Posts by nzlemming
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
In one sense, all the information from the judgment is there but am I the only one to feel that the article underplayed the importance of the information?
That's because this is only the warm up match ;-)
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
given that Fairfax was not named in the action. Is this some kind of perverse crowing over the fact that APN was named?
Fairfax is a named defendant. Read the judgement.
The Judge says that Rawshark can't release anything else to the media, because the emails were obtained unlawfully, but he hasn't ruled against any of the named media organisations publishing them. This is basically the write-up of the verbal decision he gave last week. Tomorrow's proceedings may be interesting, but I'm betting Slater hasn't got a prayer of stopping publication.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
From Bouvier’s dictionary of law.
Which is:
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856150 years old and confined to America, specifically to prove how American law differed from English law. From Wikipedia (for summary purposes rather than definitiveness):
John Bouvier (1787–1851) was born in Codogno, France,[citation needed] but came to the United States at an early age. He became a U.S. citizen in 1812, was admitted to the bar in 1818, and began practicing law in Philadelphia. During his years of practice and study, he noticed the lack of a solid American law dictionary. He decided to fill this need, and worked on a new law dictionary incessantly for 10 years. One of his main goals was to distinguish American law from its English antecedent. He finally presented it for publication in 1839. Like many of his generation, Bouvier used his preface to justify his work, stating the irrelevance of English legal dictionaries to the American legal system of the United States. He wanted to create a totally new law dictionary that would address the American legal system, so he derived his definitions almost wholly from customs, court decisions, and statutes of the United States.
So, not at all relevant to New Zealand. You need some more relevant base material.
What you don't seem to understand is how common law came to be - it is entirely the creation of courts, based on judicial decisions which create precedent for future reference. Some facets of it can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon times, as well as leftovers from the Roman occupation of Britain.
There is no connection to anything resembling "natural law". The idea that a "natural law" governs morals and ethics, and must therefore derive from some deity, ignores the actuality that human beings can act ethically toward each other without the intervention of religion, and that law comes from a community of individuals deciding a) that they can do better by subsuming some of their independence of action in favour of collective action and b) this new thing called "society" must have some rules so that the rights of individuals are not infringed by other, stronger individuals (which is actually recognition that the darker side of humanity tends to hold sway if not checked)
I honestly don't know what you hope to accomplish here. You won't look at facts, you only use cherry-picked sources and you clothe your "arguments" in simplistic slogans and Latin, which you only half appear to understand. This is not how to progress a debate.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.
No, I really don’t.
Ah, those pesky facts. You don't need them, obviously. And thus your 'argument' is proved invalid.
-
Oh, dear. I appear to have frightened him off. I apologize to anyone who was sincerely attempting to debate with him.
-
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/FactSheets/0/e/7.htm
Link broken but you really need to study how Parliament works rather than cherry pick quotes.
Link broken but available via the Wayback Machine. Tom’s a good lawyer and a friend, and I’ve argued alongside him, so I may be a little more familiar with his thought than you, and what he’s arguing about the Crown’s trampling of Māori sovereignty does more to refute your thesis than support it.
Commentaries on the Laws of England, William Blackstone
Institutes of the Lawes of England, Edward CokeLaws of England, not of New Zealand. “Common Law” does not mean the same law, forever and ever. Common law is case law, or precedent, not the entire body of English law. While case law can modify statute law in some circumstance, and in the process highlight where statute law was lacking and needs amendment, it does not over-ride statute law as of right, because it is interpretation of a particular statute by a judge. I think you misunderstand the fundamentals of law and read only what you want to see, e.g you quote Blackstone:
"Sovereignty and legislature are indeed convertible terms; one cannot subsist without the other.”
This is the antithesis of your argument that our Parliament is not sovereign, yet you quote him as support. Strange.
Legal Fictions and Common Law Legal Theory Some Historical Reflections, Eben Moglen
Focused mainly on the development of American law, which is also based on common law extant at the point of separation from Britain via the American Revolution.
Thomas Edward Scrutton, Roman Law Influence In Chancery, Church Courts, Admiralty, and Law Merchant
In case you missed it, those courts are specialised courts and bear no reflection on the development of law in New Zealand after we became a Dominion, rather than a colony.
Rights, remedies, and the impact of state sovereign immunity, Christopher Shortell London Gazette, 2nd October 1840
1840. Right. We haven’t moved from there, I take it? All laws are the same as they were then. The Empire still exists and we are all subjects of the Queen of England. #yeahright Don’t be ridiculous. The world __has__changed. You need to recognize that.
Link broken but you can find it here. I suppose you are citing this to show that the Queen asserts sovereign authority in making the treaty. You fail, however, to consider that, since the Restoration, England, the later additions to the United Kingdom, the subsequent colonies, dominions and realms have all been governed as constitutional monarchies. The monarch can assent to legislation or decline it (in theory – it would be a constitutional crisis were it to happen) agreed to by the legislature. A constitutional monarch cannot change the law of the land by fiat.
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/giorgio-agamben/articles/state-of-exception/
I don’t even begin to understand why you are talking about state of exception, which is a very circumscribed set of eventualities. Please feel free to not enlighten me, because I don’t care.
None of the above supports your perceived thesis that a) natural law exists and b) it trumps statute law. Common law does not equal “natural law” which seems to me your main point of argument.
-
You don't deny that it's your own site, though, do you George?
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Sovereignty
http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.html</q>You keep quoting this site as if it has some value or authority. I've looked at it. It is not compelling, consisting of self-referential one-liners with no reference to external supporting evidence. I suspect it is your own site.
-
Speaker: Telling Our Own Tales, in reply to Sacha,
the rise of flat-screens ruined it for everyone..
That, my friend, would tend to depend on one's particular kink...
-
Talk about a sense of entitlement. I think the dick line has been well crossed, Russell.