XPost: nz.politics

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_medium=
mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b
It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_medium=

mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b

It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is >tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

So the Court is defending sanctity of contract - I can understand why
that is anathema to the Chairman of the NZ Initiative and to Basset,
Brash and Hide . . .

I have often wondered why Richard Prebble is not part of that group -
it will be interesting to see if he is still thinking, and how he
views such politically motivated stupidity as a newly appointed member
of the Waitangi Tribunal.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_medium=

mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b

It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is >>tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

So the Court is defending sanctity of contract - I can understand why
that is anathema to the Chairman of the NZ Initiative and to Basset,
Brash and Hide . . .

No, you are wrong and you are doing what you always do - defending the indefensible.

I have often wondered why Richard Prebble is not part of that group -
it will be interesting to see if he is still thinking, and how he
views such politically motivated stupidity as a newly appointed member
of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Irrelevant sarcastic garbage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 10:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_medium=

mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b

It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is >>tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

So the Court is defending sanctity of contract

No - it is declaring that the principle of extinguished property
rights for those now deceased no longer exists it seems.

- I can understand why
that is anathema to the Chairman of the NZ Initiative and to Basset,
Brash and Hide . . .

This is relevant? How? Insulting those you oppose is the last resort
- when you can no longer sustain your point of view.

I have often wondered why Richard Prebble is not part of that group -
it will be interesting to see if he is still thinking, and how he
views such politically motivated stupidity as a newly appointed member
of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Who is 'he is still thinking'?


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:47:45 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 16:46:59 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 10:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_

medium=mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b

It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is >>>>tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

So the Court is defending sanctity of contract

No - it is declaring that the principle of extinguished property
rights for those now deceased no longer exists it seems.

- I can understand why
that is anathema to the Chairman of the NZ Initiative and to Basset, >>>Brash and Hide . . .

This is relevant? How? Insulting those you oppose is the last resort
- when you can no longer sustain your point of view.

I have often wondered why Richard Prebble is not part of that group -
it will be interesting to see if he is still thinking, and how he
views such politically motivated stupidity as a newly appointed member
of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Who is 'he is still thinking'?

See: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-02-2021/richard-prebble-ive-been-thinking-about-ive-been-thinking-25-years-on
(and for Tony's benefit, Prebble believes that he moved from the left
to the right . . . .

Ahhh - OK.Perhaps you are still considering a response to other parts
of my post.


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 16:46:59 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 10:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_

medium=mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b

It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is >>>tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

So the Court is defending sanctity of contract

No - it is declaring that the principle of extinguished property
rights for those now deceased no longer exists it seems.

- I can understand why
that is anathema to the Chairman of the NZ Initiative and to Basset,
Brash and Hide . . .

This is relevant? How? Insulting those you oppose is the last resort
- when you can no longer sustain your point of view.

I have often wondered why Richard Prebble is not part of that group -
it will be interesting to see if he is still thinking, and how he
views such politically motivated stupidity as a newly appointed member
of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Who is 'he is still thinking'?

See: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-02-2021/richard-prebble-ive-been-thinking-about-ive-been-thinking-25-years-on
(and for Tony's benefit, Prebble believes that he moved from the left
to the right . . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 16:46:59 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 10:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:45:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_

medium=mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b

It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is >>>>tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

So the Court is defending sanctity of contract

No - it is declaring that the principle of extinguished property
rights for those now deceased no longer exists it seems.

- I can understand why
that is anathema to the Chairman of the NZ Initiative and to Basset, >>>Brash and Hide . . .

This is relevant? How? Insulting those you oppose is the last resort
- when you can no longer sustain your point of view.

I have often wondered why Richard Prebble is not part of that group -
it will be interesting to see if he is still thinking, and how he
views such politically motivated stupidity as a newly appointed member
of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Who is 'he is still thinking'?

See: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/07-02-2021/richard-prebble-ive-been-thinking-about-ive-been-thinking-25-years-on
(and for Tony's benefit, Prebble believes that he moved from the left
to the right . . . .

Well if he believes that then he is wrong, he is at most centre right - there is no right wing in this government and very little in our political spectrum. However, there is plenty of extreme left - the watermelon party for instance.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-11-04, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/roger-partridge-can-the-dead-own-property-our-supreme-court-just-said-yes-in-nikora-v-kruger?postId=151fc7af-4ab2-4115-8f2f-4c01ec15ed01&utm_campaign=d1f27818-1baa-4e0d-bf46-f8ac1994c093&utm_source=so&utm_medium=

mail&utm_content=761384ff-2887-4761-b726-6a053b84fe64&cid=fcd0df4b-5de5-4aa8-b04d-2e46f8bd660b

It seems the court has taken a very large step beyond precedent and is tinkering with laws. Judicial overreach? I think so.

This attitude is starting to spread. Some people what a power grab under the illusion that it is better for the world/country.

The USA has the situatuion of where the theory of the "Deep State" exists
where the Dems are accused of stacking the DOJ act on their behalf. (The Surpreme Court is perhaps the counter situation.

Anyhow, if we come back to the principle of democracy, it is the People who have the say. They delegate their powers to the Government and the Public Servants do as instructed by the Government.

It is unworkable for any section of the Public Servants to do as they see
fit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)