When I visited Grant Robertson’s office to discuss the issues I have with applied governance the matters I raised were not resolved to any satisfaction – meaning the questions posed were not answered making any result incorrect. youtube/watch?v=ATGcA_Y_zUU I complained to his parliamentary services employee Sheila Linton who wrote out the questions and assured me Grant would answer them. He answered referring one question, arguably the most important onto the Labour justice spokesperson Charles Chauvel to answer. Charles Chauvel did not answer he resigned from parliament and went on to work with the United Nations. The question for Labour remains unresolved. I asked the National MP and Attorney General Christopher Finnlayson a similar question but with a more specific example on why the question should be asked. This was if there was any jurisdiction where a failed application of section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 could prevail, (or be preferred) over section 6. Section 6 codifies that the bill of rights will be preferred. This is not a convention. This is a rule. That means obviously that any breach of section 7 will not be acceptable. The Attorney General replied that he would not comment on individual cases (meaning my judicial review versus the Governor General before Justice Mallon). Justice Mallon’s judgment against me omitted any dialogue on this principal section 6 versus section 7 controversy. I cannot be wrong and not preference discussed by the judge could prevail. That is what the law says. My question to the Attorney General was not about my case it was about the jurisdiction. I complained to the Ombudsman who replied that the Attorney General was not bound in this matter to the Official Information Act. I complained they told me to write in. I replied that I didn’t need to. I am not a paid civil servant and I am right. It is the paid civil servants duty to stand up to the theft of the nation’s democracy not mine. In my conversation with Sheila Linton she inquired why I was taking the world upon my own shoulders. I should have said because she was not – but otherwise said that someone had to. This morning I reflected on the event where Grant Robertson had been scathing of how I had discussed the matter with Sheila – yet that challenge on her integrity had led him to answer a question that he had previously refused to answer and then when so forced another tactic was taken to avoid answering the question. The real matter for him to answer and as the urgency increases by day is how is the Care of Children Act 2004 (not an act for aforesaid fault under the NZBORA), not child abuse removing from a child the right of association from their biological imprint, namely their father in order to allow two women to have a manipulated birth? Labour had established child abuse as law but was faulted for the incorrect making of that law and now everyone hides form this fact to the degree that the judiciary fail to comply with section 6. Every day a child is abused in such a way is another travesty in the administration of governance on this soil and this sullies Her Majesty’s integrity as history will eventually declare. So you all just want me to shut up? You all just want to pretend that you do not have to be compliant with your own making of laws? Essentially the practice to date has been to pretend that I am incomprehensible. Justice Young ruled this way as I sought for a writ of habeas corpus to release her Majesty’s representative from such heinous behavior. He changed a word in my paragraph he quoted as an example on why I could not be understood. So how long does this fiction carry on? A fellow walked into a WINZ office with a shotgun. He killed two women and wounded a third. Surely it stands to reason that if he was given all of the things he sought as he was entitled he would not have needed to act in such a way? The Minister for Social Development assured the nation that he was given all the assistance that he was entitled to. If she was correct then there must have been something else wrong – but that is not the topic of this message to government. The message is that I prove that my question was not answered and that Grant Robertson did not answer the question until he was pushed by a government employee and even then he continued to fob off and excuse the responsibility to answer. So without this information disclosed by all you important people who read this letter, to the public, how can any expect the citizenship to trust Grant Robertson and to be assured that what has been happening in the Labour caucus is not some kind of manipulated event. Her Majesty’s citizenship.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 00:25:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015