Banks to go to trial: confirmed

117 comments on “Banks to go to trial: confirmed ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anne 1

   3 December 2013 at 6:25 pm

   I wondered why Key was being ferocious towards Russel Norman and the Greens today at Question Time. He was looking for a distraction from what he knew was going to be revealed later in the day?

   Glad to see both Grant Robertson and Winston Peters stood up in support of Russel Norman by way of points of order!

   I don’t think Peter Dunne was so much vindicated, but rather there were more serious Inquiry management faults in play…
   • karol 1.1

     3 December 2013 at 6:29 pm

     Agree with question time today, Anne. There was a lot of stuff going on there, with points of order, etc.
2. gobsmacked 2

   3 December 2013 at 6:26 pm

   It looks like lose-lose-lose for the Right. What’s the best case scenario for National?

   Key publicly dumps Banks, but Banks remains MP, so no by-election. Trial is early next year, Banks is acquitted, but retires at election.

   That’s a lot of “ifs”. Any scenario taints National in election year. Even Banks hanging on in Parliament is a bad look. Probably better to have a by-election, get the Nat (Goldsmith) in – but will Banks go?
   • Paul 2.1

     3 December 2013 at 6:30 pm

     The longer it’s in the media next year the better….
     • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

       3 December 2013 at 6:35 pm

       Courts appear to be promising an early trial.

       Craig to stand in Epsom? Another warm body brought in to try and resurrect ACT?
       • felix 2.1.1.1

         3 December 2013 at 6:43 pm

         I suspect the ACT brand is dead. Hide and his bunch of misfits and criminals killed it and Banks has buried it in the back yard.

         The backers will return but in a new vehicle – one without room in the boot for ACT’s baggage.
         • Te Reo Putake 2.1.1.1.1

           3 December 2013 at 6:47 pm

           Taxpayers Union, anyone? If the msm can inflate Colin Craig’s profile to the point where everyone now knows the name of the person they’re laughing at, why couldn’t Farrar’s farrago get a go?
           • gobsmacked 2.1.1.1.1.1

             3 December 2013 at 6:51 pm

             Sure, but Craig stands for something separate (a different kind of crazy from ACT).

             I don’t think “Not-ACT” will fly, especially as there are ACT people who will fight on. Party loyalty makes people stubborn (as Labour folk know!).
           • felix 2.1.1.1.1.2

             3 December 2013 at 8:24 pm

             Yeah the taxpayers union seems purpose built to become the next model Aquada.
         • Anne 2.1.1.1.2

           3 December 2013 at 7:14 pm

           The backers will return in a new vehicle..

           The backers returned to the National Party years ago. They threw a few lollies ACT’s way while it was still useful to National but even that would have dried up soon after the last election.
           • felix 2.1.1.1.2.1

             3 December 2013 at 8:08 pm

             Yes that does seem to be so.

             But do you think there are enough grumblings on the far right to suggest another breakaway is on the cards?
             • Tracey …

               3 December 2013 at 8:11 pm

               IF it was certain folks bankrolling ACT to prop up National, wouldnt they just fire the money at Craig, or is he harder to puppeteer than Banks, Hide or key?
               • felix …

                 3 December 2013 at 8:21 pm

                 The function of ACT, even if propping up National, is still to pull National to the right economically. I don’t think Craig is the man for that job.
                 • Tracey …

                   4 December 2013 at 8:48 am

                   good point, but who better to make national’s agenda seem moderate than colin craig??

                   I’ve always wondered how much act was only ever a vessel to enable national’s agenda look moderate so they could take us right but not seem as far right as act… it’s an old ploy
             • Anne …

               3 December 2013 at 9:01 pm

               A few of the retreads might move over to the Conservative Party but the moneyed crowd are well and truly back in National. They never really left but they saw the need to create a coalition party for the Nats and that was the reason ACT came to existence.

               It began as the Association for Consumers and Tax Payers which attracted quite a cross section of the public and then they transformed it into a political party with two leaders, Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley. Smart politics.

               Then the red-necks moved in and it was all downhill from there…
               • felix …

                 3 December 2013 at 10:38 pm

                 “They never really left but they saw the need to create a coalition party for the Nats and that was the reason ACT came to existence.”

                 Yeah, but isn’t that need still there? Of a coalition party for National, one that will keep pulling National to the right?
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.3

           3 December 2013 at 11:03 pm

           No, banks has got it strung up on the front fence as a warning to all 😈
       • gobsmacked 2.1.1.2

         3 December 2013 at 6:44 pm

         No, ACT can’t be revived. Even Epsom would rebel.

         Their best bet is to kill ACT and have a “decent interval” after the funeral, so the taint has worn off by the election date.

