Forum

We had a dear friend who worked in both the CIA and NSA. He retired and before he died of cancer taught me how thIngs work. The short version is our political systems are hijacked. Doesn’t matter who you vote for the outcomes remain the same apart from the odd distraction. Globalist policies are designed to weaken nations, so they can be taken over, leaving the people of those nations as nothing but servants. Globalist policies are designed to weaken nations, so they can be taken over, leaving the people of those nations as nothing but servants.  Our democratic system is not merely being influenced; it is being systematically eroded. At the core of this erosion is a corporate media apparatus, coupled with a concealed influx of donations and manipulation, paving the way for initiatives like "Three Waters." This recent scheme aims to consolidate our water resources under a single entity, effectively transforming them into a payment gateway to service debt. (The English utility Thames Water, currently crippled by $29 billion of debt, is the same type of highly leveraged financing structure proposed for Three Waters here in New Zealand) We hear them loudly opposing certain bills in parliament with promises to repeal them, but once they get into power, they ignore what they promised because their offshore masters want their takeover policy to remain. This strategy traces its origins back to the 1950s, when the Dulles brothers, both lawyers involved in Wall Street and, later, the CIA and the State Department in Washington DC, promoted the shift of the CIA's focus from security to geopolitical asset acquisition. Assisting the Dulles brothers was Ferdinand Eberstadt, also a Wall St lawyer and an investment banker instrumental in the creation of the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency. Eberstadt also created the Chemical Fund in 1938, which created the investment platform idea of mutual funds where massive covert investment activity can be hidden from view. They justified this by asserting that, as it was America's duty to safeguard freedom and democracy, economic security was national security because wealth allowed dominance.  New Zealand is being systematically destroyed by foreign policy which has been imported and handed to our politicians by the think tanks, major law firms, corporate interest groups, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, World Economic Forum and World Trade Organisation and other global bodies like Bank of International Settlements, International Monetary Fund and The World Bank, The Club of 3, or the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). Our politicians have been systematically exploited by offshore money and pressure. Entities with names like Blackrock and Vanguard are now the largest shareholders of our key corporations, banks, and media. Law is built on ideas to make society better. Its core principles are non negotiable. They say who we are, what we represent and what our values are. Statutory interpretation and constitutional interpretation need to be policed with urgency reminding ourselves the warnings by Lord Sumption: “If democracy is hollowed out, we will not notice, and the fault will be ours” or Lord Denning: “Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, but our procedure for preventing abuse of power is not..” In 1978, in a book called the Dilemma of Democracy, Lord Hailsham described the Westminster system as “an elective dictatorship”. Those were his words. He said “we live under the authority of a rule [of parliamentary supremacy] absolute in theory if tolerable in practice”. He explained: “In our lifetime the use of its powers has continuously increased, and the checks and balances had been rendered increasingly ineffective.... becoming more and more the tool of its professional advisers, more and more intolerant of criticism, and less and less in control of the detail of what is done in its name.”

Here’s what you won’t read in the Herald Re hidden judicial policy to favour Maori over non Maori. The Rt Hon Lord Cooke in his 1994 Harkness Henry speech made the position of the judiciary clear: Cooke LJ said: “The phrase "the principles of the Treaty" was in the original Act. At no stage has the legislature attempted to define it. Of necessity, therefore, the courts and the Tribunal had to accept the responsibility of giving it life. The challenge of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence has been two-fold: to define the principles of the Treaty and to do what the courts can to ensure that they are given practical effect. We have not achieved everything one could have wished. But at least in the fields of lands, forests and fisheries, some tangible results can be seen. They have been achieved by an interaction of three forces: first, some enlightened leadership on both the Crown and the Maori sides; secondly, the inquiries and reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, the concept of which as an essentially investigatory and recommendatory body may well find some counterpart in the new South Africa; thirdly, an increased willingness on the part of some modern courts to take into account the Treaty and the fiduciary concept. The responsibility of judicial decision is quite different from that of Tribunal recommendation. The functions are complementary. All three forces are probably essential to further progress. It is obvious that, from the point of view of the future of our country, non-Maori have to adjust to an understanding that does not come easily to all: reparation must be made to the Maori people for past and continuing breaches of the Treaty by which they agreed to yield government. Lip service disclaimers of racial prejudice and token acknowledgments that the Treaty has not been honoured cannot be enough. An obligation must be seen to be honoured. On the Maori side it must be understood that the Treaty gave the Queen’s government, Kawanatanga, and foresaw continuing immigration. The development of New Zealand as a nation has been largely due to that immigration. Maori must recognise that it flowed from the Treaty and that both the history and economy of the nation rule out extravagant claims in the democracy now shared. Both partners should know that a narrow focus on the past is useless. The principles of the Treaty must be applied to give fair results in today's world. The undertaking for that promise was first made by the Crown itself, but then when it was legislated it became the business of both the courts and Parliament to see those obligations were carried out.” End.. That speech raises serious questions such as how can non Maori get impartiality and even legal rights when the judges state they owe partnership fiduciary obligations to Maori? I can answer it because I saw various judges- Greig J, Gault j, Henry J fraudulently manipulate evidence in the Matakana Island litigation to make sure Maori got ownership of 10,000 acres of private land. My complaints resulted in no action except the Law Commission seeking submissions from the public on how the courts can be fixed but nothing happened it was a public relations exercise. And the politicians stayed silent because none of them have the guts to protect lawful rights of non Maori. Russell Fairbrother spoke up and after government lawyer Mr X warned “he should shut his fucking mouth because if he goes around saying that against judges they’ll kill his kids”. - sure enough an explosion occurred in Mr Fairbrother’s daughters home in Hastings and his 2 grand daughters were killed and of course his career in parliament was over the Hansard record alone shows that. In the Arklow (Matakana) case the facts demonstrated the bank was guilty. This was billions of dollars in assets at stake. But that didn’t matter because for the Crown to adhere to its Waitangi Treaty obligations the courts adopted a hidden policy of constructing a judgment that they knew was discordant with the facts and with the laws of equity. “In coming to its decision, the Crown simply stole the Matakana Island land from Mr Wingate to settle the Crown’s Waitangi debts by ignoring the law and by ensuring that, no matter what, evidence proving the defendant bank’s guilt would be ignored.” As for the Crown’s fiduciary and Treaty partnership obligations, the Crown failed to protect ordinary Maori of the Tauranga iwi because they orchestrated the ownership of Matakana Island land to be transferred into the personal names of the Maori leadership who petitioned the Crown for the return of sacred land. To make this point clear, the same Maori leaders and accountant who swore affidavits pleading for Crown assistance all personally benefited, which meant that the Crown assisted Maori leadership to steal from the people. The Privy Council and the New Zealand Court of Appeal ignored law to pursue policy at my expense. Within a few years of the Privy Council decision, those leaders sold the land they had previously claimed to be “sacred” even though they owed fiduciary and trust obligations to the people who entrusted them the leadership positions of the Maori people.

