DRAFT DRAFT
The following are facts I have put together over time as I battled Police in court that cumulated in fines being dismissed in Auckland district court which centered on their lack of statutory jurisdiction over me.
Lets start with some aspects of law and legislation people get wrong through ignorance or social conditioning (copying other people without checking) and government making no effort to correct you.
A classic mistake is people calling motor vehicle license , registration in error . A licence is government giving you permission/a right to do something , so a motor vehicle licence (MVL) is permission to use the vehicle on your public roads. You get a label for your car windscreen , normally shown on the left.
Is clearly written on the form as application to license a motor vehicle form, when you beg for permission to use your car on the public road..
Which leads to the next fundamental error people, police and ministry of justice make , registration
Registration is you registering your interest in the vehicle with the government . You are registering the person responsible for the vehicle ie the responsible person. This registration gives you a set number plates which becomes its registration number. It is a representation of the registration not the registration. When a vehicle is deregistered by the government the vehicle will still have its number plate on it.
Its the same as when you register for a conference or when staying in a hotel etc.
This is NOT ownership . Registering a car is not registering ownership. Most kiwis they think registration is ownership when it is not. People practising common law or sovereignty claim registering a motor vehicle is giving away ownership.
There are no ownership papers for vehicles in New Zealand . What people and police and MOJ refer to as transfer of ownership is actually called transfer of registered person, and says so on the form. This is why the axiom saying possession (ownership) is 9 tenths of the law but its backed up ultimately by a sale and purchase contract and other claims of right
.
This is confirmed by the NZ Government department that monitors it , the NZ Transport Authority [NZTA] , on their website.
Land Transport Act 1998 s233 (1) Interpretation
Land Transport act 1998 s235 Purpose of Register
The Crimes Act 1961 s218 Matters of ownership
In the same way legal and lawful are not the same thing.
Having established how easy it is to make mistakes due to ignorance about legislation and law lets look at NZ, legislation, law and police which happens in the same way.
The difference is its harder to spot as its in the government and judiciary benefit not to tell you the truth or your rights.
In Western society, people do what the government tells them to do ie follow legislation because the government said they had to , but thats not true. The public are ignorant and following social conditioning of government officials and other people. While errors in mvl and registration is more genuine social conditioning of each other by the public, law and jurisdiction confusion is orchestrated by government so its brainwashing. This is easy to do as it starts with the violence of parents , then schools , then by the boss at work enforcing rules by reward or punishment , so when kids grow up they used to the violence of authority and its easy to accept the authority and the violence of the government and do what they are told or be punished . It takes a special kind of human to do otherwise. This is explained by Marshall Rosenberg in the first 8 min of his 3 hr workshop.
The NZ Government writes bills and passes them as Acts .These Acts are legislation which are simply rules , but in a written form accessible to everyone (codified). Then governments back up that legislation with the fines, police, courts and prison system. Punishing anyone who doesn’t follow these rules. Governments call those rules laws . But are they laws and who do they actually apply to and does government have the right to enforce them? Most people think that government exists for the benefit of “society” and humans, and for the smooth running of “society” and we have to follow these government rules, and while it appears so, both of those things are untrue. Lets look at in overview and detail why thats incorrect.
1) Governments can be ignored , changed or overthrown when they don’t bring
wellbeing to everyone and protect our rights.
Humans began domesticating animals and cultivating agriculture, leading to the formation of villages and eventually cities. Naturally, governments and laws followed. The modern word "citizen" comes from the Latin civis, referring to someone living in a civitas—a politically organized community, often a city-state. In ancient times, states were typically city-states, which later merged into larger states, empires, and eventually modern states.
Civil engineering, derived from civitas, refers to the construction of infrastructure like buildings, bridges, and dams. Similarly, "civilization" describes a society built around cities, which gave rise to the idea of being "civilized"—acting in a cooperative and courteous manner. This shift represented a move away from "jungle law"—unregulated competing survivalism—to a system of shared rules designed to organize and control human societies living in larger groups. "To the eventual Western liberal democracies of today, which many believe provide greater rights and benefits, yet fundamentally retain the hierarchical control structures of earlier civilizations, with the ruling class now operating from outside the government rather than within it."
The Greek language, predating Latin, contributed the word "politics," derived from polis (city) and polites (citizen), as seen in Aristotle's classic work, Politiká.
Rules themselves are not inherently problematic; the real issue lies in who makes, enforces, and can change them—and for whose benefit they exist.
A single human living on an island cannot be said to have rights . He can not see or prove he has any unless he is joined by others when they decide between them what the rules /rights and morals are. Rules, laws, morals , rights customs, and religions are all interconnected and today as societies have grown so large and governments problematic it requires looking at them and asking what is wrong the governments and the law and what they should actually be. And moving society to that answer regardless of what they are now.
Western governments are liberal democracies . This is based on John Lockes concept of liberalism where government protects the individual rights of the people primarily right of life, liberty and ownership of private property. But these arent direct democracies , they are representative democracies. you vote for some party and people that stands in election to represent you but you dnt get to choose who stands. NZ Government decision makers the MPs are elected by voters and they make decisions until they are voted out then the old opposition party last thrown out gets voted back in , in a revolving door outcome - until the economy eventually gets so bad far right parties not bound by democracy like fascist parties seize power by vote or by gun as 5 did during great depression which lead to WWII and millions of deaths.
There is no goal or goals written anywhere of the NZ Government , its function and purpose and whose government it is , we can only tell by their actions .
The NZ Government was born from the need for immigrant colonisers to steal more Maori land and protect themselves from Maori while doing it. They framed it as "needing representation" but their actions show otherwise. The land wars started 4 years after Parliament was first ut together with MPS. Legislation and the Police were created with the purpose of accelerating this process. Bringing , subjugation of Maori and ruination of their culture . This is all covered in chapter 12 here.
This NZ Government website says it was born from the English Parliament (by inference not the Queen) read here.
The problem was the colonisers brought capitalism with them and its not just Maori that suffer any longer , poor and working immigrant colonisers now suffer too. The NZ economy has got no better over time with regular economic crisis . Currently a housing crisis , with public and society suffering from – unemployment , third world disease , poverty, crime , high incarceration, depression and suicide ecological destruction , homelessness ,crime, high drug use , wars and lack of true democracy to change any of this etc Eventually it will collapse , hopefully it does before it destroys the planet or allows the population to get to large.
The current NZ Labour party was eventually put together in 1916 by socialists and unionists who realised in 1913 they needed to be in power to make legal change to either ; bring in socialism to end class war (oppression) or pass better legislation to make workers life better (diminishing class war and oppression ). Yet more than 100 years and 6 times in office its has became a corrupt impotent political party that brought in right wing neo liberalism in the 1984 and cannot even bring in a simple capital gains tax in its 1st term under its current 6th time in government (2017) . Because government is not running the economic system, those with money ie the ruling class are running the economic system. And the government is too useless , incompetent and corrupt to challenge any of it .
Government is a system of power . While that has appeared useful for the last 5200 + years, in that a strong stable government no matter how authoritarian leads to a stable economy which allows good economies to flourish . The Roman empire was a good example, Government invaded states and countries with armies and coerced and created local governments into ruling for Rome while in return they got Romes protection ,"laws", roads, baths toilets, aqueducts etc. It supposedly gave humans Roman law which our Westminster law is derived/based on , but underneath it is just jungle law .The acceptance of Romes conquest in return for benefits lasted until Romes economy started collapsing and the benefits disappeared and the conquered states revolted and threw out the Romans. The problem is that as the Roman empire fell, feudalism took over (at least in the western half) and lasted 1000 years . As feudalism was revolted against and fell , Capitalism took over.
