Sunday, 16 August 2015

New Zealand FLAG: DO NOT CHANGE !! You will give up your RIGHTS !!





Please see this article also on this blog:

KEEP NEW ZEALAND'S CURRENT FLAG


http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents/Files/NZ%20Constitution%20Cabinet%20Office%20backgrounder.pdf



IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION:


Please Share this post wherever you can... to as many of your Facebook Groups, Pages and Friends as you can; to Twitter and other social media you engage with; in emails to your friends...  and TALK ABOUT IT with your Family, Friends and neighbours... the people at work... the people you play Touch or Netball with !!

This is REALLY IMPORTANT !!

Our WHOLE NATION needs to know about this !!



The following is by LO and DG
Aotearoa-New Zealand



Hey, don't mean to to freak y'all out (actually, yes I do!) but there's a lot more to this NZ flag change malarkey than most people realise...


I was open to changing the current NZ flag, but I also didn't understand (like most people) the LEGAL significance of doing so...

Why not change the flag?

Here's why not - its called 'Due Authority'

DUE AUTHORITY in a nation like NZ is represented on the NZ flag by the Union Jack and signifies that we are a constitutional monarchy.

A change of flag means not only that we have taken a major step to removing the DUE AUTHORITY of the crown. It also means we take away the very power which enforces both the 1981 Bill of Rights Act (the closest thing NZ has to an entrenched Constitution) and the founding plank upon which the Treaty of Waitangi has meaning.

It does not matter if you're pro or anti monarchy but if you take away the DUE AUTHORITY of law (which includes our flag) you then open the gates of hell, or to be precise the means in which John Key can legally sign the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement). Currently if the matter was taken to court it would undoubtedly end up at the Supreme Court.

The Privy Council is our former chief court and unlike the new US-styled NZ supreme Court, has its legal interpretation interpreted by Judges that are picked by the Law Lords of the Common Wealth.
In the new system those Judges are picked by parliament – uh oh.

At the moment it is likely that a legal challenge could be mounted against the TPPA, even if John does sign it, even with the Supreme Court Change, in that it breaches the 1981 Bill of Rights and the Crowns obligation to Iwi as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi.

However, if the DUE AUTHORITY of the State can be removed then the TPPA can not only be signed but it then means that once signed the DUE AUTHORITY of the TPPA would supersede the power of any NZ laws already in place. Such as the 1981 Bill of Rights etc.


New flag? No thanks.


Please feel free to copy & paste or share... A lot of people don't seek education but will take it when offered!


***

Note:  This flag change business is a good example of why we should always question what we're fed and to keep our eyes and ears and minds open. If the concerns about 'Due Authority' turn out to be hoopla, then great! But, at the very least, if these concerns get people talking and thinking and questioning the hidden agenda behind the flag change, then brilliant!  - LW



Nice work L and D. 
Thank you so much !!


16 comments:

  1. A friend just sent me this: This is the reason WHY we must Vote in the 1st Flag Referendum!! We need to CROSS OUT the four flag choices they will give us and WRITE "KEEP OUR CURRENT FLAG" We MUST use the word CURRENT. This will transform your voting paper into an 'INFORMAL VOTE' which will counteract the votes made by people who choose one of the four flags. If you fail to cross the four flag choices out and fail to write these four words then your voting paper will become INVALID and your vote will be useless. Please share this information and get your friends enrolled so that they can do the above and POST IT back. THIS IS CRITICAL TO STOPPING THE TPPA. Why do you think JK has spent over $26 million dollars so far??

    The vote is in November and the voting papers come out mid September onwards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's some more useful information regarding your VOTE and how to KEEP NZ's flag for constitutional or other reasons... eg: Familial allegiance to the CURRENT NZ flag, out of respect for and in memory of our predecessors who have served in the NZ military under THAT Flag... The ANZAC commemorations would be laughable under ANY OTHER FLAG... And any other reasons you may personally have.


    FLAG REFERENDUM 1 POSTAL VOTING FORMS
    Deadline date to get your votes in is: Friday 27 November 2015.

    Postal Votes are expected to be sent out around September/October 2015.
    You should receive your voting paper in the mail by Friday 20 November.

    INFORMAL VOTES (Keep NZ's Current Flag) versus
    FORMAL VOTES (Change NZ's Current Flag)

    ARE YOU ENROLLED TO VOTE IN REFERENDUM ONE?
    1. Make sure you are enrolled before 30 September 2015 to avoid your vote being rejected. You may call 0800 36 76 56 to check that you are on the Electoral Roll. If calling from overseas, the number is +64 9 909 4182.