A few years ago, I was invited to a talk given by Professor James Allan, author of “Democracy in Decline.” The audience was made up of some of the brightest minds in Western Australia and after they asked a range of questions while I stayed silent, just listening.  Afterwards I joined Professor Allan back at his hotel for lunch and a chat. A few days later I got a message from Prof Allan’s colleague Prof Rick Bigwood, saying James had reported to him he enjoyed our meeting. Yet I felt deflated. I replied with an assessment of the lunch. I wrote: James Allan seemed bored, 'defeated by the broken system'.  James said: "Chris, you can't get obsessed about it" - "you can't beat them -they will gang up on anyone who poses a threat".  I mentioned I grew up in Rotorua New Zealand, taught never to fear a fight.  And so, I outlined my ideas of constructing new legislation from what fiduciary law is attempting to do.  He replied, "Politicians and the system will block it"  I replied, "My idea is sell the idea to political party members to outvote party stalwarts and by making it party policy we force it on them to get it into legislation- a back door reverse takeover"  He agreed the New Zealand Attorney General was wrong saying Separation of Powers prevents an investigation into judicial wrongdoing. He basically agreed on all legal matters… except I couldn't light his imagination re fixing the mess by creating and deploying new fiduciary type legislative rules to control the charlatans and idiots in power. That was a shame.  When I asked him his motive for writing  "Democracy In Decline", his answer wasn't real. I'm guessing because his book was entertainment pointing out decline is from decisions made by hidden undemocratic forces.  Yet in my mind true democracy can't decide policy - Steve Jobs didn't create Apple by asking staff to vote on things to progress Apple. And communism certainly doesn't seek the ordinary man’s approval. I concluded the book James wrote didn't have a plan of attack but instead was a brilliantly written bitch about a broken system…broken because politicians have no loyalty- are riddled with conflicts of interest, which are the very areas fiduciary type reform would target.  I thought James was another academic who agrees our system is broken, yet really doesn't know just how serious that decline is.  History has always repeated…the empire is built… then the empire collapses and is destroyed. We learn from history we don't learn from history.  It's a shame that good brains simply write books that point out the decline of society and that's it!  The problem and no solutions what ‘we the people’ can do about it.  Perhaps in all previous ‘empire declines’, others in James's position, men of knowledge, also pointed out the failings and just whispered the warnings. And they too undoubtedly drew crowds to hear what others also saw but couldn't articulate as well as those like James.  Crowds entertained watching the decline, all holding hands in agreement, comfortable that they didn't die stupid like those others caught up in the collapse.   I didn't get what I was hoping for from James. Perhaps because I was hoping he was serious about fighting to save our democracy instead of observing it. Instead of entertaining people with his knowledge, actually doing what needs to be done…drawing a line in the sand telling people this is where we fight to save civilisation, instead of only observing and reporting its destruction.  It’s so sad all that the influential people want to do is preserve the existing government model. I guess because they have a lot invested in it, even though they know it’s going to kill us. The Empire “Long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. In the morning, it awakes full of ambition, with a courageous heart and sharp teeth, so it can take everything it desires. At noon, it rests on its treasures, at the height of its strength and wisdom, still brave enough to defend what it has acquired. At sunset, its teeth are dull, it forgets its courage, and it squanders its hard-won riches for fleeting moments of pleasure. When night falls, it succumbs to sickness, writhing in agony as it rots alive. But if no predator or scavenger consumes it in the dark, at dawn it rises again, rejuvenated and strong.”