AMA: Australian/New Zealand lawyer

The right to bail isn't automatic. Usually police in Australia themselves, of course, they'd need to be of certain rank, grant you bail in a quasi-judicial capacity. Now the thing is, there are lots of things to take into consideration:

1) The fact that he plead not guilty? (I'm not sure, I didn't read the article), but in NZL if your case cannot be handled in one court session, your bail may not be granted, especially if the offence carries a sentence of over 3 years

Another factor may include prior similar offences.

Also, considering what happened, they probably just put him in there to "set an example", it's very unlikely hes going to see a prison term.

Incitement is a common law offence if it isn't codified by statute law. It's similar to an attempted offence but not quite exactly. Incitement has been a part of our law for a very long time even in the US, and even saying things like "kill all muslims" is against the law, as with everthing, it's all luck if you're caught or the police can be bothered prosecuting.

In this case, planets, time, all aligned.

Depends on what grounds, if they have a certain type of legal personality and what US Federal law says about it. I am not an expert in US law.

Legal Aid VIC? Community Legal Centres all provide free legal services. There's even a separate service that runs parallel for refugees, minorities and especially indigenous Australians which are eligible to be heard in a special type of Indigenous court.

Depends on circumstances such as, contractual indemnity if she regularly attends a gym there, tortious liability if she doesn't. She may be eligible for government disability payments.

Websites blocked include

7+1chan
Jow Forums
Liveleak
Kiwi Farms
Zero Hedge
Dissenter
Bitchute
Mega | New Zealand File Sharing site
Lulz.com | This site was blocked because it criticised the NZ Government
Voat

citizensagainstidiocracy.com/93/internet-censorship-in-australia-and-new-zealand-who-decides

Does Aus/NZ have the legal authority to censure the internet?

given the amount of treason perpetrated by our corrupt government selling out our nation to chinks and other subhumans, what is the most practical method of execution for these cunts and their families?

impalement? hanging? some kind of automated press that can handle a bunch at once?

how likely am I to win a case demanding the right to consume cannabis as an expression of religious freedom

Attached: 23543532.png (1024x741, 614K)

Federal Courts in Australia have been censoring the internet for years. If I go to The Pirate Bay, it used to say that the website was blocked under court order, in plain text. Now that I changed my DNS it works perfectly, so yeah. I was going to upload a snap shot.
Censorship here is regulated by a federal agency called the Australian Communications and Media Authority, child agency of the AMA

There is a statutory and regulatory regime in place on Federal level; courts have always had the power to injunct anyway, however.

One important thing to note is the main ISP in Australia (Telstra) is actually a government corporation, so you aren't likely to see them causing a fuss about censorship.

I can post a more detailed answer if you like.

They can be very difficult. But if you want them so badly, it could be very easy. Nothing stopping you from putting a covert recording device in the court his matter will be heard in and retrieving it the next day. A brain and will is all that is (truly) needed.

Possibly in the context of International Law, simply because there is a lot of mutual recognition, and bilateral agreements in place with the USA/Europe/UK etc etc, because of their status of being a first world country. I will look into this and provide you a better reply.

Whatever it is, you need to make it law before you advocate for such punishments.

Why did this make me cringe while the shooting video didn't.

You may have a constitutional argument due to constitutional recognition of religion in Australia but very unlikely, New Zealand is legalising cannabis next year anyway, so.... yeah

This hierarchy confuses me, what is it exactly about the laws in place around substance prohibition that would put it above the right to practice freedom of religion, if the connection between the use and possession of the substance and the practice of religious freedoms can be legitimately established? Or do you think the convincing establishment of it as a legitimate religious practice would be the difficult part?

there isn't a law for treason?

No proves for claim to authority
OP is a larping discord tranny faggot
Timestamped proves or trolling outside of /b/

You see in Australia (being Australian you should already know) the constitution doesn't really operate like the US (how we're accustomed to think). Crimes are wholly the matter of the states, constitution doesn't have really any role except for the definition and function of judicial, executive and legislative power on the commonwealth level, and would very rarely involve themselves in state criminal law.

