Originally posted by byteshertz
He gave them perimission to come on HIS land,

They did not need his permission to enter his land!

Simon Kaiwai is a human being who has god given rights

And those so called "god given rights" are what exactly? Who decides what those rights are?

until then he is innocent and maintains all his rights.

he has no "right" to recieve power....

They refused to leave and had no warrant to stay

They do not need a "warrant" to be on the property....

Simon was the first one to have his natural rights broken and therefore a crime was against him.

What "natural right" do you think he had that was broken?

considering this unlawful intrustion by workers

It was NOT unlawful - care to show which Kiwi law was broken by the electricity workers?

Simon had his natural rights abused.

Which "natural rights' did he have abused?

Magna Carta
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

And the law of the land states that the electricity workers had the right to be there....

Once again a silly "freeman" argument collapses because they do not know what they are on about!

Originally posted by byteshertz
Can you back up your arguments with anything

Can you back up your "argument" with anything but "freeman nonsense"

I cant just come walk in to your house, what serperates them from me?

they have been given the authority by the state - you would be surprised at the number of people that do not need your permission to enter your land

snip "freeman" nonsense not based on any law

If you were successful in reading comprehension of my post you would have comprehended he is not claiming the right to recieve free power,

Oh dear, you are the one having reading comprehension here, where did I mention "free power"

The electricty company had lawful excuse for tresspassing as their worker was following police instructions.

Wrong again,, they were following the instruction of the electricity authority....

The police however broke the law and infringed on Simon's rights

no they did not, they were assisting the electricity company when he tried to stop them

Section 5 of the Trespass Act 1980 says that Trespass Notices "shall be given to the individual concerned either orally, or by notice in writing delivered to [the individual concerned] or sent to [the individual concerned] by post in a registered letter at [that person's] usual place of abode in New Zealand."

They were NOT trespassing... you really do not know NZ law!

And you are the one trolling here, with your "freeman" nonsense!

Originally posted by spoor

The police however broke the law and infringed on Simon's rights

no they did not, they were assisting the electricity company when he tried to stop them

Their job is not to assist anyone with anything, their job is to keep the peace and to make sure law and order is maintainedl. If I say you stole my radio - it is not their job to assist me, it is their job to make sure me and you do not hurt each other while the situation is attempted to be corrected or until such a time as the matter is presented before a court.


Labeling something nonsense does not make it so - proving it nonsense does. As I have proven your one line refutes nonsense time and time again and even refered you to the website of the police themself but still can not convince you - I give up.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

I show you where the law says they are tresspassing, I show you this on their own website and you come back with:

They were NOT trespassing... you really do not know NZ law!

Nice argument! You have just shown your own inability to justify your own opinions, I am not about about to believe something that is just because you say it is.

I can assure you being a kiwi, being a student of law and being an outspoken activist on human rights I know enough law to know you think your opinon is law, when infact you do not know the history, the foundations and the reasons why the law even exists and is the way it is.

Originally posted by byteshertz
But instead they assumed an authority they had no legal right to have

This shows you have no knowledge of NZ law, that did have that legal right,

and took the law in to their own hands,

wrong, that is what the bloke arrested tried to do, and failed.

The "freeman" stuff is just nonsense, as people who try and push it are finding out!

For my fellow Kiwis, here is something I wrote February last year about our so-called constitutional arrangements (apologies, it is several parts)

When I was a child, I was taught that NZ was a constitutional monarchy. All my life I believed this. I have even written some pieces based on my beliefs. It was the result of indoctrination. Realising checks and balances I had believed existed weren’t actually there, I went looking in the past for the trail of their demise.

Today I know there is no evidence that NZ is constitutional, a monarchy, or even a representative democracy. Inspection reveals that constitutional safeguards have been removed, constitutional conventions have been arbitrarily changed, and further changes to constitutional safeguards are planned. Examination of the operation of the regime reveals systemic corruption.

Q: What constitutional safeguards have been removed?

I’ll mention three that are gone, and one under consideration for attack.

First, laws passed by the regime now always get assent. Recall for example the Electoral Finance Act and Section 92 Copyright changes. The Governor-General's website states "New Zealand is a constitutional democracy and neither the Governor-General nor the Queen takes an active or initiating role in the executive functions of Government. By convention the Head of State almost always acts on the advice of Ministers of the Crown".

Rubber stamping by the Governor-General is deemed to be constitutional convention.

It wasn't constitutional convention back when Sir Cyril Newall was Governor-General from 1941 to 1946. In a Minute he wrote in 1946 [Minute by Cyril Newall, 16 March 1946, G48 21 P/6, ANZ], he said, in part, the Governor-General could refuse assent

a) If he thinks that such a course of action offends against the law of the Constitution and is illegal, or
b) If he thinks that the course of action, while not offending against the letter of the law, is such as to offend against the spirit of fundamental principles of the Constitution

History tells us Fraser did not have things all his own way during Newall’s tenure. It has been a different story since, as things changed markedly in 1947 after the UK broke constitutional ties with NZ.

