Well you raise a good point- whats the antidote? I've been writing a paper- this is the draft:
In the beginning, there was chaos and raw power, a world without law or democracy. As time progressed to the year 1984, the Labour party embraced neoliberal policies advocated by the IMF and WEF, leading to the privatisation of significant state-owned assets and setting forth a path of growth through debt. Simultaneously, there was a decline in fundamental education and the introduction of race-based policies that promoted racial victimhood. These actions have paved the way for the social and political devastation that we are currently witnessing. So now we are in the shit what can we do about it?
Let's ensure we have a clear understanding. Do you believe that we must hold our government, politicians, judges, and bureaucracy accountable? Yes or no? If so, what does accountability entail? These individuals wield significant discretion and power, and their decisions can have a profound impact on our nation's success or failure.
Now, let's discuss the importance of government accountability and why it is urgently needed. The government consists of two parts: the political leadership and the bureaucracy. It operates as a trust structure, owned by the people who elect politicians to represent their collective interests. Contrary to misconceptions, the true power in the system lies in money, not the Crown. The monarch is merely a figurehead, directed on what to do, sign, and where to go.
Historically, money has been a dominant force, shaping politicians' actions to make them appear favourable, leading to excessive borrowing. Governments receive financial resources in exchange for returns, and this has been evident in New Zealand since 1984, resulting in significant borrowing. Presently, the nation's total net debt surpasses $700 billion, with mortgages exceeding $400 billion. Financial assistance is doled out generously, akin to offering an enticing first free drink or an initial dose of drugs. However, once dependent, there are severe consequences to bear.
Organisations such as the IMF, BIS, and WEF utilise financial resources to influence policies. These organisations are often perceived as being influenced by powerful entities, like BlackRock, Vanguard, and numerous undisclosed trusts located in various offshore financial centres, such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Bahamas, United Arab Emirates, and Luxembourg. Additionally, there are other influential bases in Malta, Singapore, City of London, Monaco, New York, and Delaware. From these centres, efforts are made to gain control over crucial aspects of the global economy, including supply chains, commodities, minerals, financial systems, and the legal framework.
To achieve their globalist goals, these entities also exert control over the media, with around 90% of it being owned by just six corporations. This ensures that the messages reaching the public are strategically crafted to influence people’s actions in specific ways.
Geopolitical control refers to the power and influence exerted by nations or groups over certain regions or territories to further their political, economic, military, or cultural interests. It involves various tactics, such as: Military presence to act as a deterrent and showcase commitment to “their team” with ultimatums of you're either with us or against us. Economic ties and trade agreements used as tools of control, including incentives or sanctions to influence other nations' policies and behaviour. Political alliances and blocs to enhance control and manoeuvre long-term “hidden” objectives and interests. Employing soft methods like political donations, think tanks, and credibility initiatives to manipulate target nations' policies on education, media, and cultural issues. Using money, through direct purchases or endless debt, to gain control over vital natural resources like land, food, chemicals, oil, gas, minerals, and water. Cultivating regional and local partnerships to dominate potential rivals who are presented as outsiders. Engaging in cyber and information warfare to destabilise adversaries and assert control in cyberspace.
Geopolitical control is a constantly evolving concept that adapts its strategies to achieve long-term manipulation, and it carries significant implications for not only global stability, but to little countries like New Zealand who are also very much caught up in these tactics, perhaps the LAC is a solution.
The LAC In Summary
● The Leadership Accountability Court (LAC) is a design of a new court system aimed at holding politicians, judges, bureaucracy, the media, and other RPs accountable.
● To initiate a case, the affected party must obtain written statements from three experts who understand the problem, affirming that those in power have failed.
● Upon receiving the experts' recommendations of wrongdoing, the LAC promptly arranges a hearing, with matters being dealt within weeks.
● The court is overseen by a special judge, whose decisions are also subject to the court's jurisdiction to ensure accountability.
● The jury consists of 11 people. Jurors will be selected from a randomly generated pool from the electoral register, and shall then pass a basic assessment to qualify them for the LAC jury pool.