But strong Government has its very big downsides. When we talk about mans wellbeing including health, freedoms and democracy of the people these are lacking and ever decreasing in modern capitalist governments of wealthy western countries.
The ruling class resisted giving democracy to the people/masses at all costs , and when they did its not a usable one. Democracies were not given by the ruling class , they were forced on it by the workers /masses. In the old days government or kings would simply hold trials for heresy which has no innocents or put humans in prison like Galileo Galilei or Antonio Gramsci for speaking out against the king or government with new ideas or send troops in to disperse peaceful protests advocating more democracy or better governments or ending poverty because government were afraid protests and movements would get bigger and topple their governments. Like in England , in May 1768 at St Georges Fields where after reading the Riot Act Field British troops fired at a mob of about 15,000 protestors killing about 7 , who were protesting at the imprisonment of John Wilkes, who was popular with the poor , whose crime was criticizing King George III . In August 1819 cavalry charged a meeting of 60,000–80,000 people campaigning for reform of parliamentary representation in St Peters field. Leaving about 11 dead and 600 injured. The Gordon Riots of June 1780 were several days of rioting in Great Britain motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment and economic ills . They began with a orderly protest in London, ending with 300-700 killed by the army . These along with other incidents would have contributed to the push for the formation of the modern police .
England invented the police force in 1829 with passing the Metropolitan Police Act 1829, to control the masses/workers with less violence than the army. This is well before the masses/workers got to vote. NZ followed suit creating the Police Force in 1886 (read here) from the constabulary after defeating Te Kooti in war . Initially called NZ Police Force and no doubt because of their origins removed force from the name to make people/public think they were a force for good now and weren’t a violent agent of control. Democracy finally arrived when the ruling class had no choice and they knew their power was entrenched enough that voting for the masses/common man would not bring about any real change in power or economics.
But it is costly to keep large armies and police and courts and prisons to control humans. It is easier and cheaper to do it through manufactured consent and manipulation. That is for government to lie and use social conditioning on humans about what government does to help society and people . Starting with controlling information through the school “education” system.
In reality the rich and powerful have always controlled society for 5200 years or more. We call them the ruling class. From Egyptians, Greeks and Romans in days of slavery through the monarchy/ feudal system and up to and including todays capitalists and bankers in the capitalist system. While the slave and feudal systems of production were openly reinforced with naked force and violence (the army), today that control and wealth appropriation is much more hidden and all the while legal and seemingly “lawful” too. Today that control is shared between the ruling class who have the capital and the government (capitalists manipulate) who write the legislation on behalf of the capitalist. The history of civilisation has been the history of the slave or working class to free itself from the ruling class (in its many different guises) and that has not changed.
Modern OECD Governments came into being thru revolution and violence and in the case of said countries like Australia, Canada, USA and New Zealand through colonisation and stealing land and subjugation of the indigenous aboriginals , making them racist unlawful governments . Governments now have a twofold problem in maintaining power , of having to please both the indigenous and the poor worker immigrants they were originally created to benefit. NZ Government has a racist police and court system and capitalism as an economic system is inherently growth dependent , unstable and crisis ridden requiring a huge human import (immigration) system to support capitalism and depower native aboriginals from gaining power to take back their stolen land and culture.
In order to be strong government needs to have both money and power . They can tax and when thats not enough they borrow. But with so much debt today many modern governments are probably not solvent . This power is not just money as most of the 1% wealth capitalists have more money than many governments, but government have the power to write legislation and the power to enforce it. This creates a big cumbersome bureaucracy machine that becomes self supporting and forgets its original purpose (from a social contract position) .The police, courts and prisons become part of that . The mere creation of rules to keep the natives and the subjugated slave/working class at bay breeds its own problems – a bunch of auto robot like state employees writing rules to make themselves important and necessary and another set of state employees blindly following rules in order to keep their jobs. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.
Modern OECD governments also have allowed a profit based corporate media to function whose interest is profit not the truth (not true for occasional unimportant stuff but on the whole for the larger issues). This corporate media has no interest in educating or informing the people the truth or the people/masses would demand change and the media will lose out in power and profit. The corporate media are also part of the ruling class.
But social conditioning (brainwashing) the masses and voters is not enough alone to make you believe you need the government. The government uses or creates crises or manipulates you into making you depend on the state solving the crises for your benefit.
A) Creation of the private Federal reserve in USA in 1915
B) USA bombed and invaded the middle east until the middle east retaliated with bombing twin towers , now America passes all sorts of anti terrorism legislation giving it more control over humans and/or citizens with less freedom. Yet USA and Israel who it funds are themelves the biggest terrorists and danger to the world.
C) Australia did the same with banning of persons from certain countries after the creation of the crisis by the west and the middle east in ISIS .
D) New Zealand did the same with the “Tuhoe raids” in 2007 and Kim Dot com spying and arrest, passing legislation to justify more draconian legislation.
E) The war of drugs on the public is another good example.
F) NZ using the Christchurch mosque shooting to pass gun control , a very sensitive issue that took governments decades and decades to pass but passed in 2 weeks in NZ after the shootings without major objection. While in America they are still grappling with this . What protects the American people is the constitution.
All this means capitalist governments under pseudo democratic system that don’t give any real power to make change to voters and will run an unstable crisis ridden capitalist economy for the 1% with all manner of problems on a blind trajectory to failure and meltdown as more problems arrive with public and society suffering from – unemployment , third world diseases, poverty, crime , drugs, high incarceration, depression and suicide ecological destruction , homelessness ,crime high drug use , lack of democracy etc
Established rules must be challenged by philosophers, free thinkers and change or we will stay in the inhumane dark ages kept by the rule makers and the rule followers just as Martin Luther challenged excess and corruption of the Catholic Church in 1517 .
Many believe Government has jurisdiction through a social contract. This is an unwritten implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of its subjects.
Philosopher John Locke said that government should rule by social contract to protect natural human rights in modern liberal democracies . Where he said “Regardless of race, gender, or social standing, government should provide rights, but rights to everyone through his social contract. The social contract is an agreement between members of a country to live within a shared system of laws. Specific forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their collective capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly protect these rights, it can be “torn down.
He believed those 3 rights were protection of life, liberty and private property. While the founding fathers took John Locke ideas into account they intelligently replaced protection of private property with pursuit of happiness "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. This phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect. When we say humans have inalienable rights they are not specified they mean rights that cannot be taken away. They generally refer to rights of freedom from harm, liberty and freedom to contract ,freedom of speech . Of course any of these can be taken by a criminal or an authoritarian government can take these rights by force but we men lawfully. These rights can be called common laws because they are common to all people. The 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the NZ Government lists a lot of rights the pertinent ones are;
Article I All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Lord Cooke forcefully states that there are some parts of the common law so fundamental that courts will not enforce laws of Parliament that seek to abrogate them.
Frederick Engels (Karl Marx’s co writer) had a more correct assessment where he said the governments whose job it is to protect the private property (of the capitalists) using police and courts and the proletarian (working class/commoner) can only free himself only by abolishing private property in general.
