Think we have a good justice system? Think again. Here we have a case of a govt agency with the arbitrary powers established by the legislature, imposing huge fines on businesses. The setting is a typical Western democracy - New Zealand. The context is a dairy farm being punished punitively for pollution. Presumably allowing urine or excrement to leak into the 'public' water catchments. I am not defending the practice where it occurs, and have no idea if it occurred in this case. The question however is - whether the government ought to have the power to apply punitive punishments arbitrary. There might be a vague principle or value justifying these actions. The problem is the law is being applied as a dogma - which means out of context. The implication is that the courts are actually acting as the Nazi youth squad. This is scary. Paradoxically, it is being done in the name of science. Worse still is that this case was denied an appeal.
These farmers may have broken the rules, but how legitimate are the rules. If this was a private civil matter, the counterparty would have to prove real damages, and the damages would reflect the impact of their actions. But with govt, we just have arbitrary rules developed under democracy, the tyranny of the minority. Yes, it only takes greens holding the balance of power. Today its ACT holding the balance of power, in future it could be the Greens Party, as it is in Australia. If you want to stop this, you need to be vigilant. The whole justice system is going down the toilet. Democracy sux people! Wake up. Its not just farming. It could be animal rights, or water usage in the wake of the climate change scandal. So called science is used illegitimately because 90% of scientists are idiots with no critical thinking skills.
The problem with lawyers: At Judicial Analytics, we help defendants fight 'moral law'. We are the only defense you will find against such injustices. Why? Because most lawyers think their job is to fight or argue points of 'arbitrary' statutory law. We work above the law, but analysing the premises which gave rise to those laws. We are not lawyers, we are philosophers. Lawyers are pragmatic because the law is pragmatic, but they neglect the context in which those laws were developed.
The needs of defendants: We are therefore on the look-out for cases where people feel they have been mistreated by the law.
Partnerships with law firms: We are also looking for barristers in each Western market interested in working with us, as we are looking to act as a conduit for new business.
