NZ Lawyer forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

“All New Zealanders should be very worried” - Law Society

Notify me of new replies via email
NZ Lawyer | 26 Aug 2015, 10:46 a.m. Agree 0
A new bill will allow a person to be tried and convicted of a criminal offence without seeing all the information relied on by the Crown and without the right to be present, the NZ Law Society says.
  • mick | 27 Aug 2015, 09:12 p.m. Agree 0
    we have some serious problems with the current regime, where will this stop?
  • Andrew Reid | 27 Aug 2015, 09:25 p.m. Agree 0
    Welcome to Nazional New Zealand.
  • Chris | 28 Aug 2015, 05:11 a.m. Agree 0
    So it just keeps going on and on and getting worse...I have never despised a govt in NZ so much, yet and thats an astounded YET so many love them??
  • Donna Hoha | 28 Aug 2015, 11:36 p.m. Agree 1
    So whats gonna happen, can u do more than strongly urge? You're the Law Commission if u cant do anything what can we ordinary Kiwis do?
  • BuckoNZ | 29 Aug 2015, 10:20 a.m. Agree 0
    OK, so now we know this, how do we go about addressing it?
  • Derek | 06 Sep 2015, 09:37 a.m. Agree 0
    Assuming that the policy makers intentions were honourable, the reason for ensuring that every single part of the bill is to be passed into law is given due consideration must trump whatever reasons they had for trying to fast track it!
  • Brian Soper | 07 Sep 2015, 10:35 a.m. Agree 0
    And future lgislative rewrites will contain the oblique" As contained in the Health and Safety Bill". And you all continue to vote for.....?
  • Kate Nimmo | 30 Jan 2016, 08:25 a.m. Agree 0
    So important to fight this, please do on behalf of all KIWIS.
  • Cindy cinner | 30 Jan 2016, 10:05 a.m. Agree 0
    Now watch National party appoint their cronies to the review commission Law Society to railroad their agenda.
  • Taane Rakau | 30 Jan 2016, 12:22 p.m. Agree 0
    I am not a 'Person', are you?
    A satirical look at the Legal term "person."

    I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human

    I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.

    Some would say that I am a 'natural' person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?

    To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word 'person'.

    Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."

    Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

    Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -

    Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons" which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations. -

    Person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]

    legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

    A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

    Well….. I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition.

    The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an "individual". Black's Law Dictionary also defines a person as a "human being," which they define by stating "(i.e. natural person)". So let's first check to see if I am an "individual".

    Individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."

    Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a 'person', and since 'individual' denotes a single 'person' as distinguished from a group or class, I can't be an 'individual' under this definition either. But I see the term 'natural person' used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a 'natural' person, since I know I am not an 'artificial' one.

    I could not find the term 'Natural person' defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word 'natural' for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person...

    Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."

    Wow, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word 'man' means), or by influences of civilization? I don't think so. Am I 'wild', or 'untutored'? nope, not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word 'artificial', it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a 'natural' person, under this definition of the word 'natural'. So the term 'natural person' cannot apply to me.

    Black's Law Dictionary also used the term 'human being', and although Black's defined it as a 'natural person', maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a 'human being'. 'Human' or 'human being' does not appear to have a 'legal' definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster's Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.

    Human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'colored man'!

    Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I'm not colored either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word 'man' through Webster's because there appears to be no legal definition for 'man'.

    Man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.

    Oh! Oh! Well, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an 'individual', so I cannot be considered 'of the human race'; and since I'm not of the human race, I can't be 'a human being', and I've also been shown that I'm not 'a person' either.

    When I was younger, I remember filling out forms, which had the word 'Caucasian', listed for race (they don't seem to use that definition any more for some reason). I was always told that this was the word for me to use since I had white skin. (It is actually pinkish, and some is tanned, with mostly white next to the tanned, but I was still told I was a 'Caucasian'). So back to the definitions of 'Caucasian".

    Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Of or pertaining to the white race.

    Well, I guess that makes some sense, since I have always held myself to be 'white', but this is really not a very descriptive definition, so let's see what an 'older' Black's Law Dictionary has to say, if anything (they have a tendency to change the meaning of words in the new dictionaries for some reason).

    Caucasian - Black's Law Dictionary 4th Edition, defines "Caucasian' As follows: Pertaining to the white race, to which belong the greater part of European nations and those of western Asia. The term is inapplicable to denote families or stocks inhabiting Europe and speaking either the so-called Aryan or Semitic languages.

    That's interesting, it appears that 'white racist Aryan' groups, like 'Aryan Nations' types, or those speaking Aryan, are not even 'Caucasians' under this definition, so they can't be from the 'White' Race (I wonder if they know that). Neither are the people who call themselves Jews, and speak a form of Hebrew (which appears to be derived from the older 'Semitic' language referred to in Black's Law Dictionary).

    Back to Noah's Dictionary to see if he has a vernacular definition of the word 'Caucasian'.

    Caucasian - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'Caucasian' as follows: Anyone belonging to the Indo-European race, and the white races originating near Mount Caucasus.