The police value property as much as human lives . When you ring 111 for Police the first message you hear says unless property or life is in danger ring local police station. The definition of terrorism internationally is contested so while UN doe not include property destruction the European Union does . Read here. And NZ does also , read here.
Karl Marx is the originator of an economic system called socialism (not to be confused with general socialism in its general use), as an alternative to the capitalist economic system. This is not taught at schools to keep us (hu)mans/ people /public/voters ignorant and unable to vote in a better government with knowledge. Karl Marx said in his opening chapter of the communist manifesto of 1848. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, that each time ended, either in the revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”
This has not changed, and in reality governments dont rule by social contracts .Why dont governments operate lawfully under social contracts ? Because all contracts require certain conditions to be met and there cannot be a social contract when these are omitted.
1) In NZ there is no constitution even thou its called a constitutional monarchy . Consititutions lay out goals of government and rules and limits to achieve them and include rights and responsibilities of the public who consented/agreed to them. This requires input and ergo consent by public. This was not done with NZ government inception as excluded many immigrant settler colonisers and all Maori.
2) When there is not full disclosure of facts of the contract and youre misrepresenting what you are selling its an invalid contract. That consent is predicated on agreement on understanding what you are consenting to .
3) If theres no social agreement ie agreement by both sides as to the contract or benefits and costs and there must be choices and alternatives which do not exist in this system. For example it would not eliminate slavery or colonisation as here.
4) Governments exist to mediate between the 2 main opposing classes in capitalist society. But in reality they rule for the stongest class A) Governments were created by and for the rich who decided on the construct and design of the economy and the governance system and any rules . Including setting up the police both in England and NZ before the vote was given to the masses/workers. The masses/workers benefits had no decision making in that process and were not allowed to vote until much later by which time they remained powerless to effect real change. B) While workers have gained some power and rights and benefits the social contract still does not exist because the government creates corporations and allows them to exploit workers and the environment with very little accountability, even protecting them with private property legislation. Allowing the capitalists to grow ever richer and richer and monopolise societies collective surplus for themselves all the while destroying the ecology and creating wars. Government backs its written legislation (rules) with fines, police, court and prison . Further entrenching power with social conditioning and manipulation and manufactured consent .
During the Age of Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government – and thus legal rights with promises of freedom and better society.
But today those governments , that establishment , have never lived up to those promises, they do not functions for the people/humans of society and the concept of natural rights must be used again by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments and be at the forefront of an establishment of a better government and society , one that no one is trying to escape from like many are currently doing with the current one.
There are no existing laws that say governments cannot be ignored or overthrown. History has shown USA has no trouble overthrowing legitimate governments and is not held accountable so it literally comes down to amount of force and power a government holds that makes legislation, said law. Notwithstanding there may be some self written, government rules or legislation protecting themselves these are not law. For eg read here . Therefore given the preceding, no man /human needs to follow any said NZ Government rules (said law - even if such a thing exists) .
But government and its economic system must be replaced with something better and not left in a power vacuum.
2) Law
All governments write legislation and they call them laws. Law is a myth like money , it relies on faith that others believe it for it to work. Just because someone calls it something does not make it something. The NZ Government and people in “NZ” speak of NZ Law but the Land Transport Act 1998 is not labelled the Land Transport Law 1998. No Act is labelled a law. This is because governments do not write laws . Well at least not real or superior laws if at all.
An enforcement office/police officer becomes a constable by swearing an oath to God to uphold the Queens peace according to the law. As this law is not specified and there are many laws , of which most the police cannot possible uphold.
Some real and true laws;
• Gods Law – The ten commandments
• Scientific Laws–Dozens upon dozens - Faradays Law , Gauss Law, Grahams Law,
Newtons 3 Laws of Motion, Law of Thermodynamics etc
• Jungle Law – the strongest who use force and violence makes decisions,
that become “law”
These true recognised laws exist in nature outside of human influence. They also apply to everyone and have lasted through time since their inception. The same cannot be said of any human laws or NZ Government legislation. It changes at a whim and is not followed by everyone it claims it has to be nor is not necessary for their benefit but the rule makers.
The closest approximation of human laws is Common Law . These laws were left in place in Britain to operate separate from government legislation in the kings (currently her Majesty Sovereign Queen Elizabeth II of UK ) court.
Any man on trial upon Aotearoa must by law and jurisdiction be in a common law court judged by a Queens Justice and not charged with breaking or not followings any act of any government legislation .
Legislation that government writes could be considered laws if the government on that land mass –that the government claims is a country - is good and maximised every ones/humans wellbeing , (happiness and protected every ones/humans right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and every one supported and consented to them because they would also be moral so they would fulfil all the rules of a modern law, ie :
· They are moral and good for everyone (human, ecology, animals) wellbeing.
· Ergo they would have every mans consent
· Ergo They apply to every man.
· They will hold true and endure for a very long time and not be a political decision or whim that changes them.
NZ Government is not in this position. NZ Government was set up to steal and colonise Maori land . After the unlawful wars the NZ Government made against Maori , unlawful land stealing and jailing Maori were made legal by writing legislation . They were not law as they contradicted the Law which is the Treaty of Waitangi. Government and its agents the police and courts and jail even holding Te Whiti and Tohu without a trial. Backed up in prejudiced and biased cases like Wi Parata v Bishop. There has been no true justice and redress for these crimes yet. The NZ Government now acts for the new ruling class of capitalists and not in the best interest of the workers/masses who are mostly immigrants. There are many humans who do not accept the government as good and say the government has no right to rule over them .
There are many other instances of unlawful governments.
- Rome invaded many states suppressing people and getting them to follow their “laws”, as Rome brought benefits , roads , law, stability, protection, conquered tribes submitted but when the empires economy started failing they fought back against Rome to reclaim their land and so the Western Roman Empire fell just before 500 ad to the northern “barbarians”.
- Slavery was legal by Spanish monarchy and British parliament but was unlawful against the people it was carried out against.
- USA although it had no mention or race or gender in its law the 1787 constitution , continued slavery officially backed by courts in cases like Dredd Scott v Sandford 1854 case until 1865 when after civil war the 13th amendment passed ending slavery but left African Americans still unequal so then 14th and 15th amendment passed, Even then the courts still backed the white mans rule in cases like United States v Cruikshank 1876 and inequality carried on under “Jim Crow laws “ which were legislation along with government policies like separate schools to keep them uneducated and unequal in society ignoring 1,000s of lynchings and beatings of African Americans in south . Unofficially Jim Crow laws still exists under the 13th amendment due to legislation and the drug war and racist Police. Woman were treated unequally unlawfully by government and corporations but legally by 178 pieces of USA legislation , again backed up by the courts decisions, until Moritz v Commissioner and Reed v Reed challenged that and they were taken down one by one .
-
-
Governments write legislation but not necessarily law. Its up to others (the moral majority) to judge whether a Governments legislation (rules) are lawful and follow them or not.
Britain invaded Americas, Australia, South Africa ,Canada and stole land and murdered the lawful occupiers by imperialism and colonisation then imposed its rules /legislation on the natives through a troops , marshals ,constabulary, police, guns, courts, prisons etc but because it has no consent ie no right to do so therefore it is just jungle law . The strongest in fight wins spoils and is not “civilised” or a system of law for the aboriginals/natives. In NZ the Land wars that led to stealing (by confiscation) of over 3 million acres of Waikato and Tainui land in a war the NZ Goverment /British colonists started. In Australia the Black Wars in Tasmania in 1820s and Gippsland massacres of about 450 native aboriginals upon Australia 1840-1850 is an example of such conquest.