● The judge manages the proceedings. The judge cannot influence the jury by summarising the evidence or explaining the law in favour of one side or the other. The law is simple, and provided to all LAC juries in identical form. A simple majority of the jury ultimately decides on the balance of probabilities whether the complaint is proven or not.
● All proceedings in the LAC are conducted online using video conference technology to help deal with complaints speedily, and to limit interference in people’s daily lives.
● Individuals applying to the LAC can represent themselves, hire a lawyer, or request the court to provide legal assistance. Subject to certain reasonable limitations, the costs of complainants and RPs will be met by the State.
● If the complaint is proven, the judge issues an order for the defendant to rectify the problem within 30 days.
● LAC juries also have the power to order fines between $10,000 to $350,000 (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation) and, where corruption results in profit, will be able to issue confiscation orders.
● Failure to comply with the order of an LAC judge may result in termination of employment or being held in contempt.
● The jury's decisions are final and cannot be appealed in another court. Non-compliance with the judge's order may lead to arrest and continued detention until compliance is achieved.
● The LAC can only hear the same complaint again if there is evidence of jury manipulation in the previous hearing.
● The LAC would be empowered to review actions and incidents spanning the past 40 years, so that the donations by bankers, lobbyists, corporations and lawyers to the major political parties, and the subsequent sale of state-owned assets to offshore interests, can be investigated.
The shared mission at the LAC Project is to put an end to the culture of failure and give the people of New Zealand the opportunity to save their country by making politicians accountable. While our proposed LAC court system may not be flawless, it represents a substantial improvement compared to traditional mainstream courts that resist modification and fail to allow justice in certain types of claims that challenge control, tyranny, corruption, negligence and coverups.
Positioned as a contemporary and efficient court, the LAC is prepared to develop groundbreaking approaches that will guarantee justice and will safeguard New Zealanders from the abuse of power perpetrated by politicians, judges, media, and public servants. With LAC we can test for the truth very quickly. When we get right down to it, people want honest, skilled politicians and leaders running their country. They don’t want more lies, incompetence, self interest and letdowns.
Helen Clark once said “People who claim the government has ‘failed them’ get accountability by how they cast their vote.” But what do our votes really get us? Let’s review how screwed we are. Today New Zealand's net debt collectively exceeds $700 billion. Reserve Bank data shows there is $347 billion worth of mortgages across New Zealand and a huge chunk of them are in strife. We did some calculations. If $347b in mortgages increases 4% in interest rates, which they have recently, then that 4% increase is costing those already struggling kiwis an additional $1.6m in repayments every hour or $38.4m every day or $268m every week or nearly $14billion per year. This is money being sucked out of every part of the economy and that's only part of the problem we need to fix. We don’t own the banks sucking those massive profits.Their largest shareholders aren't New Zealanders. They aren’t even Australian. They are American giants BlackRock and Vanguard.
The inflation data presented over the past 40 years has been bullshit. The treasury and the Reserve Bank say rising interest rates are necessary to curb inflation. However, inflation itself has primarily been driven by corporate greed, manipulated oil, finance and energy prices, underwritten by red tape and imported laws which destroy local business. That has allowed the big players to take over.
If the truth runs contrary to party policy, it can’t be told. This is why parliament often appears as a gathering of salesmen. However, their management abilities lack substance and efficiency, and the policies they promote are shallow or outright dangerous. By following the path of compliance and diplomacy, they are puppets controlled by powerful entities, disregarding their responsibility to safeguard the well-being of ordinary kiwi families.
LAC Rules of Procedure
For the purposes of the LAC:
The Complainant is:
An individual who has not achieved success in persuading the RP to rectify the alleged misconduct.
The Responsible Persons (RPs) are:
Any government, or quasi-governmental official or employee, including the PM and cabinet, all government politicians, all civil servants, and public employees such as school teachers. Media are also included because of the endless propaganda with which corporate media have saturated society, particularly since 1950.
