Neuseeland: habeas corpus out?

Please enable images for the best reading experience.

October 15, 2018
Bahia Beach, Puerto Rico

On June 15, 1215, King John sat in a field in Runnymede, England, surrounded by angry nobles.

His Barons—the big landowners throughout England—had rebelled and seized London, forcing King John to sign an agreement guaranteeing certain rights to the people of England… and restrictions of his power.

This agreement was called the Magna Carta. And it would become one of the most important documents in history.

Centuries later in 1678, Charles II was King of England. Like many kings, Charles was terrible with money.

And when he ran out of it, he started demanding extra taxes from his knights, and imprisoning those who refused to pay.

The King was once again surrounded by angry nobles, this time in the Parliament building. There he signed the writ of Habeas Corpus in exchange for more money.

Best tax dollars ever spent. Habeas Corpus said that government officials could not imprison people for no good reason. Prisoners had the right to go before a judge to determine if their imprisonment was justified.

Just because the government accused you of something didn’t mean they could do whatever they wanted to you.

About a hundred years later, American colonists got fed up with the King of England once again.

The government exists to serve the people, they said. If the government wants to accuse, search, or arrest you, they better have a good reason. And they better allow you every opportunity to clear your name.

In 1791, the Bill of Rights enshrined into law the right to speak out against officials, the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

These concepts of individual rights were shaped in the UK and US. But they apply universally.

Unfortunately, some governments seem determined to erase all this progress.

If you’re traveling to New Zealand, you should be aware of the Customs and Excise Act of 2018. It just went into effect at the beginning of October.

New Zealand Customs and Border agents can now demand passwords for any electronic devices you bring into the country. They can download the entire contents of your phone or laptop, and search through it for evidence of a crime.

Agents could always search phones and laptops at the border. But now they can fine you up to $5,000 ($3,300 USD) for refusing to hand over the passwords, codes, and encryption keys to your devices.

The new law also allows Customs agents to collect biometric data from anyone entering the country. That means they can take your fingerprints, photo, or iris scans, store them, and share them.

And even worse, New Zealand’s Customs website explains:

“Making an arrest without a warrant can now be done with no limitation to timeframe.”

So now you officially have no rights at the New Zealand border.

Agents can search your electronics without cause, and fine you for refusing to give out your password. They can collect, store, and share any of your biometric data they want.

They can arrest you without a court order, and hold you for as long as they like.

It’s not like New Zealand is some third world country… They actually adopted the Habeas Corpus Act in 1881 while under British rule.

Along with the the UK, USA, Australia, and Canada, New Zealand’s legal system is part of the Western tradition. This is the legal basis, starting with the Magna Carta, that protects common people’s rights against overreaching authorities.

These countries also make up the Five Eyes intelligence alliance… They have all agreed to share secrets from their spy agencies with one another.

For a visualization of the Five Eyes Alliance, just look at a map of Oceania from George Orwell’s 1984—the dystopian classic portraying the ultimate authoritarian police state.

And unfortunately, New Zealand isn’t the only Five Eyes government acting like Big Brother—the embodiment of the omnipresent surveillance state in 1984.

Since 9/11 the US has also been searching travelers’ electronics at the border. But they kept the practice small scale for a while.

With the 9/11 terrorist attacks fresh, it didn’t really bother anyone. Anything in the name of national security…

But by 2015 Customs and Border Protection searched the electronic devices of 8,503 airline passengers throughout the year.

In 2016 it escalated to 19,033 searches.

And in 2017 Customs Agents searched the phones and laptops of 30,200 travelers.

Just like in New Zealand, agents didn’t get warrants for these searches. They didn’t even require probable cause.

In January of this year, US Customs sent out new guidance about phone and laptop searches at the border.

It says they can search anyone’s electronic devices “with or without suspicion.”

It says passengers are “obligated” to turn over their devices as well as passcodes for examination. If you refuse agents can seize the device.

That is all considered a “basic search.” No suspicion needed.