The said “British Crown” allowed governments to form in those countries allowing mass immigrants into those countries. Those immigrants would have agreed to British Governments/crowns rules and so subjects of the government but not the natives who have their own customs and laws. And the lawful right to resist and to fight back throwing the British out of their land. But the colonial governments simply import so many people (immigrants) it reduces the native population to a negligible amount and all the imports allow government to racially continue stealing aboriginal land and oppress them and their culture making resistance near futile and side lining the natives. Countries with low population that could not repel the British invasion like Canada, USA and Australia verses countries with high native population that did like South Africa and India.
3) NZ, Aotearoa, Maori and Law
While its clear Australian, Canadian , USA and South African legislation (said law) does not apply to aboriginals of those lands and said “countries” as those governments were set up by unlawful British invasion and subjugation of those lands and peoples and aboriginals have their own laws. Those laws cannot be surpassed by Legislation except by gun and then they are Governments by Jungle law and not Lawful Authority. And they can be lawfully overthrown at anytime by Aboriginals.
“New Zealand “ is a different matter and more complicated, as Maori first signed the He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence ) in 1835 and sending it to and having it accepted by His Majesty Sovereign King William IV in May 1836. This declaration declared Maori could write laws. Later most senior Maori signed a Treaty with the Her Majesty Sovereign Queen Victoria of United kingdom’s giving both Her majesty Sovereign Queen Victoria of United Kingdom and Sovereign Maori agreed rights. The only right -apart from who Maori say - for British subjects to visit and stay is because of the Treaty. Without the Treaty all British immigrant subjects including those born on the soil of Aotearoa from immigrant parents or from parents born on Aotearoa soil several generations could not lawfully stay here and would have to go if they were told to by Maori. Maori did not agree to a government of immigrant colonisers to tell them what to do.
About 40 chiefs signed the Māori copy of the Treaty at Waitangi on 6 February 1840. There were about 50 signing meetings between February and September 1840 and about 540 chiefs gave their agreement in total over the 9 existing documents. The treaty in Maori gave some sort of governorship to the Queen over the land, while chiefs retained their Rangitaritanga (self determination) over the land in a dual sharing arrangement. All but 39 chiefs signed a Māori language copy of the Treaty, which was signed at Port Waikato due to running out of Maori versions. The English version used the words that gave Her Majesty Queen Victoria of UK sovereignty over Maori. The British unlawfully used the English version signed by a small fraction of Maori (about 7 % of signatures ) to claim sovereignty over Maori . The Maori version which takes precedent in law despite all the false rhetoric from New Zealand Government used words that lead Maori to believe they kept authority over their land and people. Meaning treaty was for Britain to discipline its own subjects thou it also offered British protection of Maori presumably from the French and others , while Maori chiefs looked after theirs. There can be little doubt that the chiefs who signed the Treaty expected to enter into some kind of partnership and power sharing in the new system.
The British immigrant colonisers and UK Parliament created a "NZ government" and with enough numbers went to war against Maori and bought, coerced or stole 95% of the land and virtually eliminated Maori rights and culture thereby unlawfully breaking the treaty.
On or about Nov 2014 the Waitangi Tribunal issued a report saying Maori did not give up sovereignty by signing the treaty. The Rangatira, or Maori leaders, who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 agreed to share power and authority with Britain, but did not give up sovereignty to the British Crown, according to stage one of The Waitangi Tribunal's inquiry into Te Paparahi o te Raki (the great land of the north) Treaty claims. "That is, they did not cede authority to the Queen to make and enforce law over their people or their territories," the tribunal said.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is the primary lawful document of the land of Aotearoa in which Her Majesty Sovereign Queen Victoria of United Kingdom -and her successors- amongst other things gave chieftains Tino Rangitiritanga over their land and treasures and agreed to protect Maori. She was and her successors are still obliged to protect Maori and not anyone including the NZ Government corporation take their rights away. It is dubious the NZ Government is acting for the Queen after all it pretends its sovereign. Either way its acting unlawful since its first inception and war against the Maori stealing land and controlling them regardless if it is or isn’t acting for the Queen.
The treaty also introduced English common law to NZ and Aotearoa and provided the Queens protection of all upon Aotearoa including Maoris law and customs . Reaffirmed by Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II of Untied Kingdom coronation 1953, read important art below and full text here .
Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen. I will.
4) Common Law
Fortunately Britain did not just bring its coloniser statues and legislation it also brought a separate law called common law which made little difference to the colonisers or Maori then for different reasons but has become important now we need radically change government and its economic system.
Lawyers and judges and others incorrectly call common law “a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts” as this dictionary does here and here. Some correctly say its outside statute , here But thats still not the full and is misleading. The realty is they are really talking about a legal term called stare decisis meaning precedents or case law set in previous cases being followed, implying it applys in statutory courts. Thereby imply common law is a thing in legal courts but thats not true as common law has a separate jurisdiction than legal courts and cant be mixed.
Common law actually originated after the Norman invasion of 1066 when the king made all the different regions, districts and countys customs and laws common across England in a court under the King . Read here .Where judges were sent around a circuit to hear cases. It was the first formalised Law of England and predated all other laws and courts . All the other "laws' eventually got amalgamated into English Parlimentary Statues mostly in the late 1800s. The law is the common mans customs and practises which the Queen protects as per her oath, which a police constable is honour bound to protect in his oath.
Because Law was now common through England the Duke of Normandy also introduced surnames to distinguish people of different counties etc with same Christian names. As governments didn’t exist then they were not legal surnames but common law surnames.
The original concept of a "common-law marriage" is one considered valid by both partners often with some ceremony but not formally recorded with a state or religious registry, nor celebrated in a formal civil or religious service. That is it is not legal marriage but a lawful marriage. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married and organizing their relation as if they were married, means they are married.
After the English civil war ended in 1649 , leading to English Parliament with more powers and England becoming a Constitutional Monarchy with the Monarchy remaining as overriding Sovereign of UK Parliament.
Her Majesty Sovereign Queen Victoria of Unite Kingdom signed the (international ) Treaty of Waitangi with the Maori of Aotearoa as equal partners .
The current monarchs title is ; Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
Common law is superior to NZ Government legislation as Common law is administered directly by the the Monarchy , currently Queen Elizabeth II of UK whereas legislation is under the NZ Government which was created out of UK Government and may still be under it but regardless both governments are under the Royal Queen Elizabeth II of UK. Common Law is not part of nor subservient to NZ Government legislation. Common law is a separate jurisdiction from NZ Statutes. A man/human standing under common law does not stand under NZ statute or legislation if he chooses not to. It is up to a man and not the NZ Government as to a humans jurisdictional standing.
Common law is part of the law of both land of Aotearoa and NZ corporation as it is declared in NZ legislation to exist in section5 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 . read here .
NZ also declares common law exists in existence in the High Court so a high court justice must be a Queens Judge not a New Zealand Justice. Read 2/3 down the page under jurisdiction here.