    REFERENDUM ONE: Postal Voting Forms and 4 Opposing Flags
    2. Postal Voting Forms are expected to be sent out around September and October 2015.
    3. New Zealanders will be asked to rate all 4 Flags 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th.

    HOW TO SUBMIT AN INFORMAL VOTE
    4. Submitting Informal Votes for Referendum 1: Those who support keeping New Zealand's current Flag, we are asked to make an 'Informal Vote' by:
    a) CROSS OUT all 4 oppositional Flags and
    b) write: KEEP NEW ZEALAND'S CURRENT FLAG.

    REMEMBER: The goal of forwarding an 'Informal Vote' is to outnumber 'Formal Votes'. We must be specific with our wording to qualify as an Informal Vote:

    >> KEEP NEW ZEALAND'S CURRENT FLAG.

    The Informal Votes and Formal Votes are the only votes that will be accepted under law.
    - by Louise H.
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/954782961212464/

    Please see this link for what is accepted under law.
    Please SHARE this information with EVERYBODY you know. Thank you.

    https://enrol.elections.org.nz/app/enrol/#/

    ReplyDelete
  3. A comment from LS on Facebook: "When I first heard John Key wanted to change our current flag, what came to mind among other things was as he is not a true patriotic kiwi, and he has to have an ulterior motive. That is get rid of a document that has some protection for us Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Wasn't this document a treaty between the Tangata Whenua (our Tupuna - ancestors) and the British crown ( Queen Victoria and her descendants).On the flag four stars (our Tupuna) and union jack (crown), by changing our flag this opens the door to the TPPA which will set a precedence for any corporation or foreign power to take our sovereignty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Here's another choice comment on Fb that will explain a lot of this background also...

    "John Key was FOREX head here in NZ, Foreign Exchange, before he went abroad to work for the big banksters... Merrill Lynch amongst them, but with close associations to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Paul Warburg, and the US FED, where he was the ONLY non-US-born ADVISER to Khazarian Jew and AshkeNAZI FED boss, Alan Greenspan. Key advised the FED from 1999-2001. He was "planted" back here in NZ in 2002 when he joined the National Party and by 2005 he was in the Front Benches !! NOBODY does that in politics. He joined the Nats in the same year as "Mr Fix-it" Steven Joyce, formerly in Broadcasting the Khazarian AshkeNAZI propaganda, spewed out by the US "News" corporations - who LOVE feeding the Goyim fiction. Key himself is a Khazarian AshkeNAZI Jew... btw. ALL WHITE JEWS come from Khazaria... modern-day Ukraine... which is why there's been hell to pay in the Ukraine during 2014 with the US-AshkeNAZIs hijacking of the legitimate Ukraine government, the introduction of HEBREW as the Ukraine's second official language, and a "Fast Track" migrations department dealing with Ukraine-State of Israel ONLY so that the Khazarian AshkeNAZIs can start returning to their TRUE homeland, now that the world KNOWS they have NO RIGHTS in Palestine/ Canaan. NONE whatsoever. Khazarian AshkeNAZIs are the WORST of LIARS and will tell the Goyim ANYTHING. Of course, they're ALLOWED to LIE to the Goyim and rip them off in any way possible... Because it's ALL written there in the Talmud !! It's quite a history... And yeah... Our Man "John Key" is right in there amongst it... But WE SEE HIM... And WE The People are bringing them ALL DOWN !! I AM committed to Smashing Babylon. Enough Sacrificial Baby-raping and blood-drinking of the Goyim!! It ENDS NOW !!!!

    http://ritualabuseinvestigations.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/jewish-occult-rites-child-and-baby.html
    http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/a-second-israel-in-ukraine-by-wayne.html
    http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/putin-defies-west-part-6.html
    http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/child-baby-sacrifice-sex-slavery.html
    http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/english-children-say-wednesday-is-big.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Russian mother of the two children in the last link (above) and her partner are taking steps to get her two children back from the Blood Sacrifice cult in London England that was uncovered at their SCHOOL, in September 2014. That's why all this business with John Key cuts right to the bone with me... Because it's ALL based in the Cult of Molech... the Baby Eater... and the Cult of Molech is ALL a part of the Jewish Babylonian Talmud cult - blood sacrifice cult. There's plenty of evidence and links for you to follow above and on this blog, to show you the horrors of the way these Khazarian AshkeNAZIs think about the Goyim !! This IS the "big story" of the "DARK SIDE" of politics in New Zealand... and not so many people know how our Prime Minister John Key is related to the whole Babylonian story. Grizzly business indeed !! Key is just another Muppet being used by the AshkeNAZI mob bosses in their efforts to subdue every last little scrap of Goyim (non-Jewish) territory, anywhere on planet earth - including Papatuanuku !! But the GAME is UP NOW !! We SEE the game. We SEE the game... We SEE the game. Too late !! The cat is well and truly OUT of the bag !! We SEE YOU !!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi
    While I agree with the stance against changing the flag, the TPPA and other crap things our current Government are doing, there's no actual Bill of Rights Act pass in NZ in 1981. Just so you know. The closest I found in http://www.legislation.govt.nz/ is the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there, thanks for your comment. I'm not sure what the authors are referring to either when they refer to the Bill of Rights (1981). I'm seeking clarification now on this.