To add insult to injury, the January guidance starts, “CBP will protect the rights of individuals against unreasonable search and seizure and ensure privacy protection while accomplishing its enforcement mission.”

This is another page taken from Orwell. Doublethink. They want us to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time.

They treat everyone like a criminal, they say, to protect the innocent.

They search the innocent to protect their rights.

Habeas Corpus, the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, the rights of the accused… these are quickly becoming lost to the memory hole of history.

To your freedom,

Signature

Simon Black,
Founder, SovereignMan.com

Trump, paperwork and bureaucracy

Trump, paperwork and bureaucracy

 

“The West became great, not because of paperwork and regulations, but because people were allowed to chase their dreams and pursue their destinies.”

Donald J. Trump,
Warsaw, 6th July 2017

Must have been a long time since Mr. Trump  tried to open a simple bank account…

The gap between politicians words and reality, out of the land of compliance, FATCA etc. could not be bigger…

People allover the world are fordced to complete horribly complicated US forms, even if they open a savings account in … e.g. Pakistan and have no intention to invest in US stocks or bonds…

Namibia - einst deutsche Musterkolonie - da können heutige dt. Manager von Kaiser Wilhelm was lernen: sogar die Bremer Stadmusikanten waren schon hier.

An example: The IRS recently published new and updated Forms W-8 and corresponding instruction – click the links to see the forms… once all the forms are there, they now will request new ones as per 2018…

Form W-8IMY (Rev. June 2017) and the Instructions for Form W-8IMY were updated. The form was amended to provide additional information with regard to the QDD status of a Withholding Agent and to incorporate changes provided by the updated Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 Regulations. Withholding Agents will have to request new Forms W-8IMY starting January 1, 2018.

Form W-8BEN (Rev. July 2017) and the Instructions for Form W-8BEN were updated. The form was amended to reflect changes in Form W-8BEN-E (Rev. July 2017) and to incorporate changes introduced by new Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 Regulations. Withholding agents will have to request new Forms W-BEN starting February 1, 2018.

Form W-8BEN-E (Rev. July 2017) and the Instructions for Form W-8BEN-E were updated. The form was amended to reflect updates with the Chapter 4 statuses

• Limited FFIs and limited branches,

• Sponsored FFIs and sponsored direct reporting NFFEs, and

• Nonreporting IGA FFIs.

In addition, the form has been updated to require a non-U.S. TIN (except in certain cases) to be provided for certain foreign account holders of a financial account maintained at a U.S. office or U.S. branch of a financial institution.

Withholding agents will have to start requesting new Forms W-8BEN-E from February 1, 2018.

Form W-8ECI (Rev. July 2017) and the Instructions for Form W-8ECI were updated in order to incorporate changes introduced by new Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 Regulations. Withholding agents will have to request new Forms W-8ECI starting February 1, 2018.

Form W-8EXP (Rev. July 2017) and the Instructions for Form W-8EXP were updated in order to incorporate changes introduced by new Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 Regulations. Withholding agents will have to request new Forms W-8EXP starting February 1, 2018.

Hört auf mit Disclaimern!

Hört auf mit Disclaimern!

 

     

Spart tausende Seiten Papier

– rettet ganze Wälder –

hört auf mit E-Mail-Disclaimern!

 

Save thousands of pages

on your printers –

stop e-mail-disclaimer nonsense!

In fortschrittlichen, zivilisierten Ländern (sog. civil law countries) besteht kein vernünftiger Grund, E-Mails durch lange und komplizierte Disclaimer-Texte unproduktiv zu verlängern und für deren Ausdruck ganze Wälder abzuholzen.

In solchen Staaten ist das Recht sauber kodifiziert und  daher der Formalismus begrenzt.

Formalismus ist regelmässig ein Zeichen von Dummheit.

Übertretungen werden ganz einfach durch die bewährten Mittel des Straf- und Zivilrechts geahndet.

Der Disclaimer-Spuk ist daher dort vollkommen entbehrlich.

