New Project
With this court case abruptly terminated, I have begun work on a new project - freespeech.org.nz.
The site will become a central resource for information on the freedom of expression in New Zealand. The site has been kicked off with a blog called Section 14.
Later will come background information on freedom of speech and it’s necessity, longer magazine-style articles on various topics relevant to free speech in New Zealand, information on how and when to annoy your Parliamentarians, and a range of other useful tools.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:52 am
BD:
Have the proceedings been discontinued? Is there still to be a hearing or call on Monday?
DK
October 27th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
We’re going to withdraw on Monday. There’s no useful way forward that I can see.
The simple fact is that Labour knew they would lose in court and so have rushed through this legislation in time to prevent us from going any further.
We’ll never get to see whether they would have filed true-but-politically-destructive or well-spun-but-perjurous affidavits; we won’t get to dig more nasty letters from Heather Simpson out of the Parliamentary Service; and we won’t get to hear whatever juicy comments the judge would have used to describe Labour’s behaviour.
October 29th, 2006 at 7:55 am
Please don’t withdraw. Make the judge dismiss it. It is an important political point.
October 29th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Concur with kiwi donkey.
You pull it and it gives dear leader the opportunity to claim victory. A judge kills it it he has to attribute it to the law being rewritten.
October 29th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
On the face of it I agree but if we make a judge chuck it out when we know there’s no legal ground for continuing we probably get done for costs and I have no desire to pay Labour’s bills.
I’ve just found out tomorrow’s meeting has again been delayed (again) for a week or so. More later.
October 30th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
Its a lose lose situation when Labour has the power to write it’s own self serving laws.
November 1st, 2006 at 12:37 am
Will you be seeking costs?
This might be an interesting argument - you only stand to lose your case because Labour pushed retrospective legislation through Parliament. Difficulty with the argument would be that you would be bringing Parliamentary proceedings into question in Court - a no-no.
But if a Judge were willing to find (in the course of deciding costs) that if it were not for the legislation you would have won, you might achieve what you hoped to achieve through the lawsuit.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Bernard:
Any news? Is the case officially dead now?
Regards
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
23 January 2007
My complaint of misappropriation of leader’s funds was lodged with the Office of the Commissioner on 10 February 2006. Despite assurances from the Commissioner’s Office that the complaint was being investigated, it was not until November 2006 that the police admitted the complaint was never investigated. By then it was too late.
This action by the police enabled the Labour led government to pass validating legislation thus legalising the theft of Taxpayers money. If police had carried out their duties responsibly a charge would have been laid and the Darton v Clarkwould have proceeded.
MPs who voted for the Validation Bill in any case offended against the Crimes Act 1961 - Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice - Bribery and corruption.
Police by their non action and misleading statements also offendad against
the Crimes Act.
Why did 4 months elapse between The Chief Electoral Officer’s complaint to the police on September 6 2005 and the the start of the police investigation at end of January 2006? The investigation was corrupted.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:25 am
519216 [url=174=”goodurl_megabase.txt]519216[/url]