Also in the US, their Supreme Court seems to be that, a state incompatibility with their federal constitution defeats their law, this doesn't happen in Australia because Australia doesn't have a bill of rights or constitutional protections like the US, the scope just isn't there, if there is legitimate religious practices and the law has recognised the right for a knife to be carried by Sikhs, it is likely just going to be amended into law by the state legislature in Australia, not argued to High Court.

In America you can say kill all Muslims, so long as you aren't directing a crowd to actually kill Muslims. Provocative speech is protected here Straya.

Yes, and it is owed to the Sovereign (Queen) or the Governor General, which is effectively Parliament or the Government. There is no magical "we the people" in Australia.

>being Australian you should already know
Why? Literally nothing about governance or law is taught in school.

How do you want me to prove this? Australia doesn't issue ID cards for lawyers in like America, most lawyers keep their certificates in their office.

Attached: Bar Card 2014.jpg (1148x728, 193K)

I understand that, but it seems like claims of religious beliefs being persecuted or whatever you would call it, would have a degree of gravity in the court if it is seen as legitimate above drug legislation, but maybe that would vary between judges.

also this , we never got taught shit about the government or law in school except for how many people sit in the houses, which is kind of fucked up if you ask me

it's section 80.1aa of the criminal code
if you're going to larp, at least lern 2 google

Yes, the imminent lawlessness interpretation is a relatively new judicial invention, but the law of incitement predates even the founding of USA (presumably).

This can all change; even without constitutional interpretation of the SCOTUS I presume, because the case that invented it is in 1969, and publication on the internet may be reckless enough to be imminent lawlessness on the bases that you're publishing to the whole world, and in contexts unbeknownst to you.

also, certain states have specific legislation

It's an elective in VCE mate

I forgot to mention that in Australia it is NOT illegal to consume illicit drugs, it's just illegal to possess them, as soon as they enter your body, they become legal.

who makes this shit up

This just proves you know nothing about the law, you think if the statutes are repealed tomorrow, treason automatically becomes legal? Treason has simply been codified, treason exists at common law also.

Drafters of legislation, judicial precedent

I actually did take an elective on it and we only spent time learning how the parliament works.
Nowhere near good enough.

>cites the specific criminal code
>y-you know nothing about law
but more about google, obviously
so rope, pike or compaction?

What grounds does the New Zealand government have to go after people that share the video outside their country?

Ignore this question if it has already been asked.

I would declare Norfolk Island independent, give it is a clean legal slate and then legislate for an island Saw game/Hunger Games, and then deny the winner the prize of living.

They have a jurisdictional nexus on the basis that a New Zealand resident can access a publication, the onus would be on the publisher to make sure that the video couldn't be accessed in New Zealand or at very least a notice informing New Zealanders that viewing a video like this is illegal for them. Funnily enough since Jow Forums is now inaccessible, they've already done the unpublishing themselves, so, anyone after that wouldn't be liable to prosecution.

They definitely have the power to put a warrant out for your arrest, and arrest you as soon as you land in NZL territory and convict you. Maybe request your extradition, however the mutual agreements countries have usually involve similar crimes with similar criminal elements and punishments

So in essence, very very little unless you're Australian or visit New Zealand or a New Zealand citizen.

I'm sure that could be filmed and monetized.
Perhaps the winner could move on to an international round where they compete against other nations traitors.

What is the max sentence Tarrant can get ?

Attached: 1552899469027.png (655x812, 195K)

I'll reference this, Crimes Act 1961 s7A.

Not uncommon. It's like this in the States. Not everywhere. Largely because you can't prove they willingly took them most of the time. Sometimes it's even less of a penalty to do them. I.e. smoking a joint is less than possession.