Es ist doch nicht mehr als eine Frage des Anstandes, versehentlich erhaltene Post weiterzuleiten und nicht zu missbrauchen!

In altmodisch-formalistischen Jurisdiktionen (sog. common law countries, wie insbesondere den USA und anderen juristischen Entwicklungsländern) wird es von der Zunft der Juristen für notwendig gehalten, unsinnige und überlange Erklärungen (sog. Disclaimer) an E-Mails anzuhängen.

Juristen sind die Totengräber der Gesellschaft (Tucholsky)

Ich erkläre hiermit durch Anbringung eines Links auf meinen Mails, dass für diese juristisch und moralisch zurückgebliebenen Mitmenschen der nachstehend wiedergegebene “Disclaimer” verbindlich ist. Für normale Leute braucht es so was nicht.

E-Mail Disclaimer (nur für Angelsachsen)

 

Die Information in dieser E-Mail-Nachricht (samt Anlagen) ist vertraulich. Die Kenntnisnahme und Verwendung der hier enthaltenen Informationen ist nur denjenigen Personen gestattet, an die diese Kommunikation adressiert ist und/oder die zur Kenntnisnahme und Verwendung dieser Daten ausdrücklich ermächtigt wurden. Sollten Sie diesem Personenkreis nicht angehören, werden Sie hiemit davon in Kenntnis gesetzt, dass jegliche Weiter- und Wiedergabe, Vervielfältigung, Verbreitung, Verwendung und/oder Handeln aufgrund des Inhalts dieser Informationen zu unterlassen ist. Sollten Sie diese Nachricht versehentlich erhalten haben, ersuchen wir Sie, uns über diesen Umstand zu unterrichten. Bitte löschen Sie dann anschliessend diese E-Mail endgültig von Ihrem System.

In modern, civilised countries (therefore also called civil law countries) there is no reason to add long and complicated disclaimers to e-mails and to waste resources therefore.

In such jurisdictions the law is codified and clear, and therefore formalism is limited.

Formalism is by definition a clear indicator for stupidity.

In fair countries with fair inhabitants offences against politeness, fairness and discretion are just punified by civil and criminal law.

Therefore the disclaimer-nonsense is absolutely not necessary in such places.

I strongly believe that it is just a matter of decorum to forward a message which has been received by error to the correct adressee and not to abuse it!

In some odd and formalistic jurisdictions (so called common law countries, like the US, the UK, and other underdeveloped parts of the world), where lawyers create avoidable work all day, people have started to add really silly declarations to their e-mails – and, crazy but true – civil law people start to copy these strange habits as they believe it is up-to-date to follow the general trend to total decadency.

Lawyers are the gravediggers to human society (Tucholsky)

To cut a long story short, I add a link to all my e-mails and hereby I declare, that for all these legally and mortaly retarded people the below declaration (“Disclaimer”) is valid in order to tell them what they should know anyway – if they were literate.

E-Mail-Disclaimer (less developed jurisdictions)

The information contained in this e-mail message (including attachments) is privileged and confidential. The information contained herein is intended solely for the use and knowledge of the individual(s) to whom this communication is addressed and/or others authorised to receive it. 

If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, use and/or taking action relating to the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. 

If you accidentally received this e-mail, kindly let us know about this. On having done so, please delete this e-mail permanently from your system.

Denk mal nach: Warum braucht es bei einem Brief, der ja auch ins falsche Postfach gelegt werden könnte, keinen Disclamer? Warum dann bei einem E-Mail? Diese Erkenntnis sollte man unbedingt für sich behalten, sonst bürgert sich der Unfug dort auch noch ein…

Why do we not add disclaimers to normal snailmail-letters, which migt end up in the wrong PO-Box or otherwise be handed over to the wrong person? Where is the logic – why is that so important on e-mails?

Die Case-Law-Seuche ist auf  den ersten Blick nicht weit verbreitet, dominiert aber doch die Weltwirtschaft…

Pin It on Pinterest