    OK, here is my Conclusion: There may be some beings that are 'persons' and some of them are 'individuals', and some 'Natural persons' do exist, of this I have no doubt, I've met some of them. There are also many that I believe are 'Humans', or 'Human beings', these beings seem to exist all over this globe. However...

    My kinfolk came from Western Europe, so I must have come from one of the European Nations. I am also white (I use the term loosely), so by definition I must be a 'Caucasian'. Since I am a Caucasian, I must have come from, or be a member of one of the white races originating near Mount Caucasus. I am a male of my race, so I must conclude that I am a 'Caucasian male'. I am also a follower of the Hebrew Scriptures. I am a living breathing being, on the soil. Therefore I must conclude that I am a living breathing Hebrew Caucasian (White) male, in other words, I should be called a 'Living Breathing Hebrew Caucasian Male'……. or an 'LBHCM' - Cool - Ok, now where is that Mount Caucasus, and why would my Hebrew 'White' Race be originating from the area near that mountain called Mount Caucasus ………Hummmmmmmmmm??
  • adam free | 30 Jan 2016, 12:42 p.m. Agree 0
    yet another"back-door" sly law making,learned from our pals the u.s......
  • David | 30 Jan 2016, 09:39 p.m. Agree 0
    Ah that old national security chestnut. Amazing where that pops up isn't it? We're sold this line about the bogeyman of terrorism and then the 'cure' of secret courts is meant to be more palatable. Slippery slope.
    Stop voting for people that allow this.
    Who drove this omnibus to be included at the last minute? Gcsb? Gcsb with pushing from Washington?
  • Jerzy | 30 Jan 2016, 10:12 p.m. Agree 0
    Depths of ignorance in above comments. Please note it isn't 'government' which passes legislation. Your elected members of parliament do that. Please note, labour wasn't concerned with the implications of schedule 2A, just with classifications of risk for various types of of farm labour....
  • chaz | 31 Jan 2016, 11:40 a.m. Agree 0
    Whats this country coming to will the corporate elite seek to charge companies as well as victims and families???? Absolute bullshit
  • Michael Beech | 31 Jan 2016, 12:39 p.m. Agree 0
    The implications of this amendment in my opinion also,,,could seriously upset a persons right to a fair trial if he does not have access to all the information the prosecution will attempt to use.
  • Mike Rose | 31 Jan 2016, 05:26 p.m. Agree 0
    Thin end of an absolutely ginormous wedge....
    if only parliamentarians realised their workplace remains so-o-o unsafe, many of the critters will end up preferring to work in an abbatoir...
    ....but only if NZ supports any primary-producing industry
  • Matt Naylor | 01 Feb 2016, 09:33 a.m. Agree 0
    People Power! National were voted in, they can be voted out! Start planting the seed. Tell everyone at your work, when you're out socializing. These people are just mere puppets working for the rich and the bankers. People are so scared to speak up for fear of losing there job's, houses, family's, the list goes on and on. Winston Peters is the only MP with any balls in Parliament! We've got one year before the next election so start spreading the word. If National get voted back in the flood gates of hell will open up ie; referendums, changing laws, making us basically prisoners in our own homes. Plus your children and grand children will have no constitutional rights or freedom and it's already happening NOW to us!
  • warren Olson | 01 Feb 2016, 10:47 a.m. Agree 0
    Fair and just doesn't always seem to be the case with NZ Law. I recently got an infringement fine due to an what I found was an equipment error - ( something I was able to prove even though NZ police failed to provide disclosure I requested) to plead my case I had to partake in an 8 hour trip to the district court. My appeal to either be able to submit my defence by letter, or have the case transferred, was declined. I received notification of this from the court the day after the hearing where in my absence, and un-allowed to present evidence to the contrary I was duly fined. A very minor case but the same principals/or lack of a fair and just court system seem to have applied.
  • Brent D Gilbert | 02 Feb 2016, 01:48 p.m. Agree 0
    It is time to impeach all conspirators and press criminal charges against any representative whom has ceased to represent the people of New Zealand. These people are NOT above the law (even though they believe they are).
  • mary enoka | 17 Feb 2016, 06:26 a.m. Agree 0
    God of nations at thy feet, in the bonds of love we meet, hear our voices we entreat, God Defend Our Freeland. Guard Pacifics triple star, from the shafts of strife and war. Make our praises heard afar. God defend New Zealand from these ogres and thugs.
  • | 02 May 2016, 11:55 p.m. Agree 0
    This is giving the govt a scary amount of to get this straight...they can take you to court under a charge and not share the source, the proof, or anything about it to those representing? are we sure this isn't a communist country?
    • Monica MacFadyen | 28 Apr 2018, 05:44 a.m. Agree 0
      It's called totalitarian regime...
  • | 03 May 2016, 10:19 p.m. Agree 0
    Stand up Kiwis and boot that Government young hitler to the kerb.. Corporate business more important than tangatawhenua God help us because our government wont.
Post a reply