Draft Material intended for the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J
O.H.M.S?
DEMOCRATIC
VOTE
4
Equity
Cheaper!!!
Electricity”
Your Heritage
VOTE TO ENABLE THE (non government) MINISTRY OF DEVELOPED INVESTMENT SECURITY TO REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS IN SECURING AND FREEHOLDING PROPERTY RESULTANT FROM THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF NEW ZEALANDERS…… Equity
SAVINGS!!!
Starting with no GST component to your electricity
SO BEGINNING FOR ALL - LESS 12.5% gst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nzlaws@kol.co.nz
modis@kol.co.nz
Ministry DevelopedInvestment Security
“Electricity without G.S.T”?...
J-> Can-do!
As taxpayers + user payers you invested in a variety of properties intended to bring you electricity- property!
One OBVIOUS but reasonable expectation of any investor in property would be that such property- could, at some time in the future…
be paid off, (with proper accounting to that effect) leaving maintenance, development/improvements etc as the remaining ethical outgoing costs associated
with receiving the benefits from such mutual investments in property.
If as a Shareholder Investor in this National Resource you feel you have been or continue to be ripped off by power supply companies
(Creative accounting) selling you that which you, and previous generations already helped pay for, and if you choose- in this democracy (?)
to vote- to pay your power account (intending such payment to freehold the property) via the
Kiwi bank account… MODIS 38-9005-0953952-00
The Ministry of Developed Investment Security
The Ministry would be unable to add G.S.T to your account as revenue would be considered to be a
Metered Drawing or- “calling in” of capital … against your shareholding... This offer is available to all NZ citizens and residents
intent on citizenship
It is the intention of the Ministry of “Developed Investment Security” to re-secure any other alienated interests or other such valuable securities in properties
- on the behalf of the original investors, their descendants, future generations and provide open accounting with regard to the dispatch of revenue.
This ministry and/or any offer made by this ministry does not apply to business usage of Electricity- it is the intention of the Ministry to ensure that any reasonable
costs incurred in getting the property to your current NZ address is met
The Ministry is offering to cap power charges for those NZ born citizens over:
65yrs of age (Years of paid up/investment security)
Is offering a 5% discount against the current charges- on top of the no
G.S.T factor – as a consideration for the years of Contributions and
Support for investments of mutual needs- from which we all gain
Heritage
A ….. “Thank you”….
75+yrs of age
Is increasing the offer to 10% discount against the current charges on top
of the no GST- for the same reasons- with interest…… it should have been free
These over 65 offers- apply to NZ born citizens and those bought into the country as citizens under the legal age to vote and those having worked and/or lived in NZ
for 25 years having reached 65
The Ministry intends to offer Free or near to Free electricity to non commercial publicly funded Schools and Hospitals, Fire Brigade etc as an ethical expression of
Consideration – or the “benefits intended from mutual investment in property”
Lest you Forgot
Note : - This operation is Non Political ………… It relates to “Property Law” and “The Reasonable Rights and Expectations of Investors in Property- (law enforcement?)
A little help from a friend?
****************
HOW TO
Firstly in the interests of fair business it is necessary to inform your current supplier of any changes to your present agreement and request a final meter reading, Some companies will charge up to $60 to send a meter reader out for this specifically- if so it might be wisest to inform them that “at the next meter reading- due to an apparent change of ownership you request that reading to be a final reading”
Contact the non governmental Ministry which will supply you with a form requiring pertinent identifying details and it would help to have a copy of your last invoice available-
Note
This Ministry is not yet created- it will be done so as the result of your positive Votes
Contact
modis@kol.co.nz
nzlaws@yahoo.com
**************************
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
Privatisation is the term used to transfer the “equity” created by taxpayer investments to private alternative advantages… the Crimes Act would define the process- if performed without the contribution of government as “using documents for pecuniary advantage?” .. Creative Accounting of this nature is apparently not restricted to
However consider just some of the advantages for government in “crossing the line” with regard to property in just one example rather than focusing on the general (criminal) activities
Electricity (background)
Several generations of taxpayers contributed to the assets and interests that bring us our
Electricity which can be measured and therefore is a tangible property [note “Crimes act 1961... Section 2 interpretation/property (note-bottom of page)]
The property was paid for by the taxpayer and it would be reasonable to state that it is therefore taxpayer’s property?
