The rule of law does exist in New Zealand 95%?

[FairHearing]

In this post John "Brockovich" wrote:

The rule of law does exist in New Zealand 95%(+) of the time. When certain members of the judiciary do not what the rule of law to apply they make it so - i.e. that 5%(-) of the time.

I wonder where these numbers come from?

Also, it seems to me that the above suggests that 5% of judgments are made maliciously. Even if the remaining 95% are made in "good faith", it doesn't mean that they adhere to the rule of law. As we can see from Taito, the good intentions of the judges of the top NZ court resulted in a "fundamentally flawed and unlawful system" which "operated arbitrarily", "contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice". There is nothing to suggest that the system has changed to the better, unless I am missing something.

[John "Brockovich"]

In this post John "Brockovich" wrote:



I wonder where these numbers come from?

Also, it seems to me that the above suggests that 5% of judgments are made maliciously. Even if the remaining 95% are made in "good faith", it doesn't mean that they adhere to the rule of law. As we can see from Taito, the good intentions of the judges of the top NZ court resulted in a "fundamentally flawed and unlawful system" which "operated arbitrarily", "contrary to fundamental conceptions of fairness and justice". There is nothing to suggest that the system has changed to the better, unless I am missing something.

Fairhearing: I said 95% (+). Meaning somewhere above 95% but below 100%. We simple do not know a better % as the Judicial Conduct Commissioner refuses to consider judicial corruption on any issue. If he did we could have a better estimate.

The outcome of the Commissioner's inaction is that the Judges without integrity know that they are safe - so I would guess that very soon we could conclude the rule of law is now only applied 90% (+) of the time.

"Taito" is not in the 95% category. It is in the 5% bad faith category, the NZ judge did not have "good intentions". If they did then they were incompetent, which, to all intents and purposes, is what the Privy Council ruled as the least criticism it could make of the NZ judges.

[BarryCowlishaw]

That my friends is really funny.... running the percentages like they really matter .... I am sorry to "LAUGH OUT LOUD" but I cannot help thinking here about the humble apple... what is the difference really if it is 10% rotten or 50% rotten? ..,.. What we do know about rotten is that it WILL spread and soon be 100% rotten (always).


The Old boys club checking on the old boys club eliminates the possibility of impartiality so it is unlikely that the rot will be determined from within the apple (ever) .... so it is 99.9 % accurate to state that "Rule of Law" is ignored in NZ if there is no truthfully impartial analysis of the fruit or if an intentionally blind eye ensures that instances or transgressions are allowed to continue to erode structural integrity.

I suggest that the whole box of fruits have been going off for many years and that arguing percentages may well be a good way of wasting time Fruitlessly

Interestingly the credibility of the concept of applying "Rule of Law" is 100% compromised with any transgression .... especially serious ones that are ignored like the Thefts and money laundering that the Crown has been involved in since the 1984 Coup d'état initiated on behalf of the business and banking lobbies ... what percentage of smoke and mirrors did that CRIMINAL ACTIVITY require to shift ownership of generations of the peoples investments?

Would it not be Justice if we simply take STOLEN property back? .... We could suggest that a precedent has been set if the property is in our care (like privatisation).... we can help ourselves or am I confusing "Justice" with "JUSTUS" helping ourselves as did a small percentage of our numbers whom we trusted inappropriately.... since the coup

[Q. C.]

That my friends is really funny.... running the percentages like they really matter .... I am sorry to "LAUGH OUT LOUD" but I cannot help thinking here about the humble apple... what is the difference really if it is 10% rotten or 50% rotten? ..,.. What we do know about rotten is that it WILL spread and soon be 100% rotten (always).


The Old boys club checking on the old boys club eliminates the possibility of impartiality so it is unlikely that the rot will be determined from within the apple (ever) .... so it is 99.9 % accurate to state that "Rule of Law" is ignored in NZ if there is no truthfully impartial analysis of the fruit or if an intentionally blind eye ensures that instances or transgressions are allowed to continue to erode structural integrity.

I suggest that the whole box of fruits have been going off for many years and that arguing percentages may well be a good way of wasting time Fruitlessly

Interestingly the credibility of the concept of applying "Rule of Law" is 100% compromised with any transgression .... especially serious ones that are ignored like the Thefts and money laundering that the Crown has been involved in since the 1984 Coup d'état initiated on behalf of the business and banking lobbies ... what percentage of smoke and mirrors did that CRIMINAL ACTIVITY require to shift ownership of generations of the peoples investments?

Would it not be Justice if we simply take STOLEN property back? .... We could suggest that a precedent has been set if the property is in our care (like privatisation).... we can help ourselves or am I confusing "Justice" with "JUSTUS" helping ourselves as did a small percentage of our numbers whom we trusted inappropriately.... since the coup

YODA: Your idiot friend has returned. But, at least this time some of his new comments make sense.

[BarryCowlishaw]

Ah queer chump (QC?) did you really want to continue with personal assaults while sidelining the subject matter? - surely you must realise I don't mind giving more than I get when little dicks (like yourself) refuse to play nice- but all with a smile of course

[FairHearing]

so it is 99.9 % accurate to state that "Rule of Law" is ignored in NZ

That's my exactly my point.

"Taito" is not in the 95% category. It is in the 5% bad faith category, the NZ judge did not have "good intentions". If they did then they were incompetent, which, to all intents and purposes, is what the Privy Council ruled as the least criticism it could make of the NZ judges

My understanding of "bad faith" is, I know that the guy is innocent, but I convict him. It has nothing do to with incompetence.

My understanding of "good faith" is, I know that the guy is guilty (or should be punished otherwise), so I convict him regardless of the law, the facts, the evidence, precedents, the truth, or anything else. "Good faith" may have something to do with incompetence.

So I think that at least some if not most of the ~1,500 judgments on appeals under Taito must be in the "good faith" category. But that doesn't, as the Lords of Justice said, make them lawful, i.e., put them under the "rule of law" category.

I think that malicious (bad faith) decisions may or may not be 5%. But I am pretty sure that the "rule of law" in NZ is nowhere near 95%. In fact, given absolutely corrupt COA and SC, I think it does not exist at all. There is no way to ascertain "the rule of law" without competent, independent and impartial appellate courts.

Would it not be Justice if we simply take STOLEN property back?

I think it would.

"In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously… If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy... The criminal goes free if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Judicial Integrity: A Call for its Re-Emergence in the Adjudication of Criminal Cases

"In times of tyranny and injustice when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history"
Robin Hood, 2010