The Taylor v NZ Poultry Board decision, about "constitutional principles as well as eggs", is important because of an obiter dictum by New Zealand's pre-eminent judge, Justice Cooke, later Lord Cooke, on the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament. Cooke forcefully states that there are some parts of the common law so fundamental that courts will not enforce laws of Parliament that seek to abrogate them.
In Police v Abbott [2009] NZCA 451; IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND - CA109/2009CA110/2009. Were the court dismissed the police appeal where Fogarty J rejected the police argument (that Christchurch City Council occupied the road for trespass purposes ) at [18] for three reasons, which includes ;
“Third, the common law leans against a statutory interpretation which may undermine the common law rights of free passage and assembly. So does s 6 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, vis-à-vis ss 14, 16 and 18. ...”
Common law is a superior separate law from NZ legislation. NZ has however incorporated some of these rights and protected man under the NZ Government Bill of Rights Act 1990 which is;
An Act—
(a) to affirm, protect, and promote human rights and fundamental freedoms in New Zealand; and
(b) to affirm New Zealand's commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
These rights include s17 freedom of association and s18 movement sections s22 liberty -not to be arbitrarily detained.
Look at the oath Police employees swear to become constables . Available in the Policing Act 2008 Here . This is the latest but it wasn’t always this. But never the less a constable swears to uphold the law – this can only be common law as it is the only law that can keep the Queens peace.
I, [name], swear that I will faithfully and diligently serve Her (or His) Majesty [specify the name of the reigning Sovereign], Queen (or King) of New Zealand, her (or his) heirs and successors, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. While a constable I will, to the best of my power, keep the peace and prevent offences against the peace, and will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, perform all the duties of the office of constable according to law. So help me God."
According to the Policing Act 2008 the functions of the Police still include keeping the peace and law no mention of legislation. Read here.
Powers of police and common law are mentioned twice in the Policing Act 2008
A living breathing man who does business and operates in common law jurisdiction under the Queens jurisdiction has no obligations whatsoever to the legal fiction, the NZ Government and its legislation. No man needs a warrant of fitness on his vehicle , nor a driving license nor firearms license nor passport as these are all based on Acts of the NZ Government. Nor can aman be questioned by an officer, nor arrested by a constable without having broken the Queen’s peace or common law.
This Land Transport Act also contradicts the NZ Passport , 10 see below.
5) NZ Parliament , voting does not have the right to pass legislation for everyone
According to Parliament Brief issued in May 2012 the first sentence and paragraph says , quote ” The law is the framework within which citizens consent to be governed having elected their law makers”.
Therefore a living man who does not vote therefore does not consent to be governed as he did not elect the law makers.
In 2014 2,410857 and in 2017 2,605,854 legal persons voted . But out of a country of nearly 5 million that’s only just over half the people haven’t consented to the rules , the legislation , the said “Laws” of NZ . Ergo they should not need to follow NZ Legislation . That is a sizeable quantity of humans/people.
NZ is also a corporation and like any corporation or club you join , only as a member do you get to vote in it or abide by its rules. NZ can only enforce its rules (said law) on those who voluntarily join by consent.
6) New Zealand, legal jurisdiction and law
What is the legal status and definition of New Zealand and the said New Zealand Government. Most people consider New Zealand to be a country – It seems to be described as that in common usage . But is it legally and lawfully ?
A country is not defined anywhere in New Zealand Legislation except in the Extradition Act 1999 where it defines it as; read here,
country includes any State, territory, province, or other part of a country.
and in Domicile Act 1976 here
country means a territory of a type in which, immediately before the commencement of this Act, a person could have been domiciled
Not a good definition as none are adequately legally defined. A country does not exists as its own thing or entity, it is made up of legal persons (corporations including but not limited to the government), man/humans and landmass. If you take away the land mass or humans the country or legal persons does not exist but if you take away the country or the government the humans and the landmass remain and carry on living. Therefor New Zealand is both country and Government which are therefore both legal persons. I would argue its a corporation. not an association.
This is confirmed if you look at the legal definition of New Zealand . In various acts it talks about a territory or a name of something unsure if they mean government, country or a landmass as they are not defined. A man cannot be inside a land mass (unless buried), you can only be inside a country or a Government. Therefor in legislation New Zealand refers to both the country and New Zealand Government.
These following acts all describe New Zealand as the Ross Dependency
Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone and Economic Activity Act 1977.
With the Citizenship Act 1977 defining it as that plus Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau.
While the Income Tax Act 2009 defines NZ as the continental shelf and the territorial sea of NZ and the Crimes Act 1961 and the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 , simply define it as the Territorial Sea.
And yet the Legislation Act 2019 contradicts these and defines NZ as "islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand but does not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency ".
The Land transport Act 1998 that drivers are punished and fined under does not legally describe NZ at all. Neither do many other Acts we think apply to us like ;
so we must refer to the definition under the Interpretations Act 1999. Where part5 s29 of the Interpretation Act 1999 defines NZ , similar to the Legislation Act 2019 , which as;
New Zealand or similar words referring to New Zealand, when used as a territorial description, mean the islands and territories within the Realm of New Zealand; but do not include the self-governing State of the Cook Islands, the self-governing State of Niue, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency.
Not only is the Realm of NZ not legally defined anywhere but this definition completely contradicts the BDRR Act 1995, Citizenship Act 1977, Crimes Act 1961 , Immigration Act 2009 , Income Tax Act 2007 and Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone and Economic Activity Act 1977 so it means different things in different Acts. Why is there not one legal definition of NZ after all the physical place Aotearoa is an unchanging landmass ? Because NZ does not refer to Aotearoa , it refers to a legal entity.
While the literal meaning of the word realm is the territory of a ruler, traditionally a monarch (emperor, king, grand duke, prince, etc.).
In general and legal various dictionary definitions give many multiple definitions of territory and any NZ legislation definition refers to territorial sea but only as a reference to NZ. Therefor it’s a circular argument leaving NZ undefined. And the point of written rules (legislation) should be to make it accessible for the common man but clearly it is not designed for the common man.
NZ being left undefined as to whether it’s a physical land mass and where it is (in latitude and longitude) or as a legal entity and what type. Because NZ is not defined in legislation. Its really a myth like money. There cannot be any such thing as consented NZ Government or NZ Law that applies to anything let alone any living man .
It should be noted most acts bind the said "crown" except for the Constitution Act 1986, Crimes Act 1961, Electoral Act 1993, Interpretation Act 1999 , Passport Act 1992, Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977 . And yet the “Crown” is not defined in any of them either. Except for the Electoral Act 1993, which while uses the term frequently is not bound by it ? And like man, human and NZ is an extremely important word in law and legislation and said governance of NZ.
Further , while all the rules (legislation) are written down and are clear its not known which ones of the thousands apply to you as legal person who has submitted to and consented the government club who wrote them and even then none of the important terms are clearly defined differently in different legislation .
7) Invalid legislation ?
It could be said that NZ Legislation is actually invalid . As further complicating NZs position is that the English enacted the 1858 English Laws Act in NZ in 1958 with a back dated inception date of 14 Jan 1840 , see here. Predating the Treaty of Waitangi , (the Treaty of Waitangi is the primary law on Aotearoa involving British - excluding Maori Law/Lore) when Maori where undeniably without question sovereign in their land and so the English Laws Act has no lawfully standing upon Aotearoa. Ergo no legislation flowing from the English Laws Act 1840 has any validity and lawfulness upon Aotearoa. Ergo there is no law in existence that gives any government including but not limited to NZ Government or any of its agents including but not limited the NZ Transport agency or the NZ Police any rights/jurisdiction over individual living man/homo sapiens .
