A good student will immediately challenge and ask the difference between a Treaty and a Contract. There is extensive scholarship on Treaties and their different purposes. History suggests that Treaties tend to be transitory and suited to a particular purpose at a particular time and later either discarded or replaced. Contracts however are legally binding documents that have the weight of legal consequences that transcend altered circumstances. So, is he saying the Treaty of Waitangi was a contract rather than a Treaty?

New law student here starting first semester next year Find myself watching these videos to prepare me what to expect in class

Wonder what jeff palmer thinks of the mayhem he has caused.shoulda stuck to the trumpet jeff😮

Even though this was 13 yrs ago when made it is so rallivent for 2024 Parliament and the structure of what their implomenting on NZ thank you for your Course video and how you explain Law and Society this is what I refer back to a lot and what I am teaching my children being Māori Land owners and what NZ Parliament are Passing through Cabinet and Changing Treaty Principles, my children are able to sit through your video with understanding and knowledge of what the future looks like for them.

The the laws of nature & of natures God from the Declaration of Independence - it not a theory it was gift from God

This guy is laughable. Totally American in thought . Look at the USA to understand that a republic is not a democracy as their constitution proves

The Littlewood document provides the truth regarding the treaty of waitangi. This is ignored by many as it doesn't suit modern day narrative. Look it up

Must be the PAKEA version UPDATED & US OUTDATED😂😂😂

We had land war's & walked off as EQUAL'S with the BRITTISH SAYING WE ARE NOW 1 PEOPLE & GOT THE TREATY GIVEN BY THE CROWN WITH 3PRINCIPALS PROTECTING MAORI PEOPLE LAND'S & EQUAL RIGHT'S FROM DIFFRENT CULTURED WHITE PEOPLE LOOKING @ NEW ZEALAND AS A MONEY GRAB

1840...would the worlds single most powerful nation enter into a "PARTNERSHIP" with 500 separate warlike (just killed half their population in GENOCIDAL fighting) Slave driven independent superstition believing illiterate Tribes at New Stone Age level of development! , 200 years later academics & devious persons with little or NO understanding of history are attempting to use slight language interpretations to overshadow actual recorded history ,,,,,dividing our nation .....WHY?

Perez Michelle Wilson Michael Davis David

Goverments are corporate gangs and are in place unlawfully. Their sub corporations like the police, inland revenue etc are also corporations making money off us. We the people are sovereign (unless you subscribe to benefits etc) and have been euserped by business gangsters. I stand in my sovereignty and urge everyone to know your inalienable rights and get rid of these corporate gangsters. tax is a donation, there is no lawful or legal obligation to pay. Do your due diligence and follow the correct proceedure to discontinue parting with your hard earned money to said gangsters

Hugh kawheru changed the meaning of 3 key phrases, sovereignty, possession, property. The official English translation is the littlewood, which has two differences, the date and the word maori inserted instead of people . The current understanding of the treaty is corrupted.

What would an American know about NZ the independence was with Christianity as opposed to warring tribes ok, the flag is Christain not Maori the man clearly side steps this fact. The Maori version is a mirror of the final English writ if this is questioned it destabilises everything quite ridiculous. In fact the original final English Treaty misplaced in 1841 but miraculously found in 1989 authenticated and stored in Te Papa Museum but the Maoris reject it due to the fact that the Waitangi Tribunal back-translated the Maori version and skewed it to forward their agenda for a coup detat its treason! Bring the correct English Mother document out to public scrutiny. Maori understood, they confirmed it in 1860 and other Maori leaders also confirmed it. The Treaty is a simple nulity since Govt formed 1852! Theres too many cooks that spoil the broth and everyone speaks English so the English original is the only reference.

Elizabeth Rata gives the best speech kzbin.info/www/bejne/sKa0Y6p4rq2YqKcsi=EXzl6mQXuiXBaVvk

Foreshore and seabed belong to all NZers

Power is absolute ❤

I will start my college next year and studying criminal justice major. Iam trying to learn more about Criminal justice of this video.

Wowwwww. You are the best teach ever. ❤

This professor spoke is very clearly. ❤

Domestic Violence Law is based in subjective perspectives as to how the victim perceives their situation & the assessment of imminent risk is viewed from the perspective and situational circumstances of the Victim.

