12 June 2008 – Family Integrity #398 — Silence is Golden
“Don’t Talk to the Police” by Professor James Duane
and
“Don’t Talk to the Police” by Officer George Bruch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Watch an engaging and fascinating video presentation by Professor James Duane of the Regent University School of Law, explaining why — in a criminal matter — you should never, ever, ever talk to the police or any other government agent. It doesn’t matter if you’re guilty or innocent, if you have an alibi or not — it isn’t possible for anything you say to help you, and it’s very possible that innocuous things you say will hurt you. Definitely worth half an hour of your time. Also hear a rebuttal from Virginia Beach Police Department Officer George Bruch, who says that Professor Duane is right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gidday all,
Here again at the bottom is the Stuff article proposing new powers for Police to issue safety orders on the spot (forbidding one person from going anywhere near another person, persons or place) merely on suspicion of “family violence”. Vindictive elements of society are able to wreck havoc on families of whom they “disapprove” by making anonymous tips to police without fear of “civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings” against them “unless the information was disclosed or supplied in bad faith” (CYPF Act 1989, Section 16). Such people are now defacto part of the government spy network, with unelected yet powerful bureaucrats such as Cindy Kiro publicly saying she wants to see neighbours dob each other in for mistreating their children. Problem with that, of course, is some neighbours think home education, instruction in Christianity, eating meat, not eating meat, not getting vaccinations are all acts of abuse.
The outrageous outcome of the twin murder case of the Kahuis — noone is to be charged with their torture and murder — is at the least instructive to us who feel we may be maliciously accused due to vindictive elements of society using the every-parent-is-guilty rewrite of Section 59. And the instruction is: Silence is Golden. Say nothing. Or if you say anything at all, let it be the phrase, “I have nothing to say.”
Most of us do not like this at all. I don’t like it. I prefer to believe that Truth will prevail and that our police believe and seek the same. Then I remember the Arthur Allen Thomas case, the David Bain case, the cops acquitted recently for pack rape when they were manifestly guilty of grossly immoral and unprofessional conduct at the very least. I also prefer to operate on the assumption that I have nothing to hide and welcome an inspection. (Or if I’m guilty, I am willing to face the consequences of my guilt.) But then I remember the many home educators I’ve personally dealt with who have, for whatever reason, received negative ERO reports, usually because the review officer appeared to have a bad hair day (although I’ve also witnessed straight-out anti-Christian prejudice.) Then I remember two successive top ERO staff in charge of the home schooling unit tell me, in nearly the exact same words, that they can tell within 30 seconds of entering a home whether they’ll be getting a positive or negative report…to me this speaks of a wholly subjective process based on things the ERO officer sees, senses, smells and hears rather than on the facts of the case. Then I also remember ex-Labour MP Margaret Autin telling me face-to-face that if she had it her way, home schoolers would be subject to every OSH, MoE, ERO regulation in the book because we are, in her eyes, defacto institutions! Then I remember a past MoE official, one who processed all exemptions for the lower North Island, telling me that at least 50% of the MoE staff at head office would shut all of us home educators down over night if they could.
Then I watched these two video clips, one by a lawyer, the other by a career policeman specialing in interviewing (he says they no longer use the word “interrogate”) suspects. It is American and set against the American written Constitution. Nevertheless, it clearly explains how fallible human foibles can nail innocent persons. It also explains why we have certain “rights” as citizens and yet how easily and casually we will waive those rights because of sheer ignorance and naivite.
You owe it to your family to watch this video clip and fully internalise their contents.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
***
And here are two more links from another Lawyer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZePEy7OxV9s
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsoY9VxSsIc
Regards,
Craig Smith
National Director
Family Integrity
PO Box 9064
Palmerston North
New Zealand
Ph: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
Family.Integrity@xtra.co.nz
http://www.FamilyIntegrity.org.nz
Our Home….Our Castle
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4579630a11.html
Police get new powers in domestic incidents
By BEN FAWKES – The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Police who attend suspected domestic violence incidents will have the power to issue “on the spot” safety orders lasting up to three days under tough law changes proposed by the Government.
The safety orders are part of a raft of changes announced by Justice Minister Annette King to the Domestic Violence Act and welcomed by support groups.
The safety orders would last for up to 72 hours and could be issued in circumstances where police suspected domestic violence but did not have enough evidence to make an arrest.
Other proposals include stiffening the penalties for breaching court protection orders, with a maximum penalty of up to two years jail to give judges an “appropriate sentencing range”.
“When you get problems, often deaths, it is when you get breaches of protection orders,” King said.
The courts would also be allowed to consider making protection orders on behalf of victims and access to counselling programmes for both offenders and victims will be improved.
The proposed law changes were currently being drafted and were expected to be put before Parliament within weeks, King said.
Chief Families Commissioner Rajen Prasad welcomed the proposals and said he hoped they would contribute toward a reduction in domestic violence.
“Better enforcement by the police and courts and better access to programmes will improve safety in families and encourage people to seek help to change their abusive behaviour.”
National Network of Stopping Violence national manager Brian Gardner also backed the proposals, particularly the safety orders which he said had worked well in Western Australia.
“It gets the men out of the house and gives them time to cool down and allows the victims to think about what they can do to keep safe.”
Allowing courts to impose protection orders would give financial relief to victims who he said were currently having to pay around $1500 “on a good day” to obtain a protection order, Gardner said.
But the proposals received a scathing response from the National Party, who said the Government was copying its own policies.
“We believe giving police the ability to issue on-the-spot protection orders for suspected victims of domestic violence will be very effective in putting their immediate safety first,” National’s law and order spokesman, Simon Power, said.
Violent crime had risen by 32 per cent under the Labour Government and Power said on-the-spot safety orders were first mooted by National Party leader John Key last November.
“On-the-spot protection orders are a good idea, we believe they will work, and are flattered Labour thinks so as well.”
King said the initiatives pre-dated National’s announcement and were the result of more than a year of research.
“The discussion paper went out in December last year … it had been worked on for months before that.”
—–Original Message—–
From: Ruby Harrold-ClaessonSent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: SV: Police get new powers in domestic incidentsHi Everyone!
They talk about “abusive behaviour”. What about the abusive behaviour of the CYFS and the children who are being told that their parents do not have the right to correct their unacceptable behaviour?NZ has discrimination against children and Rödeby Cases around the corner.
At present, through the NCHR, I am involved in a case in Stockholm in which the 10-yr old daughter of Pakistani parents – both social workers educated in Sweden – informed her school teacher that her parents had smacked her. The girl was taken immediately (April 14, 2008). Since then they have not been allowed to see or talk to their daughter. In the meantime, they questioned her younger brother, who told them he had not been smacked. He too has been taken into care. The girl has retracted her statement but no one will listen to her. The Administrative Court in Stockholm confirmed the care order on May 30, and the parents and the children are totally devastated.
The parents also face criminal charges for assault of their children.
What a crazy country Sweden is! And NZ has joined the ranks!
What beats me most is that as many as 22 countries have adopted anti-smacking laws and that the European Council and the UN recommend that ALL countries should have such a law! Well, I’m sure that neither Jamaica nor France will follow suit.Kind regards
Ruby