Life imprisonment is mandatory for murder in New Zealand. Parole is granted at discretion of the court. The only way I can imagine him being free is if a court has accidentally freed him, in which case he wouldn't be liable to serve the rest of his sentence.

Yes, you always forget if you're not a drafter of legislation that every criminal act requires a mens rea element (mental element) (exceptions apply). Knowingly consuming something must be difficult to prove and is probably balanced on the severity of penalty.

why they didnt show brentons face in the court? is there any chance that the court will be videotaped? in many countries you can just walk in and observe it is the same in nz?

Will brenton ever be able to shitpost here again? Hows life in nz jail?

Thanks for the reply. I'm confused as to how it falls under their jurisdiction if the crime happened outside of New Zealand, even if Kiwis could access it.

Does this mean a country could ban porn, for example, and put out arrest warrants within their country for anyone publishing it around the world?

Testing to see if telslut is cucked and blocking anymore they dont seem to be.

Also the white genocide ENDS now!

Attached: deadmuzzie.gif (320x178, 3.6M)

The court can do anything inside a courtroom. Count yourself lucky you even got to see it, because they don't allow it here ordinarily.

I don't know if its going to be videotaped, you know, his points may be too convincing for the public to hear lol, and yes, there is open court, likely, journalists will be making public interest arguments, but that can be closed on whim of the judge, which it will be.

see, he was white
case closed.

The issue is that extraterritorial offences are tricky. Usually there needs to be a jurisdictional nexus. For instance, an American going to Thailand to fuck underage girls wouldn't fall under an extraterritorial crime in New Zealand; they don't have a universal jurisdiction. The nexus needs to come from a transnational aspect and a nexus relating to New Zealand itself. If a New Zealander went to Thailand, fucked underage girls, they would be arrested in New Zealand.

Extraterritoriality exists in such a way where, if it was a crime to NZL law, NZL law applies wherever there is a nexus, in this case, citizenship will be that nexus. Transnational, in this case would be the fact it operated in Thailand.

In cases relating to publication, it means that publication happens to New Zealand from another country, but the only way for you to be charged under New Zealand law in this case is if you're a NZL citizen.

To clarify my first response. The extraterritorial nature of laws is very old. English colonisers would usually bring English law with them as soon as they landed, as operation of law, because they're subject to the King.

What legal scope does the government have to extradite him to Australia for trial? Some politicians are calling for the death penalty. Can he be punished by a law that wasn't passed when he committed the crime?

Ah, I understand you now. Here is a bump, this thread should have been more active but Jow Forums has been terrible for the last few years.

what do you think will come from brenton representing himself in court?

Ooh nice thread. Way to not suck dick OP. Is there any way Brenton can get access to the full uncut GoPro footage from the day, and any way he could release it online?

because she seems to be white (human)

Brenton can certainly be tried in Australia.
There is no way they can give him the death penalty under law as it has been abolished. Even if they passed a law ex posto facto.

He is fucked either way.

>ery very little unless you're Australian or visit New Zealand or a New Zealand citizen.
they just killed their tourism industries.

A lay mans attempt to interpret international laws of genocide to his favour, in a way, if published online, would invoke a more intellectual debate on how they could be applied within a "alt-right" paradigm, very dangerous possibility (personal opinion here).

I don't know how GoPros work? If they have internal storage, it will definitely be an exhibit. If you want it, feel free to hack NZL Police which will be forensically examining the footage.
I'm not sure if the courts will keep a copy (probably) but any menial court worker would have an opportunity to easy put an entire case on file.
(not suggesting you do this)

Expand on this, I don't understand what you said?

ok, what do you think the chances are of the NZ government releasing specific details of the trial and how much do you think they will release if any beyond "u goin to jail cunt"?

Yeah a minisd card I think. With how cheap storage is it's possible he had an 8gig or something in it. So okay cool the footage exists in entirety, and he's likely to see it. Now to go about getting it for us

come again?

