Monday, September 1, 2008

Sub Judice or Not?

Whaleoil has an interesting thread going, on the matter of now widely publicised and arguably incriminating tapes being sub judice or not sub judice.

Adolf has seen cogent argument some weeks ago pointing to the notion that Peters continues to file papers keeping this case alive 'for the sole purpose' of rendering it sub judice, thereby preventing publication of very damaging information. Having read the attached judgment, Adolf is inclined to agree that this appears to be the only possible motivation.

Therefore, the question has to be asked of the judiciary, 'What means are there to disallow frivolous and vexatious use of the courts to prevent release of information which is very much in the public interest?'

It is even more interesting to note that in the fiasco which was parliamentary question 5, the other day, Madamn Speaker failed to give Rodney Hide the priviledge of taking him at his word when he assured her 'the matters in my question are not to do with any matter which is sub judice.' Madamn Speaker seems to be of the opinion that anything Winston Peters says is sub judice is so.

Therein lies, I think' the real smoking gun' which is about to sink Winston Raymond Peters and his churlish partner in mischief, Helen Elizabeth Clark.

New and hitherto unseen or unheard revelations of bribery and corruption associated with the Scampi enquiry which, because of Madamn speaker's machinations, have yet to see the light of day..


Death by a thousand cuts.


Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anon, I'm struggling to see the link to the PM if there is one. At that time Winston's baubles had not yet dropped and Goff was foreign minister - or do I have that wrong?

Psycho Milt said...

Sorry guys, I deleted the anonymous comment because it was not only defamatory but egregiously defamatory, considering it wilfully misrepresented evidence.