         Trouble is, ACT is not only Banks. The party may not agree to fall on sword, just to save Key and Craig.
         • felix 2.1.1.2.1

           3 December 2013 at 7:10 pm

           To be fair, the party isn’t Banks at all.

           He’s an interloper, barely tolerated at best.
           • Tracey 2.1.1.2.1.1

             3 December 2013 at 7:57 pm

             Yup, Hide was the ACT party and puppet made by Alan Gibbs.
           • TheContrarian 2.1.1.2.1.2

             3 December 2013 at 11:32 pm

             That’s quite right Banks is kinda an anathema to ACT
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2.2

           3 December 2013 at 11:12 pm

           Thing is, they can’t kill Act until Banks is out of the electorate – and I doubt if he’ll go willingly – and so we’ll get the spectacle of a National Aligned MP in court for fraud right up to the election. It’s the big problem with electorate MPs – they can’t be kicked out unless they get a criminal conviction.

           Wonder if all the people who hate list MPs still think that electorate MPs are more accountable?
       • greywarbler 2.1.1.3

         3 December 2013 at 7:03 pm

         Attact of The Living Dead.
3. Te Reo Putake 3

   3 December 2013 at 6:29 pm

   This is getting a lot like the last days of the Shipley regime; propped up by the dismal and the duplicitous. They’re limping to a loss that may see them out of Government for a decade or more. Good times!
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     3 December 2013 at 6:48 pm

     +1
   • Ad 3.2

     3 December 2013 at 8:08 pm

     +1 yeah!
4. Richard Christie 4

   3 December 2013 at 6:36 pm

   Privacy of communication sacrosanct for MPs but sod the rest of us.
   • Tracey 4.1

     3 December 2013 at 7:58 pm

     thought that too. MPs were not properly considered… Fuck the journalists and public but dont touch the MPs
   • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2

     4 December 2013 at 7:59 am

     The Dunne case was NOT about privacy for MPs communications.

     He was a Minister so was instructed by Key to hand over everything. He refused so was sacked.

     Only now, does it become a matter of “communications between an MP and a constituent”

     So Andrea Vance now becomes a common garden voter ?. And it was Dunne who was passing on barely secret cabinet material/

     I smell a major attempt to rewrite history here. By confusing the trawling through the security cards issued to journalists with Dunne passing off secret material
5. bad12 5

   3 December 2013 at 6:42 pm

   Lolz, after my little donation to Graham Mac’s attempts at prosecuting Banks i feel like i just backed a winner at the TAB,

   An excellent decision from Justice Heath, Banks cannot hide behind the fact that He has a lot to lose if convicted of this crime,

   i believe that at some point next year the pretty much defunct ACT will cut Banks loose so as to try and keep the Epsom electorate with a high profile candidate or maybe their Prez Boscowan,

   Possibly the Actors will try and shoehorn Hooten or Farrer into the Party and seat…
   • Penny Bright 5.1

     3 December 2013 at 8:01 pm

     Good luck with that future attempt of ACT ‘turd-polishing’ ……..

     But good to see ACT’s ‘one law for all’ is FINALLY being applied to John Archibald Banks?

     Don’t think THAT was ever supposed to happen!

     Ahhhhh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, really enjoying tonight’s lead story 🙂

     Interesting that this decision has come out on the same day that Transparency International is supposed to release their arguably bogus and bullsh*t ‘Corruption Perception Index’ – that New Zealand usually does so well in?

     FYI – here is the one A4 page ACTION PLAN upon which I campaigned in the 2013 Auckland Mayoral election:

     http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ANTI-CORRUPTION-WHITE-COLLAR-CRIME-CORPORATE-WELFARE-ACTION-PLAN-Ak-Mayoral-campaign-19-July-2013-2.pdf

     Labour Party, Green Party, NZ First, Mana – help yourself.

     In my opinion this National/ACT government is extremely vulnerable on corrupt ‘conflicts of interest’, and the public are ‘getting it’.,,,,

     Penny Bright

     Public Watchdog

     http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz
     • bad12 5.1.1

       4 December 2013 at 7:57 am

       The first line of your comment, as it is a ‘reply’ to my comment at (5), could be taken as an insinuation that i am somehow supporting the ACT Party,

       Care to comment???…
6. Clemgeopin 6

   3 December 2013 at 6:58 pm

   Hope he will now resign from parliament until his fraud case has been decided. Will he?
   • gobsmacked 6.1

     3 December 2013 at 7:01 pm

     He can’t resign “until”, he either stays or goes. If he resigns, there would be a by-election – or an early general election.
     • Tracey 6.1.1

       3 December 2013 at 8:00 pm

       a nice dress rehearsal for colin craig in epsom?

       but remember thisis John ” I have nothing to hide so nothing to fear but will exhaust every appeal option to prevent an actual trial to prove my innocence” Banks
   • toad 6.2

     3 December 2013 at 7:57 pm

     Yeah, and the corrupt prick even had the temerity to vote for the SkyCity Dirty Deal Bill, despite his serious conflict of interest of having received a $15K donation from SkyCity and his seat in Parliament, and even his liberty, being to a degree dependent on the evidence SkyCity’s Chief Executive gives at his trial.

