Privacy Act - Is there any point?

[CookMySock]

That would mean you're not making the automatic guilty plea that is the underlying premise of the traffic ticket.

Yes thats correct.

You would get your day in court, or do you think you can refuse that, too?

There is only one court in the land that can made ruling about what you will do and what you will not do without your consent, and it's not that one. But of course all the lemmings go along with the courts system because thats how its always been.

[Usarka]

Well I phoned the guy from the privacy commission and while he was a friendly and helpful chap, I didn't end the conversation with any compelling reason as to why I should lay a complaint. They seriously have no power and it sounds like they rely on the companies involved to not want bad publicity (like govt depts give a shit!).

I believe the issue at the place I'm unhappy with is systemic or directed by management rather than down to the individual, but I bet that if I do lay a complaint that the individual will be the scapegoat and get disciplined rather than the arse wipes that tell him/her what to do.

On the other hand if I complain it's at least on record and is it right to just let them get away with it.

Tough choices. Thank fuck for beer.

[boostin]

Yes thats correct.

There is only one court in the land that can made ruling about what you will do and what you will not do without your consent, and it's not that one. But of course all the lemmings go along with the courts system because thats how its always been.

Which court can do that?

[CookMySock]

Which court can do that?

Only a common-law jurisdiction can decide on some outcome without your Specific Consent. In NZ this is called "The Court" - probably the high court I do not know, but some commissioner hearing or some traffic infringement hearing for example, cannot.

In contrast, any of the "Other" courts can decide on any outcome if you either specifically consent, or if you offer either direct or implied consent.

The trick is to very very clearly indeed state that you consent to no action whatsoever, and that no person is to represent you or speak on your behalf, and that any implied consent is an error in their perception as all implied consent is also revoked, and THEN take no action whatsoever that might be interpreted as implied consent. After this point, only a common law jurisdiction can make any statement about what you will do or not do at all, and if you attempt to withhold consent there they will proceed anyway. So don't consent to anything!

[Oscar]

Yes thats correct.

There is only one court in the land that can made ruling about what you will do and what you will not do without your consent, and it's not that one. But of course all the lemmings go along with the courts system because thats how its always been.

I tell you what, next time you get a ticket, refuse to contest it and refuse to pay the ensuing fine. We'll see who the Lemming is...

[boostin]

Only a common-law jurisdiction can decide on some outcome without your Specific Consent. In NZ this is called "The Court" - probably the high court I do not know, but some commissioner hearing or some traffic infringement hearing for example, cannot.

In contrast, any of the "Other" courts can decide on any outcome if you either specifically consent, or if you offer either direct or implied consent.

"The Court" - The High Court, recognises Parliamentary Supremacy.

[CookMySock]

I tell you what, next time you get a ticket, refuse to contest it and refuse to pay the ensuing fine. We'll see who the Lemming is...

In progress. I cannot see what you might be derogatory about it. What cost is there to you? Perhaps you feel threatened by people why don't think the same as you? If I am right, what benefit is there for you?

"The Court" - The High Court, recognises Parliamentary Supremacy.

No govt can pull "law" out of it's arse and wipe it on the unsuspecting public. That isn't "Law".

To what extent do you think they would go if they could?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_...regulatory_law

1. Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law
This connotation distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, most areas of law in most Anglo-American jurisdictions include "statutory law" enacted by a legislature, "regulatory law" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e., decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies).[7][8] This first connotation can be further differentiated into (a) pure common law arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, e.g., most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (b) court decisions that decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies, such as judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations.[9]

[Oscar]

In progress. I cannot see what you might be derogatory about it. What cost is there to you? Perhaps you feel threatened by people why don't think the same as you? If I am right, what benefit is there for you?

Who says I was being derogatory?‎
You were the one that used the word and inferred that the rest of us were lemmings. I ‎merely included what is undoubtedly one of your favourite rodents in my reply.‎

I can assure you that your opinions and/or thought processes are not at all threatening ‎to me....‎

[boostin]

No govt can pull "law" out of it's arse and wipe it on the unsuspecting public. That isn't "Law".

To what extent do you think they would go if they could?

They can and they do. It has been long accepted that Parliament can enact a law that says "All blue eyed babies are to be put to death".

The problem with your argument is that you say we only have to abide by laws of 'the court', then 'the court' states that Parliament is supreme.

[Big Dave]

If you get free legal assistance it's Lemming Aid.

[CookMySock]

The problem with your argument is that you say we only have to abide by laws of 'the court', then 'the court' states that Parliament is supreme.

"The Court" is a Common Law animal. You can insist (and have) "The Court" abide by The Common Law and hear any case on that basis. At that point, you have the principles of Tort, Contract, and Crime apply, and none of these apply to some traffic fine, unless they can indeed represent it on that basis, which they cannot.

In the end, me responding to your statements is like re-typing the internet for you. If it interests you then google it for yourself.

[boostin]

"The Court" is a Common Law animal. You can insist (and have) "The Court" abide by The Common Law and hear any case on that basis. At that point, you have the principles of Tort, Contract, and Crime apply, and none of these apply to some traffic fine, unless they can indeed represent it on that basis, which they cannot.

In the end, me responding to your statements is like re-typing the internet for you. If it interests you then google it for yourself.

You are delusional. You don't seem to understand how Parliament gets its authority. Go and read some books, not Wikipedia.

Common law crime, in NZ?