*put an entire case on a USB

After reading his manifesto, it appears that Brenton has a very basic understanding of the Rome Statute, because he uses phrases that are in that statute. He probably has a defence where he can argue on international principles that a white genocide is occurring, and that his actions are in some kind of internationally-permitted-self-defence-defence scenario.

This is my personal opinion, the Rome Statute could EASILY be interpreted from a alt-right angle and be used as an instrument against mass immigration, 100%, and I suspect that is what Brenton has planned.

I'm assuming they won't televise the trial, but does NZ make court documents/transcripts public record? In the USA anyone can look up the transcripts of exactly what was said. I'd like to see what Tarrant says during his trial. I'm sure he'll be memeing

They'll probably release anything he writes to the court in documentary form, minus any incitements to violence or references to "Knights Templar" or any international aspects of the crime. They'll probably omit right-wing rhetoric like white genocide, but retain things like "islam is an invasion to new zealand", etc, etc.

Most people don't have an automatic right, but as I stated, it wouldn't be too hard for a rogue court registry staffer (this kids are straight out of high school) to easily obtain a copy on a USB.

I feel like this guy is going to argue in a manner consistent with whats in Calvin's case.

why are perpetual enemies at law no longer perpetual enemies?

do you think they can undo the accelerationism that is already in effect thanks to Brentan? If its a given that islam is gonna retaliate for this, do you think that its just a matter of how cucky the rest of the white race is as to how likely we are to respond in turn to their violence?

If anyone does this and doesn't get the footage I'm gonna be fucking angry

in the commonwealth, you have to order transcripts from a third party

No, but that won't stop them from pretending to.

That would be absolutely fucking hilarious if he could mount such an intellectual case like what I could imagine, but this puts me onto another subject, how will Brenton prepare his case without accessing legal databases? I might have to do some research to see if self-represented offenders in custody have access to law libraries etc.

>How will Brenton prepare his case.
He didn't blow his brains out, so in the meantime, he might've already prepared his case and comitted to memory all the necessary info to support it.
At least that'd be the logical thing to do.

This political issue is so decisive, because, almost human beings, especially white ones have grown up in a nuclear family with well balanced thoughts and emotions. IMO 50% of white people had not, and a lesser percentage can see what our (((liberties))) have caused them. So, yeah, the damage is done, the right wing will be here for a very very very long time and its not going anywhere, the thing is, it'll just cause left-wing terrorism IMO, but the right wing will be much more disruptive due to technological advancement and a more tangible grip of reality.

*so, before he removed the kebab

i wonder if he spent the "planning years" reading law and preparing for his trial. then just did the mosque on a whim.

There must be a room with some internet connection. Yeah maybe limited. I wonder if he can have access to the states evidence? He would need it to be able to mount a defense. Maybe he can email the full vid to someone?

yeah, he will have access to enough.
I feel like most law libraries should carry at least a set of cokes reports.

There was a ruling in the states that limited access though so im not sure what the statutes say in aus.

I suspect it would just be an intranet similar to what universities provide their law students............., and maybe books, stationary, a printer and lots of supervision? Hilarious if they gave him a device with intranet access, his video and he figured out some wifi shit.

Yeah. He's a madlad. But I see what you're saying and that sounds more realistic.

If he already prepared on the outside, he could tunnel out of most locked down government intranets, fuck that'd be a kek.

Lawyers are faggots who perpetuate the false Statues

so... calvins case opinions?

I so really get to talk to a lawyer without fear of...

well you know...

rarely *

streamrift.com/component/video_gallery/video/186090.html#
Is it even possible to take down this site that host the video? And makes a parody within the next 5 seconds?

Attached: BF7C7B84-791F-481A-B923-B777CEAD62A7.png (1334x750, 1.31M)

That would be epic Aussie bantz.

I have another question. Recently there was an Australian arrested for making comments supporting the attack. Why did these comments allow police to raid his house instead of just summoning him? Can he really be charged for offences unrelated to the original search warrant which was basically a fishing expedition?

dunno