The Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act

October 11, 2009

Crown Emblem alt

Back in April 09 a torpedo was fired at Civil rights in NZ with the passing into law of The Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act.
I am astounded this took place without a whisper from the media.

Annette King, a Labour Government Minister of Justice in the previous term of Government, wrote this act.
Annette King is a former dental nurse who claimed water Fluoridation and Mercury based fillings to be safe.
Annette King conjures up ill-conceived legislation without reference to good reason as evidenced by her attempt to mass medicate New Zealanders with Folic acid added to bread.

It is interesting to read of an American lady Politician who was behind a similar seizure law in the states. She wanted to ‘hang em high’ … all the low life crims dealing drugs etc. But, and a big but ! … her son got busted for felony possession of Cannabis, he was dealing out of her home.
Guess what? Her home became proceeds of crime forfeiture.
Suddenly she was championing against the law, quoting it breech of civil rights. Shame the silly bitch didn’t realise this before she help draft the law.

The same can be said of Annette King, who had a lot of Pigs squealing in her ear for Third Reich Powers.

SpinningSwastika

The Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act will come into force 1 Dec 09.

The act’s section 3 allows the Police to apply to the High Courts of NZ in a civil action to confiscate a person’s property if they are suspected of a crime involving acquisition of assets and money relating to a crime punishable of a 5 year term in jail or greater.
The Act allows Police to conduct civil action even if the person’s case is thrown out of the Criminal Courts.
This effectively means that Police are now making judicial determinations based upon hearsay evidence they have gathered.
Effectively Judge, Jury and executioner in one malicious package.

This Act makes a flawed assumption that Police function within the rules of fair play, in other words that they do not fabricate evidence, or embellish evidence.
The High Courts will make decisions on these applications using the weight of probability evidence rule as used in the Family Courts (i.e. Rubber stamp).
And we all know how many abuses of natural justice have taken place in the Family Courts System of NZ, because that rule is based upon opinion, not hard evidence.

Therefore it will merely suffice to make allegations without real proof to asset strip NZ citizens.
The respondent in such cases is essentially now considered guilty by accusation, guilty until proven innocent.
The onus of proof is now upon the respondent who will have to foot a hefty legal bill to prove their innocence.

What is insidious is .. the Police (Crown) has an open ended legal budget, the respondent does not, so the inevitable outcome will be singular, the respondent will be bankrupted, either they are guilty, or they spend their assets defending the allegations.
Heads the Police win, tails the respondent loses.
And that is an unethical breech of human rights according to my sense of fair play.
It will be a field day for lawyers defending civil actions, no legal aid, just send the bill to the official assignee.
Annette King must have read up on the Spanish Inquisition to get her inspiration for creating this terrible injustice.

I thought the existing Proceeds of Crime Act was bad enough, and I remind you that back in the day, the Politicians promoted that Act as a cure for white-collar criminals after the 1987 share market debacle, the act has been focused primarily on Cannabis Growing.
The White-collar rich people have clever accountants and lawyers so the Police leave them alone.

To the Fuckwits that cry “Oh the Gangs and Meth, blah blah.. justifies this law”, I say wake up because this new law is non-selective about so called groups of people.

The Police will come after your Grandparent growing a bit more pain killer than they need, far more eagerly than they will chase down gang members.

The Police have a history of victimising innocent people with the existing Proceeds of Crime Act.
It is a fact they staged the first test case of a Hawkes Bay farmer who took over ownership of a farm after cannabis was planted on the property, the growers were seen by witnesses who could verify the farmer was not responsible, the growers had been using the property to grow for some time.
But that didn’t stop the ‘Bastards in Blue’ from telling lies in Court to asset strip the Farmer.
The poor bugger had purchased the property with a first division lotto win for fucks sake!
A more recent case saw a Coromandel Farmer jailed and asset stripped based upon nothing more than a desire to get a result because they spent up large on surveillance.

So now we introduce this latest Act allow the Police virtually unrestrained power to asset strip property.

Justice is blind and truth is the last thing to enter court.


Capital Gains Tax?

October 5, 2009

Booty ahoy me hearties!

Booty ahoy me hearties!


These Torry pricks don’t get any better with age.
Now we are hearing “proposals” based around the idea of a Capital Gains Tax on property.
First they mentioned C.G.T on secondary investment properties.
Then someone claimed that was too hard to collect tax on.
Strange I thought since all property transactions now go through an electronic Registry Office!
Now the wolf is taking his sheep’s cloak off to reveal a ‘land tax’ paid annually proposal!
What the f**k!
But these Torry pricks gave us a second tier of local government back in 1991, that added another land/property ratings tax onto the property owner when they created Regional Councils!
So now they are proposing a third property rating Tax in the disguise of capital gains tax?

Capital Gains Tax on unrealised assets is not Capital Gains Tax, it is extortion, it is theft!

Let us explore their method of testing public reaction…
Use a research organization. Give them written and unrecorded verbal guidelines to research an idea, such as Capital Gains Tax.
When the public is ready to lynch the Government for the bad idea, deflect the heat and blame the idea back on the research organization.

Just about the nail on the head eh?