     The arsehole should resign now, rather than wait for his trial.
7. Ian 7

   3 December 2013 at 7:15 pm

   Sorry folks,Banksy is a stayer and a fighter.This will end in tears ,no doubt, but it will tidy this grey area up and I think it could have quite easily been Helen Clark,winston Peters,and all the other dodgy politicians that cruise close to the law,which is poorly defined .. David Cunliffe tweeting on Saturday is another example and he broke the law and should be prosecuted.
   • gobsmacked 7.1

     3 December 2013 at 7:22 pm

     Banksy is a stayer and a fighter.

     That’s what we want to hear … 🙂
   • karol 7.2

     3 December 2013 at 7:22 pm

     You are likening a tweeting misdemeanour with charges of a deliberate, fraudulent and corrupt attempt to subvert the electoral funding system, and that could result in a possible prison sentence?

     That’s a not-very-clever attempt at a thread derail – they, they-did-too strategy that does not compare like with like.
   • North 7.3

     3 December 2013 at 7:26 pm

     You never learn do you, shitheads ?

     Ian, Bowel Motion, Confused, SS-Lands, Piss73, Steve Waffle. Where are you ?

     IF Cunliffe broke the law I daresay he’ll admit it. He won’t lie and lie and lie. Not like your botoxed-up vainglorious old bitch Archibald Banks. Bad stock you see.

     And ShonKey Python presides over it all……
     • infused 7.3.1

       3 December 2013 at 9:02 pm

       I couldn’t give a shit about banks.
       • Tracey 7.3.1.1

         4 December 2013 at 8:51 am

         and yet a tea party and some dubious complaint to the police was thought really important by Mr Key…
   • BrucetheMoose 7.4

     3 December 2013 at 7:30 pm

     He’ll fight alright, and selective bouts of amnesia will be his weapon of choice. What a man, what a hero, what a scum of the earth.
     • North 7.4.1

       3 December 2013 at 8:25 pm

       But he won’t get away with repeated “I don’t recall” bullshit accompanied by his usual talking-down crap. That might be effective with the pathetic, self-engrossed, eye-to-the-main-chance greasers of the MSM, but it won’t be in front of a properly directed jury.

       What will the Crown Solicitor say to the jury about repeated expressions of “I don’t recall…….” ?

       “Mr Banks says he cannot recall this…….and this……..and this. On the other hand Mr KDC with resolute certainty says……..Mr So and So with equal certainty says………Mr Banks does not deny this evidence……..he simply says he cannot recall……..it is of course up to you ladies and gentlemen…….”.

       Nah, the fuck is fucked ! Good job !
   • Tracey 7.5

     3 December 2013 at 8:03 pm

     LOLOLOLOL

     yea, for you to be right we are going to live in a society where you can sign anything and later say you never read it so it is of no effect )legally). For a guy with nothing to hide and and fear for his reputation you’d think he would welcome a trial to clear his name… and yet…
   • Tracey 7.6

     3 December 2013 at 8:04 pm

     “Banksy is a stayer and a fighter”

     You are describing a boxing horse
   • North 7.7

     3 December 2013 at 8:05 pm

     There is no grey area Ian. I know that’s your comforting self-delusion but there is no grey area. Judge Gittos rightly held that on the evidence adduced before him in the District Court a properly directed jury could find beyond reasonable doubt that John Banks acted fraudulently in terms of electoral law. Not that a jury would (that was not a conclusion which the judge was asked to reach or purported to reach). Simply that they could.

     Banks appealed to the High Court. Justice Heath found no flaw factual or legal in the reasoning on which the decision handed down by Judge Gittos in the District Court was founded. Accordingly the decision of the District Court judge that Banks should be committed for trial has been confirmed. The process perfectly reflects long established legal practice.

     The Rule of Law darling. I know that’s troubling when you entitled bastards end up on the wrong end of it but that’s the indisputable reality.

     Are you really so pig-ignorant as to imagine that this is all a matter of “opinion” expressed on the hoof ? And that ShonKey Python-like your “opinion” or what you “want” for Botox should be given special weight.

