Unless he takes some sort of plea deal there will be.
The right to trial by jury is protected by NZ’s BOR.
She’s a socialist so by US standards yes she definitely is.
Any provisions applicable that will allow a trial by judge only?
And here I was thinking she was a Kiwi.
I’m not going to play this stupid game with you all night.
Let me repeat.
The PM and Deputy PM can very much however taint the jury pool which is why they are supposed to keep their mouths shut on a suspects’ guilt or innocence.
The likelihood is that there will be a jury trial and their comments can taint the jury pool.
You cannot argue otherwise.
I most certainly can and will contest the point. Provided there is a provision for a judge only trial, and I believe there is, I think that it will be a judge only trial.
I am going offline for an hour or, so don’t think that because there is a delay in my response(s) that you have bullied me off the forum.
It doesn’t matter what you think in your fantasy world. When the top officials of the gov’t comment on the guilt or innocence of someone arrested for a crime their comments can taint the jury pool which is why they should keep their mouths shut.
You have no basis for claiming there will not be a jury trial period.
Another unilateral declaration from the regal? WildRose. I wonder when your coronation was.
LOL. Isn’t that sweet. 
She may not be at the far left of the spectrum in New Zealand, but she’s a liberal by any rational standard.
Besides, I was referring to Oryx’s statement, not Ms. Ardern. Perhaps you should read my posts in the context in which they were made instead of shooting at them from the hip.
She’s absolutely representative of the far left in NZ she’s an avowed socialist and first woman elected leader of the young socialists.
The NZ Labour Party is on the same side of politics as the Australian Labor Party. Neither are on the same side of politics as the Liberal Party (Australia) or National Party (NZ)…
Assuming you know what you are trying to prove, and that is very much contestable, what point are you trying to prove?
Which of these words are giving you such difficulty?
Samm’s post:
She may not be at the far left of the spectrum in New Zealand, but she’s a liberal by any rational standard.
My reply:
She’s absolutely representative of the far left in NZ she’s an avowed socialist and first woman elected leader of the young socialists.
Being a Kiwi does not preclude her from being a socialist. In fact, being a Kiwi much increases the probability that she is a socialist.
Again … Isn’t that sweet. You actually think the Labor Party is not liberal because they are not the Liberal Party. 
Do you work for Ikea?
Quod erat demonstrandum.
You haven’t demonstrated a damned thing.
Do you ever make sense?
Your previous post proved that which needed to be proved unequivocally and unambiguously.