8) The Government has no valid contract
A government isn’t natural , it is corporation , a man made fictional entity . It only exists on paper like any other corporation. There may be buildings rented or bank accounts owned by it and employees working for that corporation but the corporation doesn’t exist. The corporation is fictional like a story, like lord of the rings , its not a real place or event. But its represented by a book you can read. Like wise a corporation is created as a name on a register, in the governments “NZ companies office” companies register . It is shown as a representation by a certificate of its creation , a certificate of incorporation for example. Think of a corporation I created , DC Holdings Limited , A corporation that exists only as a name in the companies office register . It doesn’t own anything or do anything. It does not exist anywhere else. You can not find it to sight or touch it. Likewise, you cant find Telecom NZ Ltd . You may find a building it leases or owns , some vans, fibre optic cables it owns and some employees that work for it. But these require humans to do those things as they are physical acts but Telecom NZ Ltd itself doesn’t exist. It did not exist physically when it was first created, and owning stuff doesn’t mean it becomes existing .
So when someone ,be it a person or a man says you are a NZ Citizen they are saying they are a member of the NZ Government which is the NZ Corporation. This is agreed with by various dictionaries.
A human (whether acting as person or not) is free to join Telecom NZ Ltd as an employee or not , he/she is free to become a customer or not and abide by its rules if you want to work for it or use its service. Likewise a sports club like a rugby club or bowling or sailing club you join , pay your membership . You usually vote for a committee that runs it . They set rules and you abide by them. If you stop playing the sport or dislike the club or way its run you leave it. A government is like a club or a profit making corporation or an NGO. You can join and abide by its rules if you choose and you can choose not to if you don’t want its services or benefits. If you are not a member those rules do not apply to you. An example would be “ecclesiastical Law” ie man-made “law” for the running of various churches.
It does this through getting man to personal individual contract, and not a social contract. If you are born on the land mass of Aotearoa you dont sign a contract with the NZ Government to become a citizen and abide by government rules . So if the government has no valid contract how are you trapped into the jurisdiction of NZ Government .Simply by another contract by deception and manipulation.
But these contracts are invalid as they don’t fulfil some of the 6 criteria for a valid lawful contract. Namely there is no consideration by the NZ government giving something back to you, A right you already have the government takes away then offers back isn’t consideration , that’s called coercion or blackmail . Secondly it’s a fraudulent contract as you do not have full knowledge . The government has lied to you. No human can ever be in the NZ Government jurisdiction unless you carry on as if you are and when you find out this truth of assumed jurisdiction instead of revoking or repudiating it by notice voiding the fraudulent contract.
Lets look at that in more detail.
9) The legal person and Citizen
Everything the government does is legal. It usually writes legislation to accomplish any tasks or actions including but not limited to budgets and controlling its citizens and other persons. This does not mean what the NZ Government does is lawful (refer 1 above).
NZ has written 2070 acts (type act into NZ Legislation page, for eg here) of which only 3 use citizen meaningly , and one of those is the act that creates citizens , and even then person is used still more ;
Citizenship Act 1977
Immigration Act 2009
Electoral Act 1993
and 2 acts refer to citizen in passing as a mistake or afterthought;
Arms Act 1983 in one section only
Income Tax Act in one section only
The only thing a citizen has rights for is to be created by NZ and exist in NZ and vote for NZ (government). The majority of Acts are for the NZ Governments own purpose like budgets and political gains like sanctions against Russia. and the rest for a person as having to do or not do something. While only about a dozen or so refer to persons that NZ Police enforce the acts against , that I have seen. The true amount is kept secret by the NZ Police who refuse to answer my OIAs.
The NZ Government creates legislation that allows living man to act outside of NZ but at the same time creates a straw man to trick those same humans into contracting into jurisdiction in NZ. A straw man or scarecrow is a straw stuffed set of clothes propped up in a cornfield to scare away birds. It is a copy/ replica of a human. That government strawman or replica is represented by a persons birth certificate. This birth certificate is a legal person ie a legal fiction , a corporation, just as Telecom NZ Limited is . It’s a name on a register – it doesn’t exist . It can’t be found, seen or touched. It is represented by a piece of paper called a certificate of incorporation. see here. Just as the NZ Government is a fictional legal person /corporation
The Police and the court must distinguish between the legal person and the man because they are in different jurisdictions. Harry Potter is is an example of a name that is a fictional entry/entity in a book and of a living man who is a lawyer here , but they are separate entitys.
For a man born on landmass Aotearoa there is no citizen contract or piece of paper. Nowhere in legislation does it use or define the word man or human or homo sapien -the only known word to describe or name the biological species that refers to a human as an upright bipedal primate mammal- except for the Bill of Rights Act 1990. This is the only act where NZ Government gives something instead of demanding and/or taking something .
Not withstanding NZ Government controls entry onto the landmass known as Aotearoa through ports and airports and can force contracts onto immigrants and there probably is a citizen certificate and oath for them ; looking at NZ Government legislation,
S5 of the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 (hereafter BDMRR Act ) says "Every birth in New Zealand shall be notified and registered in accordance with this Part" . Read here . The BDMRR Act does not define births of what. That is a lot of births in NZ requiring recording , think not just humans but all the cows, pigs, deer, sheep, cats, dogs, possums, rats, rabbits, birds, fish, wetas, cockroaches , flies, corporations. While some of these are already done , it would be very massive time consuming impractical job for the government. Fortunately s2 of the BDMRR defines births as "birth includes a still-birth; but does not include a miscarriage" Read here . So this narrows it down , limiting it to dead things like fictional corporations and legal persons. on the landmass of Aotearoa and nothing can be born in a landmass, it is referring to something born in NZ as NZ is a corporation (refer 6 below) its referring to legal persons. Living things cant be born in a (dead) corporation.
S6 of the (NZ) Citizenship Act 1977 defines citizen as "a person is a New Zealand citizen by birth if— the person was born in New Zealand " . Read here . Yet the word citizen is used in very few Acts –the only ones seen so far are the Electoral Act 1993 , Immigration Act 2009 & Passport Act 1992. And 2 of those are covered again in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 . Read here. NOWHERE are the obligations and duties and benefits of being a citizen set out anywhere.
All legislation I have looked at – at least the critical ones - except for the Bill of Rights Act 1990, refer to a person as required to do something/ act , for example obtain a drivers license (s5 Land Transport Act 1998 here ) or Arms Act 1993 (here) or register to vote(see here) or not do something/an act but this can only be a legal person as everything government does is legal and you can not use an everyday word like person that has multiple meanings depending who you are talking to.
A (legal) person or something with personhood having the legal rights of a man to own property or contract or sue and be sued has been in contention and dispute for hundreds of years. So it can only be legally argued with an accurate legal (legislative) description.
Man and its later word human refers to a member of the biological species homo sapiens. Which itself was taken from the latin word homos for human. The name is Latin for “wiseman”.