1. The complainant obtains three letters of support for the complaint from experts in the field.
2. An expert is anyone with 10 or more years of experience in the field, regardless of academic qualifications.
3. The letters of support are submitted to the LAC with a written description of the conduct complained of.
4. At the same time as 3. above, the letters and written complaint are served on the respondent (the RP) with notice that they have been submitted to the LAC.
5. Service on the respondent may be personal or by leaving the letters at the last known home or business address of the respondent or by e-mail to the last known e-mail address of the respondent.
6. On receipt of the complaint the LAC must schedule a pre-trial hearing within 30 days. The LAC will serve notice of the pre-trial hearing as in 5. above.
Pretrial Hearing and Procedure
1. The pretrial hearing shall be streamed live.
2. Both parties shall provide the LAC with an estimate of the length of time of the trial.
3. Both parties shall provide the LAC with definitive lists for discovery of evidence and any subpoenas required from the LAC for the production of evidence.
4. Items requested for discovery may be challenged for lack of relevance to the complaint.
5. At the end of the Pre-Trial hearing, the LAC judge will make orders for discovery.
6. No further requests for discovery will be entertained by the LAC, but contempt orders can be issued if a party fails to comply with discovery orders.
Trial Procedure
1. Trial of the complaint shall begin as soon as court time is available, no later than 30 days after the Pre-Trial hearing.
2. An LAC jury pool of 20 potential jurors shall be drawn at random from the electoral register and pre-qualified by basic assessment to sit on an LAC jury. The jury selected to hear a complaint consists of 11 people randomly selected from the LAC jury pool.
3. There is no jury screening by the LAC judge or the parties and no jury challenges.
4. All jury decisions must be made by the agreement of at least 6 jurors on the balance of probabilities.
5. Each juror is paid a tax-free $40 per hour by direct payment at the end of each day of the proceedings. This amount shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation.
6. Jurors may not discuss or reveal any aspect of the internal jury discussions about the complaint during the evidence, deliberation or after any decision at any stage with any person, including any member of the media, other than another member of the same jury. Significant fines ranging from $500 to $5000 (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation) shall be imposed for breach of this rule and any juror found to have violated this rule shall be immediately discharged from the jury and the hearing will continue.
7. If a juror becomes incapacitated for any reason during the course of the LAC hearing, that juror will be discharged from the jury and the hearing shall continue.
8. A complainant or respondent may represent themselves or be represented by legal counsel.
9. If a respondent does not attend the LAC personally or through his/her representatives the complaint shall still proceed, but must still be proved to the satisfaction of the jury.
10. All reasonable costs of the parties, including lawyers, professional advisors and experts, shall be met from government funds, whatever the outcome. Any costs of either party which exceed the costs of the other party by 10% or more will be disallowed. All costs shall be submitted to the jury at the end of proceedings. The Jury shall then decide by simple majority on the balance of probabilities if the costs are reasonable or not. No unreasonable costs shall be reimbursed. Reasonable costs shall be reimbursed within 7 days. Costs for each party are capped to a maximum of $250,000 (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation), except in cases where the LAC judge and jury unanimously certify that the case was of extraordinary complexity and the costs in excess of such limit were therefore reasonable.
11. The hearing of the complaint shall be virtual. The faces of the LAC judge and all parties, their representatives and witnesses shall be visible. The jurors’ faces shall not be visible.
12. All proceedings before the LAC court shall be open to the general public to view online. The only circumstances in which such public access may be suspended is if the LAC judge is satisfied by written submission from the head of the NZSIS that holding that part of the proceeding in public would compromise national security. The LAC judge would nevertheless have the discretion to ignore such submission.
13. The hearing shall begin with an opening statement from the complainant or his/her representatives. This may not be interrupted by the LAC judge or the respondent or his/her representatives. This statement may last no longer than 1 hour.
14. The opening statement of the complainant shall then be followed by the opening statement of the respondent or his/her representatives. This also may not be interrupted by the LAC judge or the complainant or his/her representatives. This statement may last no longer than 1 hour.
