Anticorruptionnz's Blog

22/05/2011

Tony Molloy QC is so on to it!

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 7:14 pm

Tony Molloy QC has hit the nail on the head, I hope Government sits up and takes note. the news item Law system a ‘laughing stock‎  grew out of the  presentation he made to the conference I attended last week . He was  the highlight of the conference   in my view.

Truth , honesty and evidence play no part in our court process and lawyers who are prepared to tell lies  rule the day.

Court is all about strategy   those with the most money and the most lawyers  win no matter how  weak their case is.

5 years ago I questioned the lack of existence of an animal welfare  law enforcement authority , it was to have been the perfect fraud .Court has been used successfully to  prevent this from being exposed. Because the court was misled   no authority will act on it  .

How can the government give law enforcement ability to  something which does not exist , why did they not check  and why was the person  who had a business plan for this venture able to  write the legislation  be  employed as an adviser to the select committee and then  apply  for law enforcement ability in a fictitious name.

Why is still being covered up?   Is it ignorance is it bad law  or is our legal system and government corrupt ? or is it plain incompetence?

Advertisements

15/05/2011

Apparently we condone criminal acts.

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 11:41 am

In the paper today there is an article     Schools arrange secret abortions   the feed back  was requested  I wonder if they will  include my response  or will we allow schools and Councillors to make up their  own law. my response is as follows

Under 16  year olds are not old enough to make decisions on their own  and    having to keep the secret of an abortion  from their mother is massive.

In no other aspect does a person under 16 have the  right to sign a contract  ,they can’t get married get a loan  drink   without parents’ consent. Where is the  exemption that says that they can when it comes to  abortions?

If they had to have their appendix out they would have to have parental consent   so why should  the decision to terminate be  any different, it is after all a surgical procedure  one which carried its own risks.

Then when we get to the person who had sex with the girl  .. and yes it still is an offence under the age of 16   we encourage silence   there by making the councillor   a party to the offence by covering up  and enabling the offender to go out and destroy some more lives.

Consider the crimes act Section  134 Sexual conduct with young person under 16 carries a penalty of 10 years   for  this offence

Section 71 Accessory after the fact-    (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him, in order to enable him to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.

It is for this very reason that we have legislation why can these councillors make up their own rules? It is not  up to the parents to demand a prosecution  it is  mandatory  .

Does this mean that   the privacy act over rides the crimes act ?   I think not

No one ever considered the long term effects on the girl  and the family  by keeping it quite.

And no one considers  that what they are doing is re writing the law.

02/05/2011

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 2:07 pm

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC  I have asked Wyn Hoadley to please explain why she  a former mayor and now a councillor  helped to cover up the  fact that the council premises  resources and staff were being used as a  side line for the venture which she  allowed her name to  be used for.  A venture which was private in nature and   one which was a parasite off the  public purse

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.