How did purchased property become a “service” consequentially incurring additional costs-
Bringing additional Advantage to government coffers= profits plus GST?
To suggest that there should be a difference in the manner which individuals elected to serve in positions of trust “with regard to property” should “account” to the “owners of” and the “investors in”- such properties because of the word “politics” displays the laughing matter that reflects on behavior- which we sometimes define by way of laws
What gender, ethnic/religious background or political preference would be required to flick the light switch on? --- Property law- as in “investors in property?
Why is it that the original investors needed “cosmetic” competition (organized by those entrusted by the election process to administrate such investments) in supplying electricity when they (the investors) already owned - note Crimes act 1961 section 243(money laundering)???
How much additional income is the government achieving by “tweaking out” the investors valuable securities or is it those interests that are now funding (pyramid type) corporation style (monopoly game?) Salary packages? +GST- note Crimes Act 1961 section242 (false statement by promoter)/section 243(money laundering)
If the chauffer (without mandate) sold the family car to the local taxi service so that your property was now someone else’s (without consent) why would you require the services of a chauffer any longer as you would now pay another driver per ride + GST?- um- since when could the chauffer sell the family car?
As the responsibilities of administrating public investments have now reduced (privatisation) one would presume the amount of responsibility attributed to elected positions of trust would also be diminished and consequently remunerations?
**********
EXPOSING ORGANISED CRIME
Most adult Behavior Patterns identified, as “Crimes” are “Property” related. The following material is intended to expose a serious offence or series of same
To expose the crime we first identify some of the Property relevant to the offence and familiarize ourselves with the language of the Judicial Processes
UNDERSTANDING THE PRINCIPLES IN LAW WHICH RELATE TO THE PROPERTY CRIME
Section 243 [Money laundering] of the Crimes Act 1961 recognizes the following as meanings:
“Interest”, in relation to property, means –
(a) A legal or equitable estate or interest in the property: or
(b) A right, power, or privilege in connection with the property
“Property”, means real or personal property of any description, whether situated
in
includes an Interest in any such real or personal property
First identified are the properties and interests of significant concern and briefly outline the history of it, but for obvious reasons I will not be itemizing everything – we have taxpayer funded accountants that have already done so????
The right to the benefit of the “profit a prendre” (Latin) is part of the inheritance of the NZ legal system, and put simply into English reflects the interests relevant to: e.g.;
A man planting a field of corn and reasonably expecting the returns from the
harvest (the fruits of his labor) rather than having another, or others, coming in
and harvesting the crop then proceeding to charge him + GST, if he wanted some of the
corn.
Possibly the easiest interpretation of the interest in property established in law would be one reasonable expectation of investors in property or right to the benefit of/from the profit of a crop, which would probably extend to or include the right to determine the type of profit anticipated, as in:-
He may have planted the corn hoping on seed for future crops. Either way the right is an established principle in that which is promulgated in laws- and is the significant reason for people to invest in property or businesses.
IDENTIFYING SHARED PROPERTY AND INTERESTS
History
So consider generations of NZ “humans”(not artificial identities such as corporate) co-operating?, and making concessions intended for the Mutual Benefit to establish Human Service Resources such as communication, electricity, roading, cultured forestry, etc. Mostly put in place by soldiers (compulsory volunteered?) returning from active service, or the families of same and- that of those- that didn’t return …
All being one family or species biologically hence Human Service Resources of course the structures entrusted with the administration of “the fruits of the Nations people’s labours” were Ministries [which would best be described as administrative trusts?]
The people would have to trust that honour was a discipline practiced by the “elected” administrators of properties and that such transients to the office of said administrations were “not elected to own” (the difference in meaning between “own” and “administrate” being known to all parties)– that was then
Such ministries operations probably would have included various moral and ethical obligations (accountability?). So concepts of ownership didn’t need to apply if honour was present at the Crowns level of administration of the interests- unless sovereignty was being challenged? (corporate republic?)
One would probably be forgiven for presuming that in relation to the properties-
That once the various expenses or costs had been paid, the then, freehold properties or assets provide for a comparatively cheap infrastructure/resource, and as time proceeded only maintenance costs would remain plus reasonable allowance for improvements .