     My God you righties are fuckwits !
     • Tracey 7.7.1

       4 December 2013 at 8:53 am

       It’s right in front of their noses… yet they would rather look stupid thn admit they got something wrong

       John ” I have nothing to hide so nothing to fear but will exhaust every appeal option to prevent an actual trial to prove my innocence” Banks
8. North 8

   3 December 2013 at 7:20 pm

   dodgyjohnhasgone@entitledlyingarsehole.co.nz

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9471229/ACT-leader-John-Banks-to-face-trial

   All credit to Penny Bright. Big, big ups to McCready. Thumbs down to political gaming upper echelons of NZ Police.

   Where the fuck are you Steve Wrathall you crazy bastard ? Your comment please.
9. Anne 9

   3 December 2013 at 7:20 pm

   If he resigns, there would be a by-election – or an early general election.

   Ooops gobsmacked you’ve hit on something? An early general election? Don’t rule it out. Key is a manipulative bastard, and the writing on the political wall is not good for National. An early election using the Banks debacle as an excuse just might seem like a life-saving mission…
10. Penny Bright 10

    3 December 2013 at 7:35 pm

    ‘Dodgy John’ is going …. going……

    http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/john-banks-loses-bid-avoid-trial-5748104

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Banks-to-stand-trial-for-electoralfraud/tabid/1607/articleID/323805/Default.aspx

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11166361

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/229740/banks-loses-another-bid-over-trial

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/nbnat/1319821655-john-banks-to-stand-trial-for-alleged-electoral-fraud

    Well done Graham McCready!

    This private prosecution has set QUITE a history-making precedent, (in my opinion).

    Credit where it is due – good to see the Solicitor-General Michael Heron, acting for the public, in the public interest.

    Some of us have put in a considerable amount of time and effort helping to alert the public to just how ‘dodgy’ the ‘Not-So-Honorable John Banks has been, and how his signature / word is apparently so meaningless?

    The secret is – NEVER, EVER ‘drop the ball’.

    Keep going ………

    Penny Bright

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz
    • Chooky 10.1

      4 December 2013 at 9:26 am

      Good on you Penny….I would vote for you!
11. Ron 11

    3 December 2013 at 7:35 pm

    If justice prevails and Banks gets detained in the clink, do you think we could ask Mr Dotcom to be magnanimous and provide John with a proper mattress.
    It would be most unfair if John had to lie on a hard prison mattress
    • Penny Bright 11.1

      3 December 2013 at 7:45 pm

      😉
    • McFlock 11.2

      3 December 2013 at 7:45 pm

      Unfair? It would be quite dangerous – if banks were to lie down on a straight bed, he’d be guaranteed to accidentally smother at least one of his faces.
      • Penny Bright 11.2.1

        3 December 2013 at 7:46 pm

        Love it! 🙂
    • toad 11.3

      3 December 2013 at 8:00 pm

      +1
    • Tracey 11.4

      3 December 2013 at 8:05 pm

      if guilty he wont get prison. He would get a fine and either home detention for a wee while or community service. That’s my guess if found guilty.
      • toad 11.4.1

        3 December 2013 at 8:34 pm

        Sadly, you are probably correct.

        His only previous criminal conviction, as far as I know, was for using a cellphone on a commercial flight – again a demonstration of his elitist arrogance.
      • ianmac 11.4.2

        3 December 2013 at 8:57 pm

        You are right Tracey but even though he won’t get a prison sentence if found guilty the charge is a 2 year sentence thing so he must lose his seat instantly if found guilty.
        Could the Key government limp along till an election when one down?
        • Tracey 11.4.2.1

          4 December 2013 at 8:58 am

          agree with you. but it will happen so close to the election National wont need him…everyone will be campaigning by then, that’s my guess.

          People also need to remember that Banks hasnt given any evidence yet.
12. Red zone 12

    3 December 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Banks will have to be dragged out of epsom.Doing the honourable thing isn’t true to his fat ego. Whats with the ” I only do good”bullshit. Please! A complete cluster fuck for Quiche and Nat- con in election year. Call in karma. Good job. With nothing left to sell or fit to sell (and a damning referendum). Plus a fast outgoing tide. Perfect conditions for an Early election.
13. Chris 13

    3 December 2013 at 8:56 pm

    It will be interesting to see how quickly ACT move in getting rid of Banks. Lunchtime may be a little early, perhaps after dinner.
14. Clemgeopin 14

    3 December 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Key should ask Banks to return his cup of tea….or at least some Earl Grey bitter tea leaves.
    • toad 14.1

      3 December 2013 at 9:37 pm

      I am confident that Banks will vomit the whole cupful of tea up all over Key.
      • Richard Christie 14.1.1

