Posts by UglyTruth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@B Jones
IMO the reason that there is no case law is that the defendants appear as persons within the usual jurisdiction (i.e personal jurisdiction aka jurisdiction in personam).
In order to clarify, “person” and “man” are not equivalent terms, even ignoring the issue of gender. The word person originates from the Etruskan word for mask, in the sense of a man’s person as a reference to the physical aspect of a man. A legal person, which is of course intangible, is effectively a person of the crown, owing its very existance to the crown. Blackstone uses the word person to indicate a representaton of something, eg a person of birth in reference to English nobleman.
-
"The emails were not obtained unlawfully"
Wrong. Accessing a computer system without authorisation is illegal under NZ law.
I said unlawful, not illegal. Law looks to the intent, which seems to have been consistent with the public interest. Also the legislation is not the law of the land, i.e. the legislation isn't relevant until the hacker appears in court (if that ever happens, which seems unlikely IMO).
-
Have you heard of copyright law?
The problem is that the US doctrine of fair use is not part of NZ law, so whether or not the act of copying data is illegal depends on which legal jurisdiction you are under. Since NZ gets so much US video which pushes the idea that copying is theft, the idea that copying is unlawful has made it's way into the public consciousness here.
-
I don’t know what you’re arguing. The closest I can come to a coherent interpretation is that the NZ government is illegitimate because Blackstone, Alfred the Great etc say so.
My point was that NZ legislation isn't effective because parliament isn't truly sovereign. According to Blackstone, in English law sovereignty is more than just political supremacy.
Alfreds the Great's "dome-book" (book of fates/judgments) can be used to tie the real nature or sovereignty to the origins of the common law, which brings us the to the question of the relationship between ethics and religion. My position is that at common law ethics and theism are inseparable, but it doesn't follow that you have to be religious in order to act ethically.
-
No, it would be disastrous, as has been demonstrated in California and elsewhere.
This is New Zealand, we don't have US democracy here. I'm not advocating a system that can be used against the minority, the core issue that I'm attempting to get across is that the NZ public should be aware of what the principles of democracy are before they get involved in political activism. That's why I put the wiki together.
-
Yes, but that’s a little different to whether one parliament can overrule a past one.
Yes, but that wasn't the issue that I was previously arguing.
The majority isn’t always right – binding referenda are a real danger to minority rights, but that’s usually dealt with by representative democracy and the rule of law, eg the executive has to obey its own rules.
Yes, it's dealt with by representative democracy, but the executive obeying its own rules isn't an example of how democracy protects the rights of the minority.
-
The Judge says that Rawshark can’t release anything else to the media, because the emails were obtained unlawfully
The emails were not obtained unlawfully. Copying data is not unlawful.
-
It doesn’t matter what Blackstone said more than 200 years ago.
It matters because he is a recognised commentator on the subject of English law, including English common law (NZ law is a development of English law).
-
You are refusing to accept that.
No, I'm not. I'm aware that the law changes.
Are you still unable to reconcile Blackstone with your assertion that common law and case law are equivalent, nzlemming?
-
Three million voters in 2014 have to be able to overrule a king a thousand years ago.
Not necessarily. The idea that the majority is always right isn't part of modern democracy.