      Delete
  7. The law discussed here is nearly entirely wrong. Changing the flag does not impact constitutional arrangements in any way. Parliament is still supreme and sovereign. This doesn’t depend on our status as a constitutional monarchy. They can still pass any law they like. It appears you assume changing the flag will mean we will become a republic. However, the two do not necessarily correlate.

    Assuming you are actually talking about the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, this act is an ordinary statute. Parliament can amend or repeal it without any special procedures, as parliament is supreme. In no way would changing a flag impact the validity of NZBORA. Even if we became a republic, this wouldn’t impact parliamentary supremacy and sovereignty and hence NZBORA.
    Currently, the Executive (ie government) can sign treaties without parliamentary permission, despite a parliamentary process to follow, though ratifying the treaty via statute might be problematic. Changing the flag or becoming a republic wouldn’t alter this.

    I’m happy to contest your insinuations of judicial bias (see Elias CJ) and the effects of TPPA if you like, but that isn’t relevant to flag changing. A new flag doesn’t impact parliamentary power in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi there, I see you provide no references for your claims. I am seeking clarification from the authors regarding the Bill of Rights (1981). I'm not sure which act they refer to. Have you any references to back up what you're saying re: NZBORA? These are not MY "insinuations" as i'm not the author of this article, merely the medium of publication. I see you still provide no references re: flag changes and parliamentary power. It sounds to me like you're quoting what the talking heads taught you at University, without actually looking into it yourself. Thanks.

      Delete
  8. Your anonymous friend is completely correct. You can see all the Acts of Parliament that were passed in 1981 by searching by year on the Parliamentary Counsel Office website: http://legislation.govt.nz/act/results.aspx?search=y_act_2015_1981_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1

    The NZ Bill of Rights Act is not the same as the US Bill of Rights in that theirs is constitutional, whereas ours is merely a statute. It was amended as recently as 2011. It's also not mandatory - a feature many constitutional lawyers find poor - and many Government bills, under the Key Government, have received adverse BORA reports from the Attorney General but been passed anyway.

    Law is law, regardless of whether you learned it at university or on the mean streets. If you are going to publish material about the law, you need to know what that is, instead of quoting what some talking head on another website taught you. As publisher, you are as legally liable for the content as the original author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How incorrect you are... This is the author's True and Honest Opinion. You're correct in saying that some of the detail is wrong. I've asked the authors for further clarification. They WILL Learn the rigors demanded of needing to publish absolutely EXACT and referenced articles through this experience. I looked at the Postman article where quite a lot of their thinking comes from apparently... and even Postman, as well followed as he is, REALLY SUCKS on his referencing and throwing out claims based on the smell of a hot fart. I think for these authors, this might be a steep learning curve. Thank you for your comment nz lemming.

      Delete
    2. btw. I am not quoting some talking head (was that an echo ?? unoriginal at best) on another website, neither have I been "taught" by them. This is a private article leaked by third party on social media. The work was published with the permission of the original authors once I tracked them down.

      Delete
  9. Here is an extract from the authors to back up their article.
    I have requested a link as a reference and to provide an author as the original source.
    Thank you.

    Definition: "Due Authority."

    Holder has the capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. If Holder is an entity, Holder is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its organization, and Holder has all necessary power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby by Holder have, if Holder is an entity, been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of Holder, and, assuming its due authorization, execution and delivery by said entity constitutes a valid and binding obligation of Holder, enforceable against Holder in accordance with its terms, except to the extent that its enforceability may be subject to applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium and similar laws affecting the enforcement of creditors’ rights generally and by equitable principles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the reference to "Due Authority" above. Thanks for your patience : )

      http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/FiberTower_(FTWR)/Due_Authority

      Delete
  10. The flag is a symbol, nothing more. It does not change the constitution or authority of the crown.

    Of the 16 constitutional monarchies with Elizabeth II as queen, only 4 have the Union Jack on their flags.

    Aus, NZ, Canada, etc also had the UJ on their flags before becoming constitutional monarchies - when they were colonies and/or dominions. Due Authority? I have no idea, but not democracy, not until much later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to see your Sources to back up your claims R.R.
      Thanks for your comment : )

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.