        3 December 2013 at 11:10 pm

        With over two decades in politics, I bet JB knows a whole heap if skeletons hidden in cupboards.
        I wonder if he’ll attempt to use them.
15. Lindsey J Rea 15

    3 December 2013 at 9:45 pm

    I have filled out 5 of those forms over the years, 4 Local Government and 1 General Election. Each time I had a Campaign Manager who impressed on me, and others in the team how important it was to get it right. We were sent a draft to check for completeness and veracity, and the final form to check again. It is a vital part of the Electoral process and no candidate should be treating it with the kind of casual contempt Banks has shown. He may have done 12 campaigns but one can only hope that the last one was his last.
16. Ian 16

    3 December 2013 at 10:06 pm

    Is Philip Field out of prison yet ? he got 6 years for bribery and perverting the course of justice all under the labour party banner. Banksy is an angel in comparison. Come on guys he is a philanthropist,a good family man and his word is his bond,even when dealing with dodgy germans.A self made man,who dragged himself up by his own bootlaces. I cannot understand the hatred you have for such a good man. He is a bit blunt on occasions,calls a spade a spade and can be a bit self centered at times but lets face it,he IS a politician.
    • Te Reo Putake 16.1

      3 December 2013 at 10:27 pm

      Ho ho, very satirical, Ian. Had me going for a minute there.
    • gobsmacked 16.2

      3 December 2013 at 10:29 pm

      “his word is his bond” … “he calls a spade a spade”

      Sadly, no. If that were true, he might not be in his current mess. The months/years of outright lying (and that’s what it was, let’s not mince words) about his dealings with Dotcom have led him to this point.

      If he’d been honest earlier, with a “mea culpa”, he might have survived. But he hid and hoped. Now he has nowhere left to hide, not even behind Key (who will drop him ASAP).
    • CnrJoe 16.3

      4 December 2013 at 6:03 am

      Hah – The cretin also calls anonymous donors ‘donators’ – can’t do a thing right but he has you ‘Ian’.
17. Clemgeopin 17

    3 December 2013 at 10:16 pm

    There are many types of liars. The saddest of all is this type:

    This is the liar that lies to themselves.
    The kind that fills their minds
    With false hopes
    And who fill their hearts
    With empty promises.
    The most burdensome type of liar,
    The loneliest of all.
    They are the people who cannot
    Deal with reality
    So they decide to change
    What they see
    And live in denial
    They say, ‘nothing to fear’
    ‘Nothing to hide’!
    But they know and all of us know,
    There is nothing to hide anymore,
    But, alas! Lots to fear!
    The Karma has come for its due!
18. Steve Wrathall 18

    3 December 2013 at 10:29 pm

    If Banks should be prosecuted then so should Cunliffe for his violation of electoral law for campaigning for his candidate on Nov, 30th. And so should Russel Norman for his retweeting of filled out CIR ballot papers on Dec 1 after being advised against this by the electoral commission on Nov 27th.

    Seriously: If the parties that gave us the Pledge card theft and the Electoral Finance Act want to go into 2014 campaigning on the morality of the financing of previous elections then bring it on.
    • gobsmacked 18.1

      3 December 2013 at 10:36 pm

      Also, we should have the death penalty for serial killers AND the guy who picks his nose on the bus.
      • Steve Wrathall 18.1.1

        4 December 2013 at 7:04 am

        Please explain how David Cunliffe’s campaigning on election day, and Turei/Norman’s misuse of ballot papers as campaign tools is insignificant compared with what John Banks has been accused of.
        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.1.1.1

          4 December 2013 at 7:16 am

          John Banks has been accused of verifying a document he knew to be false, because “Kim, if I help you in the future it’s better no one knows about your donation.”

          Totes the same as a hastily deleted tweet and I’m not sure what your other vacuous bullshit refers to, but perhaps you can fill your empty words.
          • North 18.1.1.1.1

            4 December 2013 at 9:47 am

            Waffle@18.1.1 – will you please, please be my confessor ?

            Once……it was election day 1972…… I remember it well……nary a helicopter involved…….with scarlet premeditation…….I defaulted on my legal and moral obligation to peel from the rear window of my clunking old VW……..a little “Time For A Change” sticker.

            All of that election day I drove brazenly around the hamlet of Tokoroa in Taupo electorate…….sticker glowing and metres and metres of red ribbon flying in the new wind……..stopping only to offer likely Labour prospects a ride to the polling booths…….on the expressly stated condition……you know what I mean.

