.


At what point in time did the councils become the “Owners” of investments accumulated by Ratepayers as opposed to being the elected “Stewards” of Ratepayer investments in infrastructure?

The above question was sent to the Minister for Local Government on the 3/5/2011 and I am still awaiting an answer...- he has already confirmed that the Councils do "Own" these investments but as I have pointed out to him- it is only recently that rates demands have not included the loans taken out by their elected representatives- which ratepayers were meeting.

Most reasonable minded persons would expect that they would have retained an interest in properties resultant from loans they were paying off- however the "concealing" of and "transferring" of such interests was probably accommodated by the Local Government Act 2002 which simply assumes that the Councils "Own" the interests rather than merely being the "Stewards" of such interests-

Why should you be concerned?........ The Crimes Act 1961 Section 243 defines money laundering as (without limitation) the concealing of and/or transferring of interests in property- So...

If you share my concerns perhaps you would like to send the same question to this Minister [r.hide@ministers.govt.nz] or perhaps send this question to the Minister of Justice.

What was intended by Section 408 of the Crimes Act 1961 when it states "This Act shall bind the Crown" (credibility?)

A- The Crown is "bound" to act in a manner defined as Criminal within this Act?

B- The Bind upon the Crown is a medical condition known as Constipation?

C- Modern politics do not need to conform to conventional standards of conduct/laws?

D- Grab, Steal, Take... The Crown thought GST was an established conventional standard of conduct and don't give a (note b) for the reasonable rights and expectations/interests of investors in property?.

E- Limitations expressed in this act do not apply to the actions or behavior of elected representatives?

D- The laws were not intended to be taken seriously if they stand in the way of minorities milking the general public?

Multiple choice is usually easy to answer and these seem to be appropriate considerations- correct me if I am wrong or if you think there are considerations I have missed please do not hesitate to post them
.

Yep that was a waste of time- I squeezed two conflicting answers out of this twit
1/ "..Legal ownership rests with the Council, not Ratepayers, and this has long been the case."
2/"...Legal Ownership has always been vested in the councils acquiring those assets.

Good time to get out of politics rotney - I am starting to wonder if you ever knew your elbow from your posterior.

The Councils acquired the assets(communities infrastructure) as representatives of the ratepayers/community- It was only a recent event that the communities infrastructure became in part or whole the property of corporations just as it was a recent event that turned the Council's themselves into Corporations for the purpose of transferring those interests from being interests of "stewardship" to interests of "Ownership" seemingly required for the business model (borrowing against).

In short just like the theft of public investments in the Nations infrastructure by business interests- We have the theft of Ratepayers investments in regional infrastructure by business interests.

Significant Constitutional changes initiated without a mandate?- but it is unlikely that these thieving sods could get such a mandate from the people of NZ to indulge in Criminal activities as defined by The Crimes Act 1961 section 243 money laundering about time that you retired hide/jackal- and there is nothing brash in that comment- you belong behind bars just like your mates....... YOUR MILLENNIUM MADNESS HAS ALMOST REACHED ITS ENDATE



.