usual anticipations when one chooses to elect someone to administrate (not own) investments in Property-especially when the disposition is neither negotiated or mandated]

How then could Generations of Investor’s interests be transferred to an Artificial Identity that was penned into creation by Public Servants (those elected to serve in positions of trust) without a mandate? – (is there not a failure here on the part of Law Enforcement?)
To do this Elected (“Hobson’s Choice?”) Representatives needed to create new Legislation to provide the [(“Milking Plant”) recipient] “Artificial Identity” with an “air of authenticity”- (Corporation)

There is the reasonable expectation of most peaceful law abiding individuals that Law Makers (Public Servants) would not “Flout the Law” by creating new Legislation/Acts that are defined as being “Criminal” by Pre-Existing Legislation/Acts [that devotes a whole Section(408) to indicate that This Act Shall Bind the “Crown” ]- A matter of Honour?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Crimes Act 1961 Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 01 June 2010), Public Act – New Zealand Legislation

Part 10 Crimes against rights of property

Crimes involving deceit

Section 243 Money laundering
(1) For the purposes of this section and sections 244 and 245,—
conceal, in relation to property, means to conceal or disguise the property; and includes, without limitation,—
(a) to convert the property from one form to another:
(b) to conceal or disguise the nature, source, location, disposition, or ownership of the property or of any interest in the property
deal with, in relation to property, means to deal with the property in any manner and by any means; and includes, without limitation,—
(a) to dispose of the property, whether by way of sale, purchase, gift, or otherwise:
(b) to transfer possession of the property:
(c) to bring the property into New Zealand:
(d) to remove the property from New Zealand
interest, in relation to property, means—
(a) a legal or equitable estate or interest in the property; or
(b) a right, power, or privilege in connection with the property
proceeds, in relation to a serious offence, means any property that is derived or realised, ,directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of the offence
property means real or personal property of any description, whether situated in New Zealand or elsewhere and whether tangible or intangible; and includes an interest in any such real or personal property
serious offence means an offence punishable by imprisonment for …etc
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Begs a few Questions like

Could this have occurred (or be left unattended) if the significant Media had not been Owned by our nearest trading partner which also happens to be a very competitive market that also happens to own our significant Trading Banks and therefore has (in a free market) more control over Interest Rates (production costs) than our own seemingly democratically elected Government

Have we not got a Legal Profession/ Judiciary that ensures that the Crowns integrity is not compromised by blatant Criminal Activity- [which seems to have left us vulnerable to a Market (not Nation) which we could never really compete with as we have more transport costs to any other potential market than any other Nation?

And many more like questions