            And here’s me today bagging Botox………me…….corrupt and full of sin. Oh Poor Botox. Oh Poor Waffle. I promise I will make amends. I will waive any limitation period attaching to my crimes and prostrate myself before The Lord and His Jury properly directed.

            Phew ! After 40+ years alone with my dark secret…….yay……I am unburdened.
          • Steve Wrathall 18.1.1.1.2

            4 December 2013 at 11:02 am

            Your use of quotation marks for a made up quote shows you have the same problem with the truth as your leader, who after 14 years as an MP claimed “He was not aware of the rules” about not campaigning on election day. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9467876/Cunliffe-tweet-investigated
            • North 18.1.1.1.2.1

              4 December 2013 at 11:52 am

              We understand your pain Waffle. We forgive.
            • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1.1.2.2

              4 December 2013 at 12:05 pm

              Only one of them is going to resign to spend more time with his lawyers though. Coz a tweet, deleted and reported, is a petty arse thing that nobody gives one shit about.
    • Daveosaurus 18.2

      3 December 2013 at 10:58 pm

      And nothing’s stopping you from taking on a private prosecution if you really believe those two broke the law. Go for it.
    • Nordy 18.3

      3 December 2013 at 11:09 pm

      Typical ‘strawman’ argument in a vain attempt to distract and deflect. Typical of those on the right who cannot face the ‘ugly’ (for them) truth that the law actually applies to us all.

      Better hurry your cabbage boat is leaving ……..
      • Steve Wrathall 18.3.1

        4 December 2013 at 6:53 am

        But that’s the whole point. The law DOES apply to us all. So why do the leaders of left parties show contempt for electoral law? And why does the MSM say nothing about it?
        • felix 18.3.1.1

          4 December 2013 at 7:30 am

          Because none of the trivial breaches you mention come anywhere near the deliberate corruption that Banks has been lying his arse off about for the last 2 years.
          • Paul 18.3.1.1.1

            4 December 2013 at 7:33 am

            He knows that
            He’s just trolling
        • karol 18.3.1.2

          4 December 2013 at 9:18 am

          And why does the MSM say nothing about it?

          They have: the leaders responded – end of. There’s those in the MSM who would go after anything they could find on Cunliffe or Norman (see the recent NZ Herald smearing Russel Norman and the Referendum) – so your question has been answered – not the big issue you’re making them out to be.

          You are just trying to divert from the bigger charges against Banks.
    • Paul 18.4

      3 December 2013 at 11:37 pm

      Sad argument
    • North 18.5

      4 December 2013 at 4:30 am

      Yeah and you’ve got so, so, so much ammunition and moral high ground there Waffle – like the world’s gonna salute such risible attempts to Textor up a moral equivalency ??? Thus reinflating Botox’ and ACT’s burst entitlement bubble ???

      Keep it up Waffle. Your hysterics are great to watch !!!

      Breaking News – David Cunliffe’s choppering down to the Auckland District Court this morning to make a voluntary appearance. And as we speak NY is in lockdown – The Feds have Helen Clark cornered in the UN Building.

      “Seriously” as you say.
    • Tracey 18.6

      4 December 2013 at 9:32 am

      But whatever we do just gotta keep ignoring the himalaya sized lies of the PM

      http://thestandard.org.nz/an-honest-man/
19. jaymam 19

    3 December 2013 at 11:27 pm

    In 1996 the ACT party refused to supply a breakdown of the party’s election expenses to the Electoral Commission. They were taken to court a number of times, ending on 11 June 1999 with the Court of Appeal Case CA149/98, where ACT were found to be in breach of their obligations. They never did supply the required information, and were not penalised for that.
    When a report of case CA149/98 was publicised on Usenet, the official NZ record of the case was deleted, and the librarian in charge said she had no idea how that happened. All the other cases for 1998 remained on the official website. An Australian site did have a copy of CA149/98 (Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Judgement of the Court Delivered by Thomas J, CA 149/98 between the Electoral Commission and Priscilla Tate[Party Secretary at ACT New Zealand])
    • Pascal's bookie 19.1

      4 December 2013 at 8:11 am

      yep, can be seen here as blank for 96

      http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events-0/general-elections-1996-2005/results-general-elections-1996-2005

      How very peculiar
      • jaymam 19.1.1

        4 December 2013 at 10:00 am

        As you can see from the above link, in 1996 ACT spent more than any other party, more than even National or Labour. The identity of ACT donors has mostly been kept secret. Clearly they have lots of money and don’t want people to know why giving very large sums of money to a political party was a good idea for them. And John Banks has continued with the secrecy.