15. Opening statements shall then be followed by evidence on behalf of the complainant.
16. After the end of the complainant’s evidence, evidence shall then be called on behalf of the respondent.
17. Following each party’s witness, the witness may be cross-examined by the other party or his/her representatives. There is no right to re-examination.
18. The LAC judge may ask questions of any witness for clarification following cross-examination.
19. The LAC judge may require any witness to attend the LAC court to give evidence and be cross examined by both parties.
20. Evidence may be introduced by affidavit, however if the evidence is contested by the opposing party the witness must be made available for cross examination.
21. After the evidence for a party is completed, their case may not be reopened, save that the complainant shall have a right to call evidence in rebuttal of any evidence called by the respondent.
22. At the end of the evidence, the respondent first makes a closing argument lasting no longer than 3 hours. Following the closing argument of the respondent, the complainant also makes a closing argument lasting no longer than 3 hours. Neither party may be interrupted by the LAC judge or the other party during their closing arguments.
23.The LAC judge shall remind the jury of the burden of proof on the complainant (balance of probabilities) and provide the jury with the written statement of the concepts of unreasonable, unethical, inequitable or unconscionable conduct that is identical for all LACs.
24. Following closing arguments the jury considers its verdict virtually. The jury shall be provided with any copies of documents or transcripts of witness statements they request.
25. If a jury has been reduced in numbers and cannot reach a decision within 7 days, the judge shall discharge the jury and the complaint may be re-heard before a different jury at the earliest date that the case can next be scheduled in the LAC.
26. If the jury finds the complaint proved, the LAC judge shall make an order that the respondent address the conduct complained of within 30 days. If the conduct complained of is not addressed within 30 days to the satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant may return to the LAC and, unless contested, the LAC judge must make an order requiring the government/employer to dismiss the respondent from his/her position/employment. If contested, the same jury will be re-empanelled to decide, on the balance of probabilities, if the complaint was addressed by the official. If the jury, by simple majority, decides that the complaint was not addressed, the LAC Judge must make a dismissal order.
27. If the LAC jury determines that the Responsible Person has participated in reprehensible actions, they may be personally required to compensate the state for expenses ranging from $10,000 to $350,000 (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation). These penalties must be paid within 30 days of the LAC order. The parties would have the right to appeal these amounts to a 3 judge LAC panel. Such appeal may be based on disproportionality, or the creation of exceptional hardship by the penalty.
28. The LAC possesses the power to direct the government to grant immediate "compensatory damages" to an individual participating in the legal proceedings. This entails an initial provisional payment of 20% from a maximum of $100 million (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation) for property damage and 50% from an estimated compensation of up to $5 million (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation) for loss of life or severe long-term injury. These payments must be made within 48 hours of the LAC order. The parties have the right to appeal these awards to a 3 judge LAC panel. Such appeal may be based on disproportionality, or the creation of exceptional hardship by the penalty.
29. Furthermore, the jury retains the authority to mandate any RP to pay a sum ranging from $1,000 to $10,000 (which shall be adjusted on January 1st every year at the rate of inflation), even in instances of genuine errors or oversights. This provision serves as an incentive for parties to carefully listen and take corrective actions to address any mistakes prior to the escalation of cases to the LAC. Ultimately, this regulation motivates the government to diligently assess and address complaints.
30. If the LAC jury makes such a recommendation, the LAC judge must make such an order in the amount recommended by the jury and the respondent must pay such an amount within 48hrs in the case of government or corporation, or 30 days in the case of individuals.
31. The LAC jury may recommend that the LAC judge make a confiscation order in relation to any assets of the respondent if they find a complaint proved, and if, on the balance of probabilities, the LAC jury finds such assets have been gained as a result of the unreasonable, unethical, inequitable or unconscionable conduct. If such a recommendation is made by the LAC jury, the LAC judge must make a confiscation order, which must be effected within 90 days.
