Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Brian Rudman: Criminal conviction review system long overdue

  1. #1

    Brian Rudman: Criminal conviction review system long overdue

    Does anyone but Police Minister turned Justice Minister Judith Collins remain convinced Teina Pora raped and killed Susan Burdett? Even veteran police cheerleader Greg O'Connor is calling for an independent inquiry, confessing to...

    More...

  2. #2
    From the Herald:

    full of a misguided faith that our ancient and glorious British justice system
    Yeah right.

    The Crown set up a civil government, Collins runs a civil justice system quite different to the ancient British one.
    NZ's civil justice system uses a perverted version of English common law, not authentic common law.

    Link
    Last edited by Ugly Truth; 07-08-2013 at 01:19 PM.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    If things are not done right in the justice system of New Zealand, what can be done to fix it?
    Permanently fixing something involves finding the root cause of the problem and then applying an appropriate remedy. The root cause in this case is the fact that the colonial government was established as a civil system when the king relied on common law for authority. This meant that atheism was introduced into the legal framework by the House of Windsor, so naturally the remedy would involve reinstating theism back to it's rightful place within the framework along with the recognition of the associated natural rights.

    In concrete terms what this means is separation of ties with the House of Windsor and repudiation of allegiance to the Crown by state officials. To be frank, I expect that this would go down like a cup of cold sick for both the officials and their supporters. An alternative path is that they simply act to maintain the status quo while replacements are found who are conversant with the principles of common law.

  4. #4
    In my opinion the best way to interpret "the king can do no wrong" is to consider the intangible king, or kingship. Kingship is a state in which the man with the title of king does nothing unwise, unduly harsh, or weak. In other words foolish kings are not true kings and they have no authority.

    But to answer your question, you could apply the maxim that everything is permitted that is not forbidden by law.
    Last edited by Ugly Truth; 07-08-2013 at 11:24 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    Who makes the law?
    For the law of nature, the creator or creators make the law.
    For the law of contracts, the contracting parties do.

  6. #6
    At common law the creator(s) is usually called "God". This name can refer to a single being or to a group of beings acting with common purpose. One of these beings has the role of prime, in English he is usually referred to as the LORD. His name in the original Hebrew text transliterates as YHWH.

  7. #7
    No, YHWH does not pronounce the common law. Although the principles of common law are fixed, the expression of the law itself is fluid. Expression of the law can be found in the maxims of the common law.

  8. #8
    In the original instance they are pronounced by judges in contemplation of law. What this means is that they are typically arrived at by reason while considering a particular field of law.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    How do judges become good at contemplating law?
    Yoda, we've now got to the point where I should qualify my comments as being nothing more than opinion and advice. Also I'd like to recommend that you not just take my word on this as being gospel, but do your own due diligence in order to verify that this is of value.

    Contemplation of law involves thinking about the intangibles of life as they relate to the dimension of good and evil. It marks a point of departure from consideration of the everyday realities of life into the realms of philosophy, theology and the metaphysics of consciousness. Typically this involves religious beliefs and experiences, but because of the politics of religion discussion of these is beyond the scope of a response to a potential jurist. So to begin, one should start with the source.

    The book of formation describes reality as a construct composed of elements of consciousness and fundamental energies. Twenty two of these elements constitute the letters of the Hebrew language, and each letter has a meaning, and sound, and a numerical value. The combination of letters into words generates more complex abstract meaning. The relationship between the common meaning of the words and the abstract meaning is subtle, especially for someone accustomed to thinking of the words as representing more concrete concepts.

    For the jurist the point of this exercise is to be able to recognize the underlying meaning of the Hebrew language without having to depend entirely on descriptions which may have been coloured by religious belief over the years. A more direct approach might be to use an interlinear text. The Hebrew language does not translate well into English and using translated texts to find meaning is fraught with hazards. This bears repeating, the only sure way to study Hebrew text is with Hebrew language. A reasonable approach for the student is to take a verse of interest and then do a word study of the words which convey the essential meaning of the verse. Typically this involves studying the various orthodox meanings and the way these words develop meaning in other Hebrew texts.

    King King Ælfred's legal code is of course the appropriate place to find the connection between Hebrew law and English common law. A study of the differences between his book and the corresponding Hebrew text should shed some light on how he adapted Hebrew law to the Anglo-Saxon world. Christianity was of course the dominant religion of his day, its relationship with Judaism has been an uneasy one. Although the common law makes some mention of religion, it plays a minor role with the structure of the common law being based on reason rather than belief.

    The conventional sources of the law are writers like Coke, Bracton, and Blackstone. Just as there has been tension between Judaism and Christianity, so also has there been tension between English common law and the civil law. Each of these three authors has a different perspective on this, with Blackstone striving to express a more unified jurisprudence. A reasonable approach to understanding the common law could be to pick a single idea of interest and then use a search engine to locate relevant text from the appropriate sources.

    Long story short, becoming good at contemplating law involves the recognition of wisdom, a knowledge of peace and a sense of the natural flow of cause and effect. But like anything you don't reap the rewards without investing your time with an appropriate goal in mind.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •