In this post I share four recent events where I have encountered justifications that are based on immorality; people in power utilising it for nefarious purposes – the local council, crooked cops, a lying neighbour and a local legal firm. All actions appear on the surface to be justified but seeing the ‘other side’ of the equation brings proper balance. As always it is pride that is the root cause of these ‘difficulties’. Enjoy, and learn.
People do not like their position challenged, especially if they have a position of power over their challenger. In these four examples, you can see defensiveness, manifested in different ways, despite the root cause (pride) being the same. Please use these recent examples as lessons for life. You could also call this post, “How to Piss those in Power off so that they Hate You Forever [until you marry their daughter that is!]”
- A ‘crooked’ cop Sam Edwards came to my home recently after receiving an emergency call from a local builder Josh Hawkless. I know this because Josh made the call from my property right in front of me! He had claimed that I had stolen his scrap steel and demanded it back then and there. I told him, “No! It was given to me by my neighbour, so it’s now mine.” Anyway the first thing I told Sam was that we had a civil dispute. The second thing I said was that I would cooperate but that I wanted to do everything in writing and that I did not want to say anything. He accepted that this was my right under the BORA but then when he asked why I wouldn’t answer his questions I explained that it was a civil case and that I had a habit of pissing people off in these types of situations. I didn’t want an argument. So the fool argued, of course. Threatening that “I have no hesitation to arrest you for theft!” doesn’t go down well with yours truly, sorry to say. To cut a long story short, he had already ‘determined’ that a crime had been committed, did a few jiggery pokery things, got a Search Warrant, hooked the disputed scrap steel out while I wasn’t home and then charged me with “Obtaining by Deception”. It pissed him off even more that he couldn’t charge me with theft because the neighbour agreed that he had given me permission to take it! So the criminal system can and will no doubt handle the matter in due course. Whatever!
- John Ingley entrusted a bunch of money to a local lawyer Laal Bhuller to publish his book I Fed the Baby. FBS doesn’t even have their own website/URL so I can’t point you to him but Ferguson Bhuller Scott does exist, believe me please! Anyway we’re back in the 2020’s now and we did the work and sought clarity on what to do and how to publish. The surviving children couldn’t agree on what, how, when for over a year so Ron Cooke and I did the needful, knowing what the client/researcher wanted. We did the honourable thing by John but in the process I ended up $2,671.00 out of pocket and eventually had to combat angry women telling us to stop it all. You’d think I was the biggest arsehole under the sun chasing this money and trying to do what their father wanted done . . . “You this!” “You that!” The total dysfunction within the family makes me sick and John will be turning in his grave watching it all unfold. What’s worse though, much worse is that despite Laal knowing what John’s wishes were, he can “only do what the executors instruct him to do”. OMG!
UPDATE: 09:20am 28 September 2021: Fully paid-up overnight. Thank you, Laal.
- The local council has pinged me $800.00 for a couple of my dogs that apparently went wandering a couple of weeks ago. The after hours guy Bryan turned up on my doorstep Sunday night a couple of weeks ago saying that Covey and Bibi had gone walkies and that I better keep then tied up unless I wanted another $200.00 fine, per dog that is. Long story short, they impounded them a couple of days later, so now I’m up for $800.00 apparently – ouch. That hurts.
- A neighbour of mine Laurie Bull defamed me, more than once that I know of telling people that “I ripped off Ron Cooke”. The reverse is actually the case as I have helped Ron hugely over the last few years and at great personal expense too, so I sought to get to the bottom of the gossip. Laurie wouldn’t tell me who had told him the gossip (which tells me that it was probably him who generated the BS), expressed his ‘disappointment’ that I would cause him problems, tried to preach to me about forgiveness, challenged the credibility of my [back then] only source, then played the ‘but we’re all Christians’ card then finally when he confessed that, well, there was “no need to meet”, because he “might have said something” when I informed him that I would go to the next stage and bring the informant and gossip-merchant together. So I arranged a meeting with Laurie and Ron so that the matter could be cleared up. “No!” Ron explained, “Dennis has not ripped [him] me off!” But of course Laurie hadn’t said anything bad in the first place had he? Well according to Laurie’s take at least. More BS and denials! Oh great!
Each example here has different lessons for us. The first example is one of a cop exercising what I call “bad faith policing”. I didn’t explain this above but this can be best understood as the abuse of authority. When I returned from walking my dogs down at Cherry Grove I found the lock on the gate had been broken. When Sam phoned me to tell me that he had repossessed the disputed scrap steel I asked him why he had broken the lock. His reply said it all, “Because I could!” He explained that his Search Warrant allowed him to use force to break in. Umm hang on a minute. You had my phone number. You knew that I was cooperative, but you never phoned me? I was only a minute or two away but you broke in? On top of that he tried to twist the case into a criminal one when it was clearly a civil matter, which incidentally was already before the civil courts AND the crooked cop knew that too! What a goose!
The same thing applies to the lawyer Laal. He knew and knows John’s wishes – to publish his book. He was John’s lawyer entrusted with substantial funds to achieve this goal and John had never, ever not paid an account from or for Ron Cooke – in nigh on a decade! So, Laal’s not going to provide advice to the dysfunctional family? WTF? I know this is the case because Laal told me this himself, despite him later getting involved in publication matters. Saying “Oh, I’m just paying the bills!” is a cop-out and not what John wanted! IMHO it’s all bureaucratic justification and immoral.
Bureaucratic justification for a bad attitude is also seen in the Ruapehu District Council’s response to a dog issue. Trust me, this is not a “poor me” from Dennis for dogs that went walkies and got impounded, it is a commentary on the justification of decision-making when a mate of mine went down to the council to pay to get the dogs released but couldn’t. Unbeknowest to me he went down to the council on Wednesday to pay the release fees. Nice guy eh? But, “Sorry, we can’t take your money because of the Privacy Act rules”. I didn’t know about this until after the event, by which time it was too late. Ummm, hang on guys, let’s understand this again . . . a man walks in there to pay the fees to give me my dogs back and you don’t even give me the courtesy of a phone call to check whether it is ok or not to take his money? Hello? Anybody home?
In these first three examples there is at least some form of justification, albeit morally dodgy. Bad faith policing and abuse of authority can be shown by other things but breaking in (forcing entry) is permitted under the Search Warrant so Sam can probably get away with that one in a court of law. Likewise Laal’s justification – legally he’s in the clear, even though morally I reckon that John would ‘have his guts for garters’ and would give him a piece of his mind. The council too, while they’ve got an attitude can cover their arse. They do not have to legally accept my mate’s money, even though good faith enforcement would cause them to attempt to fix the problem. I know that they wanted my dogs and did all they could to avoid talking with me face-to-face. Anyone got a phone and 30 seconds in order to check it’s all OK? Nope, let’s all run for cover and spend 20 minutes checking that we all have our arses covered shall we – that way we can get back at Dennis by taking his dogs – again! Idiots.
The last example is actually a little different in that despite Laurie Bull’s attempts at justifying his decisions by way of preaching, emotional manipulation and so on, the bottom line is that he just got caught out defaming and then lying about it. There’s no justification legally or morally for defaming someone then lying, although in his mind there may be some warped sense of justice because I am trouble, or whatever. He’d be toast in court though, if the truth ever came out.
The Two Laws
So there is clearly a difference between the moral law and the law of the land. Regardless of the right or wrong of the individual above matters we know that sometimes things are not right. Sometimes we are forced into actions, thoughts or saying things that we don’t want to or that don’t feel right. Why do we all have to wear masks? None of us actually want to, and many of us don’t believe the BS from the people ‘at the top’. Why is it that some of Orwell’s pigs are more equal than the others?
The reason is that while there are many laws, there are in essence only two types of laws – God’s laws and man’s laws. One is the moral law. The other is the law of the land. With that latter law, people engineer themselves into positions of power and lord it over others. George Orwell tried to explain this in his book Animal Farm where the pigs took it upon themselves to rule the other animals. The deception is that they say, “We are all equal!” but the hidden reality contains the sting, “But some of us are [a teensy wheency little bit] more equal than the others”. That’s always pride.
Rest assured that once that power is gained, it is ALWAYS used and self-perpetuates. Its first task that authority has is to justify itself, to defend. That’s why bureaucracy bloats. It’s also why truth speakers are so hated and targeted so much. Those who have the potential to lose their own power hate anything or anyone who either challenge or who have the potential to challenge their power. Political Correctness is used to increase that power. Common sense, truth and integrity is hated and suppressed.
The first law however, the moral law, is “written on our hearts”. In a Christian sense it is called “the God Law”. At the end of time, assuming that there is a Creator, we will be accountable to Him, regardless of whether we have spent our life in or in and out of jail, or whether we have avoided incarceration. Jesus taught a most incredible truth, that we commit adultery in the mind, even if we do not commit the act. Likewise it is the coveting equally as the act of theft that will be assessed at the end of time. This then is the good law upon which the laws of the land base their laws. Stealing is illegal and listed as a crime in the crimes act BECAUSE it is written into our hearts as wrong to covet.
Democracy is the means by which justification of immorality is brought about. This can be seen most easily by asking how homosexuality and prostitution became legal. The 51% engineered a deceptive change in public opinion so that the 49% needed to comply. The percentages used here simply demonstrate a point.
While the people mentioned above may have a legal right to exercise force, a higher law exists, something that when our consciences are not seared, we instinctively recognise to be “right” or fair. I got charged for doing nothing wrong – according to common sense. It would have only been a simple courtesy extended by RDC to initiate a phone call when my mate was standing at the council counter trying to gift me the return of my dogs. “Come on girls! Dad would not have held back this man’s money for three years!” was all that Laal could have said, but didn’t.
Were they wrong not to do the moral thing? Not legally because they could justify their actions in a bureaucratic manner but morally, yeah, in my mind all three of these dudes are crooks. A judge exercising may find that an act is morally right, but legally wrong, then using his discretion find an accused guilty by the law but pass no sentence.
Likewise a judge may find that an act is morally repugnant (even wrong) but not illegal or perhaps not worthy of action. Most of the time I do this as a blogger, passing up on the activism that attempts to bring judgment. I do this in the case of the RDC & the lawyer’s conduct. The crooked cop will get his comeuppance, one day, from me or elsewhere if I’m no longer around. I know this because the Lord says that He will stand up for those that stand up for Him. I do. He will.
I find the sovereignty movement interesting in that a large part of the focus offshore has been the significance of the US corporation and its recent demise but little is spoken of the alternative laws. To my way of thinking democracy and anarchy are two extremes that both err. The correct and biblical approach is to transcend the power game altogether. It is when we substitute the laws of the land for the Moral Law that we gain wisdom – which I define as knowing the heart and mind of God in a given situation. Rejecting the Queen as a Head of State for self-rule (which the Maori Sovereignty movement appears to do) is easier to do than to replace our allegiance (and worship) of the Queen and her laws of the land with a higher law, one that actually requires a higher standard of living. Sovereignty as a form of rebellion is easier and lazier than taking a dedicated, faith-filled action to stand for a higher law, a tougher law.
I’ll go with the biblical version please . . .
This matter will likely become “red hot” on the 6th October 2021 when I will be claiming exactly this in my first criminal appearance before the New Zealand criminal court. Basically unless I agree to it (which I do not) a New Zealand criminal court will utilise the threat of force to judge me, an innocent self-professed Man of God. I have to appear in court on that date to face a crooked accuser and his entourage of legal crooks or I could face arrest. That’s force, or a threat of force. Seeing as I have never pledged allegiance to the Queen, nor to the Crown or the NZ Government (indeed I do not even vote) and I have pledged my allegiance to Jesus way back in February 1979, and seeing as my word is my bond, I simply cannot accept the Queen’s representative judging me. Crooked cops aside for a minute and any defense I may have before the criminal court, it seems to me that things are a little skew-wiff here – yes?
IMHO if the judge is a man of honour, he will indeed agree that if the matter progresses, the matter will therefore be progressing under duress. If he ‘bullies’ me by way of threat of arrest through contempt of court then of course I will defend myself as well as sharing my experiences here. If on the other hand he agrees that by having committed my life to a higher authority than his, then he has no jurisdiction to judge me – so be it. I place my fate in the hands of the Creator – one who I believe holds ultimate decision-making over my fate.
Two laws . . . the first is the law of the land . . . the second however sets the groundwork for the first. The former only gains (and retains) its authority through voluntary compliance, deception and force. The second gains its authority because if has come from the Creator. My choice is to submit only to the latter.
Thanks for swinging by again today. Check back later to see how things are going eh?