32. There shall be no appeal from the decision of the jury or the order of a LAC Judge, or review by any other court or tribunal, save for the fact that the decisions of an LAC judge are subject to the jurisdiction of the LAC and the limited rights of penalty and compensation appeal to a 3-judge LAC panel. Refusal to obey any order of an LAC judge will be treated as contempt of court and result in immediate arrest and detention until the order is complied with.
33. No complaint against the same respondent based on the same facts can be made twice, unless the LAC jury determines that a previous LAC decision on the complaint was wrongfully interfered with.
34. The LAC may hear complaints by multiple complainants or against multiple respondents in the same proceedings if founded on the same facts, or series of facts.
LAC Rules of Evidence
Admissibility
1. Any relevant evidence shall be admissible. Relevant evidence is any evidence with a tendency to make a fact relating to the complaint more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
2. If there is any doubt as to the admissibility of evidence the LAC judge shall rule that the evidence is admissible.
Judicial Notice
3. An LAC Judge may take judicial notice of any evidence that is generally known and that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, however either party may call evidence questioning any fact that the LAC judge has taken judicial notice of.
Character Evidence
4. Character evidence is not admissible.
Privilege
5. Only written or oral communications between a lawyer and client are privileged and inadmissible, and that privilege is lost if such communication is disclosed to a third party. Medical and other confidential records are not privileged and are therefore discoverable and admissible.
Competency
6. Any person of sound mind is competent as a witness. Where soundness of mind is challenged, the LAC judge will hear evidence from all parties in the absence of the LAC jury and rule on the issue. Minors are competent witnesses, although the reliability of their evidence may be challenged in cross-examination and argued as an issue for the LAC jury to consider as part of its final deliberations.
Expert Evidence
7. Unless a witness is an expert, a witness may only give evidence as to facts, not opinion. An expert is anyone with 10 years or more experience in a relevant field, regardless of academic qualifications.
Hearsay Evidence
8. First-hand hearsay evidence shall be admissible, although its reliability may be challenged in cross-examination and may be argued as an issue for the LAC jury to consider as part of its final deliberations. Second-hand hearsay evidence shall not be admissible.
Documentary and other evidence
9. Written documents, visual or audio recordings, photographs and their copies shall be admissible, although evidence may be called as to their authenticity as an issue for the LAC jury to consider as part of its final deliberations.
Agreed Evidence
10. The parties may agree on evidence in whatsoever format the parties agree and this evidence may be submitted to the LAC jury.
Conclusion
The LAC will not only offer lawyers income-generating opportunities but serve as a vital resource for legal professionals and the general public in New Zealand by providing independent oversight in safeguarding against reckless decisions from government. These factors collectively contribute to economic growth, attract investments, foster entrepreneurship, and enhance overall economic and social prosperity for all of society.
Definitions:
Unreasonable Conduct - means conduct that is clearly against the weight of evidence or without evidence to support it, including the failure to act when clearly against the weight of evidence. (Lord Wilson in Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41, [2018] AC 899, adapted by LAC)
Unethical Conduct - means failing to act with integrity, acting improperly or giving the perception of acting improperly, engaging in immoral behaviour, cheating, acting without principles or scruples, or acting dishonourably. (LAC definition)
Inequitable Conduct - refers to either actions or omissions and can include intentional misrepresentation of facts and concealment of pertinent information. It refers to conduct that directly contradicts acting in good faith and fairly with others. This includes making decisions that are biased, prejudiced, or influenced by incorrect factors, which can result in an unfair or unjust outcome. (Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (adapted), combined with LAC definition)
Unconscionable Conduct - is conduct that is so unfair or oppressive that no reasonable person would accept it. It involves conduct that is contrary to good faith, fairness, and justice. (LAC definition)
Conclusion:
All the politicians are saying “vote for me because I'm the brain to look after the nation”
Throughout history, they’ve said, "You can't fight town hall." However, as Kiwis, we naturally ask: “If something is broken, why shouldn't we try to fix it?” Besides, if we can fix democracy in New Zealand, we can spread our solution to other countries and that would make for a better world for everyone.