Person is used more generally to refer to things with consciousness and agency; things with selves. In addition to humans, angels, god, devil, androids and aliens can all be persons in the general sense. Person came from French word personne and before it The Latin word persona which was originally used to denote the mask worn by an actor. From this it was applied to the role he assumed, and finally to any character on the stage of life. It has been said person came into being in about 500 ad to have a theological conversation about god , jesus and angels . Once the feudal system ended and capitalism took over modern governments wrote corporations into legal jargon as a person so it had some legal rights like humans were asking for. Now because of the failure of governments and pseudo democracy along with capitalism having failed looking after the ecology and people especially indigenous man and notably Maori , Maori upon Aotearoa are turning their mother earth into person hood or legal persons so they can be protected. Now the Wanganui River, Te Urewera forest are legal persons with claims for Lake Rotorua to become one . Saudi Arabia has become the first country to give a robot citizenship in 2017 , and hence legal person of any country. The non-human rights project is currently in an USA court to get 2 chimpanzes recognised as persons using writ of habeas corpus to get their personhood classed as persons instead of thing.
Lawyers and such like in the NZ justice system who are educated and conditioned to follow NZ legislation and protect it lie and would have you believe falsely that a human is a legal person but this is not true. The legislation goes to great lengths to describe simple things we would take for granted either in the Land Transport Act 1998 eg road , moped, motorcycle, vehicle, crew of vessel, hospital etc or other Acts like Income Tax Act , why would it not describe fully the one thing that traps you into NZ jurisdiction legally, ie being a legal person.
And so because we cannot hold God or Jesus or angels or aliens who are considered natural persons accountable or charged in court to be punished a natural person is not a adequate legal description of a man/human .
The term "alien" is derived from the Latin alienus, meaning stranger, foreign, etym. "belonging (somewhere) else". But in general non legal use we call life forms /entities from another planet aliens –it has crept into and well entrenched in our modern television, especially sci-fi , culture and etymology where aliens are called and considered persons. Some examples below to name a few.
· In Star Trek TOS s2e10 –an alien Spock refers to his father Sarek a Vulcan species as a person.
· In Star Trek the next generation – the alien lieutenant Worf a Klingon species is referred to as a person.
· In Star Trek deep space 9 s1e7 the alien Jadzia Dax a Trill species is referred to as a person by one human and the alien Bajoran Judge.
· In Star Trek Deep Space 9 s1es14 an alien of Bajoran species named Mullibok calls himself a person.
· In Star Trek Deep Space 9 S2E5 a Bajoran species called Jomat Luson is referred to as person by a Cardassian species.
· Star Trek Voyager S7 E12 –Iko the Nygean species is a prisoner and is referred to as a person.
· In the movie Attraction – Julia is dancing with the Alien Hakon , of unknown species, in a Russian nightclub and comments to him to which he replies “I am a person”
· Andromeda tv series S1E21the Andromeda ships computer representation an avatar named Rommie refers to itself as a person and so does the Balance of Judgement ships avatar Gabriel.
· In the amazon tv series “Upload” – Nathan who is dead , has no physical body, whose memory is continuing digitally in the cloud/computer world calls himself a person in S1E7 when talking to his angels dad.
ETC
While these are fictional stories we know aliens are out there and exist, despite many government cover ups like area 51 and project bluebook , as there has been many sightings of them and recorded footage like that of the Roswell spaceship crash.
Aliens which are natural persons pose a really big problem for legislation as an alien is already defined in New Zealand Government legislation , as being not in New Zealand or New Zealand jurisdiction. Ergo it can not be in and out of NZ at the same time . The definition of an alien under the Citizenship Act 1977, is ; “alien means a person who does not have the status of a New Zealand citizen, a Commonwealth citizen (British subject), a British protected person, or an Irish citizen” .
So the legal system has to define person accurately and legally to avoid confusion and contradiction with general non legal use. As the government can only deal with and hold jurisdictions over legal persons. A legal person is something that can be held accountable to the NZ Government and sue and be sued in a legal court. A non legal living man can of course sue in a common law court which is under the monarch not the government.
Person is only defined in 4 acts , s13 of the Legislation Act 2019 ,read here ( where it is referred to by the Income Tax Act 2007, here ) and has the same meaning as the part 5 Interpretation Act 1999 . Where person is defined as “person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body” Read here. ie it is a fictional legal person [Notwithstanding the Income Tax Act 2007 has a second meaning, read here , that only refers specifically to certain jobs] . And lastly s4 of the Contempt of Court Act 2019 , where it specifically says a "person, in relation to a defendant or other party in any proceedings, includes a body corporate" read here.
Because the word person cannot be used to describe itself or something that’s not in the description, this legal definition /meaning can only be taken as person means the words used after includes, and not what is missing. Meaning of a legal person is a corporation.
When a man is born there is a record in the hospital for hospital births, it records the mans date/time of birth, weight, sex etc unlikely your name , possibly parents’ names this is a hospital birth record or an RG9.
In my case my said mother was told to register my birth. An informant filled out an information form , an RG27 form with my christian names possibly on it and possibly my birthdate, thereby informing on me to the NZ Government. I am unsure what info was on the form , including who the informant was , if the form ever existed as the government has confirmed it does not have a copy of this form.
The government agent the registrar using the RG9 and the RG27 then filled out a Printout . At this point a man (myself or any baby) still had/has no surname.
The NZ government does not have the right to name a human . While surnames didn’t really exist before the Norman invasion of Britain they became prominent after, due to population growth and instituting common law across Britain, necessitating better identification . In Britain there are 7 sources including but not limited to geography, occupations, characteristics, patronage and patronymic identifying last name that came to be known as surnames or family names and these often changed depending on circumstances. There is no rule or law that says if your fathers or mothers identifying name or family name that you need to use it . Many different cultures on earth don’t have surnames. It was hundreds of years before governments gained power from the monarchy and instituted use of legal surnames. There is no law specifying what a human can call him or herself. While persons decide on the names of trusts and companies that are created including the NZ Government which names the legal person/corporations it creates, it doesn’t have the right to name a human
.
The NZ Government takes the printout then adds the surname when the name is registered by the government agent the registrar and turned into a legal name. Most likely from a father’s last legal name, then a birth certificate is produced as a presentation of the legal person. It was created by the informant and the NZ Government and is a trust . The legal person is born into existence. It cant be the human as humans don’t have legal surnames. As shown by the “birth certificate”. A baby has no say and consent in this process and it would be unlawful for the NZ Government to name a man and trap him into a corporation unwillingly without consent.
For proof refer, to the case of Leah Dawn Warburton whom the NZ Government changed her legal surname without telling her . Read here.I obtained the a copy of my legal persons birth certificate in late 2018. The certificate says 2 noteworthy sentences on the bottom
1) Certified true copy of the above true particulars included in the entry recorded in this office" ie but if thats true where did the legal surname come from.
2) "Warning this certificate is not evidence of identify the person presenting it” - self explanatory
If the birth certificate cannot prove identity then its purpose is not for identity. Whats its purpose for then ? It can only mean the birth certificate purpose is to create the straw man and trap me or any man into NZ jurisdiction
Any legal person is a fictional entity and creation of the NZ Government. The only information the NZ Government has of the existence of legal fiction Mr Malcolm France is the Printout and birth certificate , both which the NZ Government created. Being a fictional creation a legal person is not sentient, does not think, has no corporeal body hence no arms, legs and mouth and cannot drive or speak and cannot present itself or represent itself.
For many to get states protection they wanted/needed to be citizens . Rome had a voluntary citizenship under its empire and wars were fought so those not born to Roman citizens could obtain citizenship it was considered so valuable. African American slaves attempted to become citizens to gain rights everyone else accept American Indians had.