        It would also seem that ACT supporters have infiltrated the public service and the legal system, otherwise how would the records of the Court of Appeal vanish off their website, and having won their court case, why didn’t the Electoral Commission demand the ACT exepnses records and put them with everybody elses expenses at the above link?
20. bad12 20

    4 December 2013 at 7:22 am

    From the Herald online it appears that Banks and the Crown have agreed that the Banks trial will be held in the High Court rather then the District Court, Justice Paul Heath is said to have added that the trial will be ‘fast-tracked’ which may mean it will occur in the first quarter of 2014,

    Of interest is the fact that under section 347 of the Crimes Act Banks has another
    ‘get out of jail free card’ which He could play which appears to be another chance to appeal the decision that He stand trial which if ‘played’ will have the trial much closer to the 2014 election,

    What may be ‘the last gasp’ is the decision Banks must take on whether to face a Jury or opt for a Judge alone trial…
21. toad 21

    4 December 2013 at 8:04 am

    I thought section 347 Crimes Act was repealed earlier this year.
    • bad12 21.1

      4 December 2013 at 8:35 am

      i wouldn’t know Toad, but, from a number of comments in media and other blogs it would appear not,

      347 appears to rely on ‘new evidence’ that has previously been unheard by the Courts and i think Banks will be pissing into the prevailing wind if He attempts to use this section to avoid trial,

      Thus far the words of Justice Heath would appear to hold the high ground with His assertion in the ruling that there must be ‘exceptional circumstances’ for a Court to set aside another Courts ruling that there is enough evidence to have a defendant stand trial…
      • veutoviper 21.1.1

        4 December 2013 at 8:53 am

        Some time ago I looked up section 347 of the Crimes Act after reading references to this in relation to the Banks case. Don’t have time right now to recheck, but IIRC section 347 was repealed by a 2011 amendment to the Crimes Act to take effect from 1 July 2013. However, IIRC, because section 347 was in effect at the time of the donations/filing of the electoral return, Banks could still apply under this section to attempt to get the case dismissed.

        Graeme Edgeler has done two good posts on Public Address on the Banks case which cover the application of section 347 – and Edgeler’s opinion that it would not necessarily succeed in the Banks case.

        Here is the first

        http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/qa-john-banks-judicial-review/

        And here is his latest posted yesterday after Judge Heath’s decision was released

        http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/john-banks-what-next/

        An excerpt from the latest one

        John Banks’ next step will probably be an application to have the charges dismissed under s 347 of the Crimes Act. This will be his last chance to have the prosecution ended before trial. However, it strikes me as unlikely to meet succeed. While Justice Heath wasn’t considering a 347 application, his ruling pretty much addresses the arguments likely to come up in one if an application is made. And while a Judge hearing a 347 application can look at new evidence, it is difficult to see what further evidence might seriously be advanced on behalf of John Banks that would alter this conclusion that a jury might listen to the prosecution evidence and believe it.

        Of course, they might not. Or they might believe it, but also believe enough of the other evidence presented to have reasonable doubt. Those are matters for trial. A conviction is far from certain, but John Banks standing trial next year pretty much is.
        
        • Tracey 21.1.1.1

          4 December 2013 at 9:37 am

          for a guy with “nothing to hide” he seems determined not to get a forum for his innocence to be publicly displayed
    • North 21.2

      4 December 2013 at 8:43 am

      It was but s.347 remains alive in respect of any charge laid before 1 July 2013. I’m understanding that Graham McCready laid the charge prior to 1 July. Justice Heath would not have got this wrong.

      The practical reality is that it’s now for the factfinder at a trial proper be that factfinder a jury or a judge sitting alone. Banks is toast in terms of squeaking out on some pretrial ruse. That’s not to say there’s an inevitability to a finding of guilty beyond reasonable doubt at a trial proper.

      I mean by the weirdest coincidence the jury might be constituted by 12 Mad Dogs. Not sure that 12 Actoids would be enough. You’d need something psychedelic and truly mind altering like the former. A sprinkling of Bassett scabs might assist.
22. North 22

    4 December 2013 at 8:17 am

    Herald this morning http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11166495 quoting Richard Prebble – widely known as “Mad Dog Prebble” even before his Actoid days:

    “Former Act leader Richard Prebble said while the media had tried Mr Banks and found him guilty, the answers Mr Banks had given to questions about the donations “seem totally credible”.”

    If you needed more proof…….
    • Tracey 22.1

      4 December 2013 at 9:28 am

      Mr Banks gave no evidence t the hearings. He relied on coss-exam of crown witnesses and put up his treasuere
23. Tracey 23

    4 December 2013 at 9:25 am

    I wonder why Banks didnt plead to s134(2) which seems to cover what he said he did, and would not result in him having to resign from parliament?

