About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

June 28, 2012 8:00am by Kokila Patel

General Debate 28 June 2012

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment204

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (204)

Login to comment or vote

F E Smith

DavidG,

sorry, missed your 2.21pm. No, I don’t know why they did that. It does seem odd. It may be, as has been suggested, that they wanted to build a chronological picture. That said, it seems odd and I really don’t get why the judge would allow it. Unfortunately I am not acquainted well enough with the case to give any further opinion. I can just say that it seems like a bit of a waste of court time to me. If we were talking about a multi-defendant tiral with a lot of raids etc, then ok, that makes sense. But in this case I would have thought that a lot of it could be agreed on, although the multi-appearance idea would probably belong to the prosecutor rather than the defence, I would suggest.

Nostalgia,

actually, it will have been planned in the Auckland central police station (I am guessing, either there or Police National, PEB can give a better idea) with input either from Crown Law in Wellington or the Auckland Crown Solicitor. So, I suppose that I am disagreeing with you there. The legislation that enables this sort of thing sets out a process to be used when an application is made by a foreign government, but the key factor is that the local authorities oversee the process on home soil.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 28, 2012 10:32pm
graham

Hey … this story reminds me of someone a bit closer to home than Mexico.

‘Mexico’s worst loser lays the groundwork for another defeat’

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10816183

Some choice quotes:

Lopez Obrador drew hundreds of thousands back downtown yesterday for an end-of-campaign rally to hail what he called his imminent victory.

The only problem is that final polls show Lopez Obrador well in second place, trailing the candidate of Mexico’s former ruling party, Enrique Pena Nieto by anything from 8 to 17 percentage points.

.
.
.

What remains in doubt for millions of Mexicans is whether Lopez Obrador will quietly accept defeat.

In that (the 2006) election race, Lopez Obrador led until the final days and his backers could not believe the official result, which showed him less than 1 percentage point short of victor Felipe Calderon, though electoral courts upheld it.

Lopez Obrador declared himself the “legitimate president of Mexico,” named a Cabinet and toured the country to rally backers against the alleged electoral fraud.

He spoke for more than an hour describing his presidency as if he had already won.

He described a Mexico where he would fund more social spending without new taxes by cutting government waste and corruption.

Maria Antonia Bedolla … said … “He will win if they don’t steal [the election] from us like they did six years ago.” If he lost, “I will express my discontent about the fraud”.

Luis Rubio, president of the Centre for Development Research, an independent think tank, said that Lopez Obrador has been “anticipating the alleged fraud for weeks.

“The notion that there is fraud is alive and well in his rhetoric,” he said.

“Lopez Obrador is Lopez Obrador and he will not recognise the result no matter what.”

Mexico’s Federal Electoral Institute was pressuring the candidates to sign a “civility pact” committing them to respect the legitimacy and legality of the election results, a move that appeared aimed at Lopez Obrador.

Has Penny got any relations in Mexico? 🙂 Look at the similarities …

Lopez: Considers himself a winner – check.
Penny: Considers herself a winner – check.

Lopez: Doesn’t accept having his ass handed to him on a plate – check.
Penny: Doesn’t accept having her ass handed to her on a plate – check.

Lopez: Doesn’t accept legitimate election results – check.
Penny: Doesn’t accept legitimate election results – check.

Lopez: Complains bitterly about fraud when things don’t go his way – check.
Penny: Complains bitterly about fraud when things don’t go her way – check.

Lopez: Accuses everybody of corruption – check.
Penny: Accuses everybody of corruption – check.

Lopez: Actually has support from a lot of people – check.
Penny: Actually has support from a lot of people – oops …

Ah well, 5 out of 6 is still pretty close.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 29, 2012 7:34am
Nostalgia-NZ

F E Smith

I agree that the raids were planned in the way you say. But I think there would have been communication at Ministerial level because of the involvement of foreign personnel. The PM said he was made aware of it, so my argument is that being ‘aware’ should involved being satisfied of the validity and legality from advice from his own office – so we don’t have a situation of an official or Minister saying they told me what they were going to do, but didn’t explain how or the legal justification for doing so. It was an rare event and therefore I think needed Minister responsibility. Compare this to what we know about the various Ministers and MPs involvement with dotcom’s immigration application.

On the point about the ‘revolving door’ witnesses in the EM trial, purely for prejudicial effect in my opinion. The opportunity of having distressed, attractive women repeating what could have been given in evidence during one piece, many times over while the accused sat head down as though guilty for the witnesses being there, but not necessarily because of evidence proving his guilt.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 29, 2012 8:30am
F E Smith

Nostalgia,

Key might have been told about it, but he is not a lawyer, nor is his office the proper one to decide whether anything was legal. That is the job of Crown Law and the Police. The process is set out in legislation and their is no requirement at all for the PM to be involved in the process, nor any authority for him to exercise if he is involved. The blame for this in no way attaches to John Key, or his office. Unlike the immigration application, this is a law enforcement issue, at least at this end, and the politicians are informed out of courtesy only.

It is possible that your theory re the revolving door witnesses is correct. I would just note that the usual repeat witness is a police officer, but beyond that I cannot say.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 29, 2012 11:15am

More comments:

‹
1
2
3

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« The final TVNZ7 Backbenches

Super Thursday »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Its official: the Royal Society of NZ’s race-based funding is a constitutional requirement.
Point of Order
Electricity Companies screwing us again
The Daily Blog
No monopoly on stupid
Hompaddock
Band Aid at 40
Utopia
Open mike 23/11/2024
The Standard
The Working Class and The Classics
No Minister
Justice in Brazil
No Right Turn
"Seymour is only doing openly what M?ori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly for the past 50 years."
Not PC
The transgender agenda sunk Kamala
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
What does “reciprocity” mean in New Zealand laws?
Croaking Cassandra
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d