Second, the Legislative Council was abolished in 1951. Whether or not it was operating effectively isn't the issue. The then National Party promised in its 1949 General Election manifesto that

"The Legislative Council as at present constituted has failed in its purpose as a revising Chamber and should be abolished. As the Government, the National Party will examine the possible alternatives to provide for some form of safeguard against hasty, unwise or ill-considered legislation."

As you know, NZ has been unicameral ever since and there has been plenty of ill-considered legislation. So, a constitutional safeguard vanishes amid lies and deceit. History tells us that Holland had a field day after the UK broke constitutional ties with NZ in 1947. The regime maintains its own manual of operating procedures, the cabinet manual, and changes it and constitutional convention as and where it sees fit. As a constitutional document the cabinet manual has exactly zero worth.

Third, it was a constitutional right to have the people hear what you were accused of and the evidence, and the people ruled as to whether or not there was a case to be heard. This was changed in 1961 when depositions hearings were introduced, placing that determination in the hands of those owing allegiance to the state. This has again been changed (2008) such that depositions are written and are evaluated by a judge. Hoorah, cost cutting upon cost cutting at the expense of justice, while the regime has been seen to eagerly throw money at boat races and rugby games.

Lastly, the current constitutional safeguard being attacked is the right to trial by jury. It has been proposed by the regime that you will only have the right to a trial by jury if the prosecution charges you with a crime that carries a sentence of three years or more. The Bill of Rights had already stabbed at the heart of this constitutional safeguard by placing the threshold at three months behind bars. Make no mistake, this change if implemented will give the state complete control and the ability to lock up whoever it chooses, without scrutiny, for up to three years. Zimbabwe here we come.

Q: Didn’t NZ become independent in 1947?

We are told that NZ's independence "evolved", and we are referred to the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK), the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, the New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) Act 1947 (UK) and the New Zealand Constitution Amendment (Request and Consent) Act 1947.

If we stick to this timeline then there is only one event of interest, The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) ACT 1947 (U.K.). The others only have relevance to the prior colonial government with so-called "dominion" status, as constitutional authority still resided in the UK.

With the passage and assent of The New Zealand Constitution (Amendment) ACT 1947 (U.K.) the UK no longer had any constitutional authority over NZ.

Here’s how it works.

Imagine a picture with the UK on the left, and NZ on the right. Now imagine a power cord running from a building in NZ to the UK, and that cord being plugged into a power outlet in the UK. This was the situation immediately before NZ became independent. Power was plugged into the UK. Constitutional authority was in the UK.

Now picture NZ on its own, with a power cord taped to the side of a building, and a power outlet in the ground nearby, unused. This is the situation in NZ, whether you accept it happened in 1947, or when the Constitution Act was passed in 1986, it makes no difference.

Until that power cord is plugged into the outlet in NZ, so that government and its form derives legitimacy from the peoples of NZ, the regime remains constitutionally illegitimate and has no authority to make laws or negotiate treaties. Until the situation is properly dealt with the regime has no authority to act in anything other than a caretaker capacity.

Q: Couldn’t the UK pass constitutional authority to the NZ parliament?

No it couldn’t. The moment assent was given, the constitutional legitimacy of the NZ regime ceased. Sovereignty passed to the people. No matter how you slice and dice it, if NZ was independent then no constitutionally legitimate entity existed in NZ to receive the constitutional powers the act purported to transfer.

If a constitutionally legitimate entity existed to receive the constitutional powers then it was still plugged into the UK and there was no independence. We know this isn’t the case because in 1986 the regime re-announced independence when passing the Constitution Act. No action by the UK was required for this event in 1986 because NZ was already constitutionally independent as far as they were concerned.

Q: So the government became legitimate in 1986 then?

No it didn’t. The passing of the Constitution Act 1986 does illustrate the supreme arrogance of the old-guard though. The illegitimate regime declared itself sovereign over all the peoples of NZ but we can ignore that because sovereignty resides in the peoples of NZ and it isn’t something the regime can ever get its grubby little hands on no matter what deceits it attempts.

They also confirmed the crown and the government are the same entity. It has been that way since 1947 but it is nice to have the regime fess up. Simply stated, the crown is a legal fiction the regime needs to maintain in order to run.

The reason legitimacy remains denied despite passage of the Constitution Act 1986 is that the regime continues to deny the peoples of NZ that fundamental right of independence called self-determination. The peoples of NZ have the right to determine the form of their government. The regime remains the old colonial regime, dressed up in drag.

