The Crimes Act 1961 which is said to "Bind the Crown" (section 408) displays to us in part 10 Crimes against rights of property the legal definition of a crime resulting from the concealing of and/or the transferring of interests in property Section 243 Money Laundering (note the use of the term "without limitation") describes the process we have come to know as Privatisation almost to the letter.

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

Why would any Government commit an act which pre-existing legislation (said to Bind the Crown) defines as Criminal???- Like, Penning into Creation, New Legislature/Instruments (corporations) in which to, conceal/transfer "OUR" interests in Properties?

BECAUSE THEY CAN?- and you can't touch "Their" trust accounts (or can you/we?)

What point then in having a "Bind upon the Crown"? and has the "Crown" therefore displayed that it cannot be Bound by the Law of Contract?

Is that not like the "Crown" lacking Legal Capacity?

So come on you folk that trust law enforcement agencies shake your Buddy mates up - the facts speak for themselves (more details available) while our Police (is this the only law enforcement agency?) are still busy chasing cars (which I managed to stop my dog doing)

In the absence of Honour- Do we actually NEED to adopt the Egyptian methodology of outing this (two party) regime "In the Hope of Adherence to Rule of Law"? [From those serving in positions of trust, (especially to so do)].

It is rather clear to me that There are a lot of people that are not fully aware of the scale of our corruption problem or its history - so to begin with I am discussing the History and legality of S.O.Es [State owned enterprises] or the Infrastructure assets accumulated over many generations that were administrated and facilitated by Ministries- not corporations

[Separating issues- a more localized examination- infrastructure assets resultant from Ratepayers investments administrated by Councils- Councils that are now corporations and conveniently now Legally? "Own" ratepayers investments rather than administrate those investments on behalf of the investors- ( I have a communication to that effect from an adviser to the ATA- so I challenge anyone to prove me wrong)- which although occurred with a similar laundering technique- is not altogether the focus of this thread as I am trying to bring focus to the Nations Investments first]

Without a mandate from those taxpaying investors in property Elected Representatives transferred those Investors/Interests to Corporations/Businesses (without having to invest) These were now called SOEs and one of the reasons given for selling SOEs was that government was not there to be in business - (begging the question - why launder our investments in the first place or turn those investments into businesses?)
One of the interests in property that was transferred or perhaps created in the laundry process was "Disposition" (the Right to sell) and although we have been led (by the media?) to believe that the laundered/investments assets are State Owned- There is clear evidence that in concealing and transferring the public's investments/interests the two party regime conveniently bestowed upon themselves- the "Right to sell without consultation" with the original investors- This "RIGHT TO SELL" would normally be considered a "RIGHT of OWNERSHIP" so effectively it could be said that we Elect "Owners" of our joint investments? - sounds more like the chauffeur painted the family car a different colour(taxi?) and changed the ownership to favour business ethics or lack of. So now a minority can milk the whole herd for money using the herds own investments in infrastructure. Infrastructure that they are reliant upon

I am suggesting we have a problem, which is that serious, that it really MUST be addressed
I am also suggesting that it is unlikely to be so addressed through conventional law enforcement or judicial practices- (we have a few years of evidence to support those suggestions)

I am unaware of any political party or Law enforcement agency with the guts, IQ or integrity to ensure that the problems associated with this scale of theft are addressed according to "Rule of Law" and I am also unaware of any other form of conventional address which could be applied that has displayed its willingness or ability to function to protect either our interests in investments or "Rule of Law"- Therefore we need "Unity of the People" to rebel as Oppression/Corruption should not be left unattended any more than other types of Criminal offending which effects all of us.

There are a variety of methods (that I am aware of) to address these problems peacefully without protesting to the offenders and their associates- but each would require the agreement of a proportion of the population -to get off the ground

For example each of us uses Electricity- the Crimes Act defines Electricity as being property- OUR funding of facilitating structures either implies an interest or confers an interest.... we did not give that interest to corporations nor vote for a corporation to represent those interests (interests which jonkey would willingly relinquish, on, who's behalf?)
The suggestion of separation of the Ownership of infrastructure from the political arena- Without consultation or permision would ensure that you don't need to consult government when you want to turn the electric light on nor worry about if it is a socialist, democratic, or other political Act to do so

So- We could put real meaning in the term "Power to the People" by simply having the people pay their Power Bills into one bank account say- "Ministry of Developed Investment Security"= Modis?(unrelated to government or corporation) with clear intentions and "Open Accounting" (as a slightly different but assertive form of protest)- this would eliminate the GST factor from your bill because we could call the sum paid a metered? "shareholders contribution" to maintenance of their Property or something similar that we can simply insist upon eliminating the GST factor from supplementing the "Criminal Regimes" notoriously overspent budget- We could also have a Goal such as "Free infrastructure" (sound like how the corporations got to own it?)... once the assets are paid off only maintenance and improvement costs remain so- eliminate executive structures and we have only maintenance structures to fund- If the Assets were owned by the People then costs of maintenance could be passed to those who choose to make money out of using our resources such as businesses "OPEN ACCOUNTING" would enable the Vigilant among us to spot problems


I would like to see the "family Jewels" restored to the family for the mutual (not selective) benefit- as was intended by the initiating investors- (those of honourable intent)... What better venue for Stability and Security within Unity? - And did not that Treaty intend Unity rather than the division currently being funded and fostered

It is probably a good Time to examine just why we need or have laws and if in having laws there is an intention to serve only minorities (like the Fay Richwhites that skim the cream and take it offshore) and pyramid style monopoly games?

Just to clarify- these observations are not political they relate to "The reasonable rights and expectations of investors in property" which would normally include both stability and security (that cannot be subverted by other interests such as Business- which don't have family interests) protected by Rule of Law.

A Democracy is normally expressed as rule of the People (not economy) Right minded People would not elect to live on borrowed money while passing debts onto future generations- debts that are not validated by interests in property or infrastructure important to all Families

.

NZMaverick

I am also concerned- It's the sovereignty of right to the benefit of the "profit a prendre" relating to geographically strategic investments in infrastructure that draws my concern -

The government invested our monies (not theirs) as an elected representative body- they are only servants not owners- who's bloody Nation do they think this is or more importantly- who's bloody Nation do they intend it to become?

Eventually the laundering of these interests and the unnecessarily excessive borrowing is going to result with us being in the same position as Greece or worse- first to go is Autonomy.

That these would be considered "knowingly consequential" results of policies (if there was a professional element to the initiation of the laundering) suggests a larger plan.... I wonder if the passive force of political objectives would qualify as treason being that aspects of the Nations Constitution and issues of Sovereignty are effected.... or perhaps Sedition... I realize these two sections of the Crimes Act have been amended since--- but do you have a copy that was relevant at the time of the offense?... "That" would be interesting to post.

On a lighter note we could do with one of these especially if "Rule of Law" continues to fail to protect "EQUITY" (with all of its multiple meanings)