However a profit was added which was applied (most presumed?) to finance other mutually beneficial services such as education
and healthcare or a relatively stable? Equity base (remember those pre-mentioned moral, legal and ethical obligations???).
So the “Right” to the benefit of the “profit a prendre” was a Property that all enjoyed in relationship to the assets, and the interests in the assets themselves was a Property resultant from investments, contributions of labor, taxation (compulsory contributions?) and other concessions
It is likely that the prime considerations then were not for some potentially “retailable administrative structure” as being a related “property” as with corporations (remember honor & trust?) but rather the focus of attention would have been on actually producing
the assets which provided the Property(/services). (“Builders” not retailers)
Certainly the other significant piece of Property- alienated, transferred or otherwise corrupted by the adult? Behavior pattern identified as Criminal activity [and often shrouded by the word politics? - creating an alternative conveyance of interests or benefits], would be the right to have some say as to whom will administrate[not own,(and the form of administration)] of the various geographically relevant ( to both the electoral and legal jurisdictions) investments properties/resources contracted through the election process-
(Vote)
.
***********
Exposing the organized Criminal activity using “The Crimes Act 1961” as a reference tool
Hopefully by now there should be little doubt that within the promulgated (Crimes act 1961?) reference material discussed, that several rights to property were present and that all New Zealanders shared in the benefits.
However, “The Crimes Act 1961
[Crimes involving deceit]
Section
240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception
242 False statement by promoter, etc
243 Money laundering
260 False accounting
These sections alone would appear to shout (not suggest) that a serious crime has occurred when public servants (without mandate, consideration or consent) changed, altered or omitted to account for such valuable securities, properties or interests so as to convey alternatively or $electively (defraud or disenfranchise).
It is clear that these servants of the people contracted to the structure identified as the Crown should have known better “The Crimes Act 1961 Section 25 Ignorance of law” is not a defense
It is also clear that “The Crimes Act 1961 Section 116 Conspiring to defeat justice” would best describe the outcome of the activity but Law Enforcement would be subject to “The Crimes Act 1961 Section 408”Act to bind the Crown
That is presuming that “Bind” is intended to be interpreted as “Compel or Impose Obligations or Duty upon” rather than the medical condition known as constipation? [“Constitutional” Doo Doo’s? (structural integrity?)]
or perhaps the “Bind” means that the crown is “Bound” to behave in a manner defined as criminal- as per the act? (Such “Bind” being (yet another) false statement by promoter? L? Crimes Act 1961 Section 242)
Interesting that the offenders operate from positions of trust that enables them to determine if they are to be prosecuted and they get to
choose the top judges etc
***************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection from the Crimes Act 1961
Google -> NZ statutes : acts/
Crimes Act 1961/Interpretation/Property
Property includes real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real or personal property, [money, electricity,] and any debt, and any thing in action, and any other right or interest:
116
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice [in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction].
____________________________________________________________________________
C
Crimes Act 1961
[Part 10] [Crimes against rights of property] (s 217 to s 305)
[Crimes involving deceit]
[240
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(a)
(i)
(ii) is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
(b)
(c)
Compare: 1961 No 43 ss 246, 247, 270
242
1)
a)
(b)
(c)
(2)
(a)
(b)
Note: (As with the Bind on “Crown”) Section 242 false statement by promoter etc- The wording appears clear and I could find no clause in this section of the act that would grant privilege to the Crown such as found in other sections of the Crimes act- : for example
[Crimes involving deceit] Section 240 Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception… In which there is that little clause regarding “Claim of Right” (i.e.; we are just following procedures)L
[Money laundering]
[243
(1)
conceal, in relation to property, means to conceal or disguise the property; and includes, without limitation,—
(a)
(b)
deal with, in relation to property, means to deal with the property in any manner and by any means; and includes, without limitation,—
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
interest, in relation to property, means—
(a)
(b)
proceeds, in relation to a serious offence, means any property that is derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of the offence
property means real or personal property of any description, whether situated in
serious offence means an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more; and includes any act, wherever committed, that, if committed in
(2)
3)
(a)
(b)
(4)
(a)
(b)
5)
a)
(b)
(6)
[260
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who, with intent to obtain by deception any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, or to deceive or cause loss to any other person,—
(a)
(b)
(c)
Compare: 1961 No 43 ss 251-254
_______________________Unto God_________________________________________________