The regime cannot duck its obligation to the peoples of NZ to allow them self-determination, an obligation that the regime has committed to the UN it is bound to observe.

Q: Can you explain that please, you lost me?

In 1960 NZ supported the following resolution. Don't let the title of the resolution fool you. Among other things, the resolution makes clear certain principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, applicable to all member states.

Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples [Resolution 1514 (XV) December 14 1960]

The declaration's juridical status was long ago raised to the rank of imperative principles of international law (jus cogens) and binding on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s principles.

In the declaration it says:

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The NZ regime agreed with this principle, self-determination, but only for territories not considered "self-governing". The regime denied NZ's peoples the right to freely determine their political status then. To this day the regime continues to deny NZ’s peoples this right.

Q: What is the legitimate way forward?

The development of a legitimate constitution that defines the form that government takes along with the extent of the government’s powers and the mechanisms to keep those powers in check, and the adoption of such a constitution by plebiscite, is the only way forward.

Until the situation is properly dealt with the regime has no authority to act in anything other than a caretaker capacity.

Structural constitutional safeguards should at a minimum include a second house of elected representatives charged with representing the people that elected them regardless of ideology or party affiliation, and the ratification of treaties by that house, requiring a two thirds supermajority.

And, given the extremes of abuse of executive power the world has witnessed in the US, executive powers should be limited, and emergency powers given should be of explicit limited short duration until formally authorised for limited duration by both houses. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is folly to believe politicians are always good people.

Vested-interests will try to highjack the development of the constitution in an attempt to keep power in the executive and this will need to be addressed. Constitutional rights of the people need to be restored and reaffirmed.

Truth is a universal principle and it cannot be denied. If no action is taken then this illegitimate regime, ever more despotic, will eventually collapse, like the house of cards it is.

Q: Before we finish, why did you say NZ wasn’t a representative democracy?

NZ has been completely highjacked by political parties. It amazed me that MMP was adopted. How can a change of that magnitude be made on the basis of 4% of the votes (54% for 46% against). Constitutional change should always require a three quarters supermajority in a plebiscite.

Anyway, in NZ, even though there is a house of representatives, there are never any representatives representing the people that elected them in it. The people that go there represent the party they belong to, whether constituent or list MPs.

New Zealand played a large role in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 21 (3) says (original text) "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.".

There are four components:

a) The government derives its authority from the will of the people
b) The government holds office for a limited term after which there must be genuine elections
c) All eligible men and woman must be allowed to vote
d) The vote is to be secret or otherwise free from coercion

Contrary to the belief of many, the article does not mean that the will of the people is only relevant when elections are held. It means that when a member is speaking in the house that member is speaking with the authority of those that elected that member.

If you ardently believe that the will of the people is only relevant on the appointed election day then you must also accept that after election day the government no longer is authorised by the will of the people.

Speaking with the authority of those that elected them is impossible for list MPs as they are party political appointees. Elected MPs don’t represent those that elected them either and when a sticky issue is being addressed they give themselves permission to vote their conscience.

Larger parties make policy concessions to smaller parties so that their own policies will be supported. We have all witnessed this in action. Recall that what light bulbs and shower heads you use were to be dictated to you by the illegitimate regime.

The system the regime runs is not a representative democracy.

Q: Ok just one last question, where is the media in all this?

A very good question and one I cannot answer. Is it fear? Or are they in the pocket of the old-guard.

RESPONSE FROM SIMON KAIWAI

Thanks to those who have taken the time to research prior events in this case and to those that can see the principles and laws broken by the NZ Police and power companies.

Benito Mussolini stated that “Fascism should be more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

Let's remember that over 90% of New Zealanders were opposed to the privatisation of our electricity infrastructure, yet it was chunked up regardless with chosen retailers allowed to come in by invitation and now these parties can call on the police who require no evidence before acting yet are protected from any wrong doing by the courts.

Through requiring evidence that these privatisations without mandate could convey lawful right of ownership I put the electricity companies in a bind. I knew they could not do it and was prepared for this to go into court to have a ruling on it in the public's benefit.

As I persisted, the tactics used by the companies became prejudicial and forceful. Despite wanting to pull out because of the timing issue it seems the authorities became vengeful due to my original intention.

What I learned was that there are many amongst us who, whether by fear or for personal gain/status, think as slaves and support fascism without concern for the collective well-being, future generations and common law. Would it be appropriate to call these people fascists, crown immigrants, ignorant or hateful? Not really although their attitudes are harmful to our society (and unfortunately prevalent at present). It is better to consider them wayward brothers and sisters of the family of man. These people rarely research and often try to pick holes without a full understanding of the issues.

All of the questions raised above are answered in the blog www dot getthepowerback dot info