I'll never forget the court case surrounding the hotel billionaire Leona Helemsley when she made her statement about taxes being 'for little people.'
With the arrogance and self importance she is showing, Dear Leader has become the Leona Helmsley of New Zealand politics.
I can just picture her saying: "Laws are for little people."
The Winston Peters saga shows how not just he but also her acting above the law, waiting for 'due process' before dumping Peters and now that due process has happened, she clings to him. But most significant is how she sought to undermine that process by saying it was tainted and politicised.
We see something like it with the Serious Fraud Office.
Here, we have an organisation Liarbour First has set out to get rid off.
And considering the corruption it is set to discover, no wonder Liarbour wanted it gone. We cannot have government figures being found guilty of fraud and various corrupt practices can we?
So what better way than to undermine and challenge the authority of the SFO.
We saw it with Michael Cullen not expressing confidence, when as Attorney General, to whom the SFO answers to, it is a major constitutional issue that he does not. Certainly something unprecedented in New Zealand political history and I cannot recall anything like it happening in the UK or Australia.
We see Dear Leader expressing confidence in the 'integrity' of the SFO boss Grant Liddel but not his 'judgement.' She attacks him over Liddel not consulting with Crown Law over its evidence against Winston Peters and it approaching the priviledges committee.
It is a narcisstic method of denigation, notes Whale Oil.
However, as Matthew Hooton notes, the SFO still remains an independent legal agency. As yet it is not under the PM's thumb, but making it so like her police lapdogs is obviously her wish.
So Dear Leader is trying to ride roughshod over our constitution and the 'due process' she sought when it suited her interests.
Today, David Farrar reveals why the PM is furious at the SFO.
Apart from the fact there is no requirement he do so, I say thank God he didn’t. Crown Law would have informed the Attorney-General who was moonlighting as Co Chief Defence Counsel for Winston Peters at the Privileges Committee.
David says later, noting the links beteen Peters and the Vela family:
The reason the PM is so furious is because the SFO evidence directly calls into question the integrity of decision making in her Government.
Indeed, what can we say about her integrity and judgement.
Roar Prawn believes that Grant Liddell can give Clark a few lessons on integrity.
Indeed, he can. Clark has made a gross error of judgement in backing Peters all the way.
But the reason, either to prop up her government, or hide some huge dirty sectret, certainly raises the issue of her integrity, or lack thereof.
But also more worrying is Liarbour trying to act above the law, by denigrating those that are carrying out legal due process when it embrasses and inconveninences the Liarbour First axis.
The rorting of the legal system under Helengrad that we are seeing is corruption of the highest order, and follows on from the electoral corruption Liarbour committed in 2005.
Dear Leader might as well say 'Laws are for little people" as they so obviously do not apply to herself, her MPs and members and supporters of her own government as this SFO case and so many others show.