Denying you are the legal person as represented by the birth certificate allows you as a man to stand in common law , a separate jurisdiction from NZ Government.
9) Police corruption
It is quite clear that from a philosophical and legal and lawful point of view NZ (Government) does not have jurisdiction over a living man . Bear in mind New Zealand Government is made up of 3 branches Legislative (those who write legislation) the Executive (the bureaucratic) and the judicial. While ministers who write legislation are not very competent leaving a trail of ambiguous ill-defined legislation with many MPs having multiple portfolios to make up for incompetent MPs , they can’t be blamed for the crises of law. The legislation is written to exclude living man who wants to be free of New Zealand and its jurisdiction should a man chose to be, by claiming it and not contracting with New Zealand. Until I can fully explore the court process it’s hard to tell if and how much the court is corrupt. But certainly the bureaucratic part of Government, the internal affairs who produce birth certificates and citizenship and even education department who mis-educate us on making contracts are and they fail miserably at it , they still do not enforce any unlawful and false jurisdiction.
The NZ Government doesn’t directly assume jurisdiction over man, only the NZ Police do. Therefore the error lies with the said NZ Police and they can only be described as ignorant and corrupt as individuals and as an organisation. The NZ Police employee swear an oath to the queen and god to become a constable. So why are living man continually being harassed and arrested and charged as legal persons by the NZ police ?
A man is a creation of god and recognise's god as the supreme authority as do Queen, Ministers of Parliament (hereafter MPs) , Police and Justices of the court , so we are all equal in the eyes of god and are not subservient to any corporations like NZ Government or any of its agents.
When the police punish and fine under the Land Transport Act 1998 the police are contradicting Her Majesty the Queen promises in the Passport where "the (passport) holder to pass without delay or hinderance and in case of need to give all lawful assistance and protection ". Clearly the Police are failing in their lawful duty and need to be brought to account.
If a Police constable quotes anything apart from those laws , like legislation, he has stepped of his oath and is become merely an enforcement officer of the NZ Government legislation which no man is bound to follow .
Under the New Zealand Immigration Act 2009 in the interpretation section the definition of “government agencies” , the “police are neither a state services department nor a crown agency registered as a corporation so what are they and who controls them” . Read here.
I have never received an answer from any Official Information Act request from either the Minister of Police or the Commissioner of the Police explaining the lawful standing of the NZ Police . As the police salary is paid by the government or possibly from fines Police have collected hence their proclivity to fining lots of persons with a vested interest the police are not neutral but have a vested interest in supporting the said New Zealand Government and preventing (hu)mans living lawfully outside and separate of NZ.
The police are corrupt – I’m not talking about complete operational incompetence like leaving Iraena Asher in 1979 to disappear never to be found (probably murdered). Or intentionally murdering distraught Steven Wallace in street of Waitera in April 2000. Or accidentally incompetently murdering innocent Halatau Kianamanu Naitoko, a 17 year old courier driver from Mangere on the Western motorway by shooting in 2002 when chasing a bag snatcher. I am talking about convicting innocent people because they need to show people /public /voters Police are doing their job and so convict innocent humans on no evidence even when facts prove otherwise as in Teina Pora or plant evidence as in the conviction of Arthur Alan Thomas or George Powell (USA) convicted for 28 years of robbing a store though video shows robber much shorter human did it, yet shoddy evidence got police what they wanted, which wasn’t justice. Or more importantly protect the corrupt NZ Government .
Ross Meurant and the Red squad he led , some of the worst police, infamous for the most violence against protestors ever during springbok rugby tour 1981 talked about the bad police culture. read here . Not just that like all bureaucrats they have to enforce rules both good and bad to be seen to be doing their job and be seen as useful and keep their job . But about how they see themselves as the good guys protecting society which leads them to make decisions where the end justifies the means and they break all sorts of ethics and morals and laws and become the bad guys in what is commonly called the soldier effect. He wrote about it in Deep in the Forest. But it’s covered adequately in this short article in North and South. Were he admitted (after getting a university education and widening his thought process away from brainwashing) police are corrupt .
http://www.apc.org.nz/pma/hr271007a.htm
Notwithstanding Ross admitted what he did for the red squad was being a pawn for Prime Minister Muldoon and he did it for his own vanity to restore pride in police after doing the right thing at Hamiltons first test conveniently omitting they had trained for months and were "a wound up watch ready to be released". In other words had to release energy and prove Police had not wasted theirs and taxpayer time and money, nothing do with right or wrong or the legislation (said law).
We hear more regularly about police corruption especially with black deaths in USA because the corruption culture is so much worse there , but its not different just worse . Its the same fucked up moronic mentality driving police there as here . In 2012 the murder of Tim Russell and friend , 60 cars chased 2 unarmed African Americans then cornering them with 13 police murdering them with 137 shots all over a car backfire .It was ruled homicide and while one Police man Brelo is on trial for this murder , 2 Police murder a 12 yo boy Tamir Rice in a park 2 sec after pulling up beside him in a Police car. Of course no one was charged in either case. And its gets worse as the Police and union try to cover it up. Watch the Netflix document on it called 137 shots.
Of course this happens not just from corruption because there is no independent oversight on police and they have a huge amount of unchallenged/accountable power and this emboldens them . This happens because the government needs its interests protected and some public have vested interest in protecting their property and lives from those poor who have none.
Because the police protect the government and the capitalist system of exploitation, greed and crises its always producing losers and alienated people producing stress, crime, drug use, mental health issues, less intelligent people, the police are therefore justifying their own ends and therefore a self-fulfilling service.
Police District Area Commanders of Waitemata, Manukau and Auckland Central districts refuse to correspond with me to discuss and negotiate a way out of the continued , coercion ,harassment , ignorance and harm of police and they have refused to communicate. The NZ Police are not there to enforce peace, but control.
The police have admitted this lack of jurisdiction and facts presented here by agreeing to it by acquiescence of my many Affidavits presented in court in about 10 cases brought against my legal person .
10) Notes and Conclussion
Having said all that, theres many many other things to learn in this complicated subject not covered
Other proposterous claims made ,like
Registering anything with government is giving ownership away
Theres a secret bank account were govt has accumulated money using your legal person that you can access for your benefit .
And some that may have more validity but i think unnecessary like all the "law" in NZ is maritime law.
In summary
Any man that claims he or she still retains sovereignty and customs laws under the Treaty of Waitangi which Her Majesty the sovereign Queen Elizbeth II of UK swore an oath to protect on her coronation, does so and the corporate NZ Government cannot take it away .
There is no moral right or law or legislation that gives NZ Government or its enforcer the NZ Police jurisdiction over a man operating solely in common law if no common law has been broken . They do not have a contract or consent from you. The government does not make law for you especially if you have not used your legal person to vote.
If the police interact with a man under common law against his consent then issue fines to a legal person they are trying to induce slavery.
Ultimately the government and the capitalist economic system must be "torn down" and that an only be done with unity which has the greatest counter power and will make lasting change and therefore the purpose of common law is not to practice separate jurisdiction from government for personal interest or freedom for itself but to enable the space to dissent government and raise alternatives in the space to begin the solutions mentioned in "politics for dummies " to be brought about .
malcolm daniel
Vote of No Confidence Protest
22 oct 2021
Comments