@ 02:52 is not ceremonial it actualy holds power and the laws of the royal styles and titles act apply and overide any legislation that contridicts those laws

Hello sir

Māori never ceded sovereignty

The key question most miss in this whole debate is "over whom?" I find it impossible that over 120,000 Maori conceded "sovereignty" to the 2500 Pakeha who were behaving badly. It's just not logical or reasonable. To me, it patently obvious. The Crown had promised to reign in the bad behaviour of the Pakeha settlers, by governing them properly, and in return the Maori were guaranteed sole ownership of their lands, forests and treasures, as well as being guaranteed British citizenship. That the well meaning missionary translators made mistakes, doesn't alter the intent of the Treaty. Thus, co-governance: cooperative governance, coordinated governance, conjunctive governance, call it what you will, was ALWAYS the intent of the Treaty. International Law, which is legally binding on every NZer, under the Convention aspect of Law, specifies the Maori version as the ONLY legally acceptable version. Peters, Seymour and Luxon are dead wrong, along with ever other person who denies co-governance. Co-governance is the founding principle of NZ, like it or not. It's just taken 180 years for Pakeha to get that fact. No amount of denying it will change it. My advice to those who don't want to accept that fact is: find another country to live in, cos we, the overwhelming majority of Kiwis, don't want you or your attitudes, here. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

The Bible makes it quite clear. The wife is to serve her husband as property. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJXLpap8orl7obM

Watching in 2023😂

Horrible argument regarding insurance. Fails to take into account that taxation itself is immoral. Anyway....

The 'two treaty' idea is an invention of the '80s. this poor academic has been caught hook, line, and sinker. lol

The actual Treaty was only just considered the nominal cession of sovereignty [in order to legitimate/ justify in the humanitarian climate of the day]. Actual sovereignty was *declared* over NZ a few months later in May. This is why the Brits could have a show of force to the still belligerent tribes that hadn't signed. Both the statesmen of the day, and the authorities back in London, scoffed at legal opinions at that very time that queried whether the British had authority over the unsigned tribes. The Maori/ NZ wars was the final enforcement of sovereignty against unsigned tribes. this is to historicize the traety... strange that it has become unhistoricized today... thanks to legalism.

Take a *historical* approach, and there is no difficulty in accepting that both Maori and English at the time has the same understanding as to the meaning and intent of the Treaty. There were plenty of missionaries to explain it, and there were plenty of chiefs that didn't like what had explained to them. This is why many did not sign.... they understood it onlt too perfectly.

"For Maori..." or only for the radicalized Maori? Not all maori think the same, just as not all Europeans think the same. A bit of a major slip here^^

My notes: 1:01 2:10 - Harm can mean different things 3:16 3:45 4:15 - Natural law defines what gives law validity 5:16 - Moral authority came from three sources (religion, intellectual, natural origin)

Crown fucking thieves

Government hasn't got a leg to stand on

Dirty filthy whitey has done the same all over the planet 😳🤷🏼‍♂️ Would you give some dirty snake ownership of your house and land??? 😳🤷🏼‍♂️ Hewl NO the fukk you won’t There’s your answer Greedy sneaky slimy snakes 🖕🥴🖕

بارك الله فيك بمعية أحبابك

Maori land courts or waitangi tribunal got nothing to do with it its a treaty isuse crown representation must be acknowledged cause they are treaty rights written in the treaty this massive injustice will be the doom of nz and history will be repeated

In 2023 watching this !! I love this guy.

شكرا جزيلا

شكرا جزيلا

"This is going to have an impact on our collective tax burden..." This is where I get off the crazy train. Statist opinions have no place in Natural Law theory.

This is indoctrinated agenda for not removing any crown rather the rights of the Soverign People who are both the Crown(Independent) & Parliament (Representatives on behalf of the independent citizen) Parliament

Where are the substantial historical Reasons of the role of Crown/Parliament. You provide no balanced unbias impartial view to your students which is lying by omission

Good lesson 🎉🎉

The fundamental reason why the Maori asked for the British to formalise their protection was bc the tikanga tapu laws were no longer effective as the settlors were not under tapu law so walking over a grave didn't bring the retribution upon the individual or their Whanau as the Maori Hapu were told to believe by the Rangatira. Rangatira realised that soon all lawlessness would erupt in their own Iwi and Rangitira would lose their position and potentially their lives at the hand of their own people.

Mana is also taken away by the individual and Whanau by the actions of the individual who transgresses rules agreed to by their society

Not quite like that is it really... All land tenure has restrictions upon it such covenants & easements that are specifically applied for the specifically ensuring that public dependent usage of water is not curtailed by an owner having a land title that includes a public asset such as a dam, roading acesss etc

You have some things wrong when you mention that NZ Police are not mandated to use the word 'free' when reading an arrested and/or detainee their rights to speak to a lawyer. In NZ a roster of on call duty lawyers is scheduled and its provided to all detainee who ask for their right to speak to a lawyer. Not all detainee ASK its not an arbitrary activation upon the presumption of right rather by the action of the detainee exercising their right through the action of asking for it once their rights have been read and they agree they understand. The same when they are bought to court for their first appearance, duty lawyers are provided to assist the defender in the first instance, usually to complete legal aid forms for a legal aid lawyer (usually free) to ensure that fair trial process is occurring at the start. In NZ anyone charged can reresent themselves in any court without a lawyer, just as any person can bring a private prosecution against anyone in any court including the Criminal Court by a Prima Facie application to the court directly by an individual citizen.

This person is confident