    Para 12 of the heath decision is interesting and appears to contain the crux of Banks defence, namely, if he didnt read the form he could KNOW it was false in any way?

    Note his honour’s reference to the minute he issued before this proceeding

    “Mr Banks may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to
    put him on trial by making an application under s347 of the Crimes
    Act 1961. On an application under that provision, at which both
    prosecutor and defence may put additional evidence before the Court,
    a Judge sitting alone determines whether there is sufficient evidence
    for a reasonable fact finder,correctly applying the controlling law
    , to find the accused guilty. (c) Third, a n application under s347 would serve the same purpose as the present application for judicial review. This Court should not encourage attempts by hose who have been charged with serious offending to challenge, in the civil jurisdiction of this Court, decisions in respect of which there are procedural safeguards built into the criminal justice system While I do not suggest that Mr Banks is using the judicial review procedure for this purpose, the potential for those charged with criminal offending to delay the criminal justice
    process would be heightened if the availability of the judicial review procedure were not heavily circumscribed

    para 32

    I agree with Mr Jones that there was no evidence to support a finding that the cheques were provided to Mr Banks by Mr Dotcom personally , or that they were provided at the
    particular meeting to which the Judge referred.

    para 33

    the cheques were posted not handed to banks at the meeting he flew by helicopter to

    Para 43 helpfully sets out wilful blindness and court of appeal consideration of it. Worth reading.

    Para 45 interesting comments about sky city donation

    bhttp://static.stuff.co.nz/files/Banks-v-Auckland-District-Court.pdf

    .
    • bad12 23.1

      4 December 2013 at 10:13 am

      From my conversation with Graham Mac,(who filed the original charge with the Court),i believe that He did offer to Banks the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge,(perhaps the one you have highlighted),that would have seen Banks remain an MP,

      For reasons known only to Banks, EGO springs to mind, Banks refused…
      • Tracey 23.1.1

        4 December 2013 at 11:04 am

        I heard him say that in his interview on NR yesterday.
24. Pascal's bookie 24

    4 December 2013 at 9:53 am

    Oooh. press conf at 11am, Banks/Boscawen.

    Will he resign ( showing he’ll lose the case)?

    or wtf?

    “I will never surrender, and will spend my every waking hour searching for the real killer”. The man did say he’d been cleared by homicide detectives, so he could say any damn thing, pretty much.
    • karol 24.1

      4 December 2013 at 9:58 am

      That’s what Stuff is asking.
      • Pascal's bookie 24.1.1

        4 December 2013 at 10:16 am

        So what are the options:

        Quits as ACT leader, stays in Parliament as some member from the rotten borough of Epsom.

        Quits parliament now ‘to remove distractions and focus on this stupid trial’, by-election which Goldsmith wins, new nat mp from the list? ACT goneburger.

        something else?
      • s y d 24.1.2

        4 December 2013 at 11:02 am

        oh my, there are some fantastic photos in that stuff article…tick dick!
    • Pete 24.2

      4 December 2013 at 10:20 am

      If I were a betting man, I’d say he’s quitting as leader of Act, won’t be standing in 2014, but will be trying to hold on to his seat until the election.
    • bad12 24.3

      4 December 2013 at 10:21 am

      i commented somewhere a week or so ago after Boscowan had made an oblique comment to media about Banks being committed to trial by the High Court that i took this to mean that if He,(Banks), was,Boscowan as the Prez of ACT would force Him to resign from the Parliament in an effort to save the tattered remnants of the party,

      Lolz, the longest Dear John in political history, any bets on who will be the replacement, Boscowan himself, Hooten or Farrer???…
25. Te Reo Putake 25

    4 December 2013 at 10:32 am

    A tweeted rumour that Banks will not stand down this morning, but will instead announce that he will not contest the Epsom seat next election. Which, given that he may be in prison at the time, seems sensible.
    • Pascal's bookie 25.1

      4 December 2013 at 10:37 am

      Looks like it:

      http://www.act.org.nz/?q=news

      yawn, tho.
      • karol 25.1.1

        4 December 2013 at 10:47 am

        Thanks. Yep. That gives Key some breathing time to organise another partner/s in crime.

        PS: Patrick Gower is tweeting that the notice on the ACT website is a stuff up, accidentally releasing the statement ahead of the Press Conference:

        Patrick Gower @patrickgowernz

        ACT have stuff up and put the press release on website. Banks staying oon until 2014

        And this:

        Peter McCaffrey @peteremcc

        So John Banks’ PR accidentally leaked on ACT website. Can’t even hold a press conference without screwing it up. Seems an appropriate end.
      • Tracey 25.1.2

        4 December 2013 at 11:06 am

        LOL@ decided to spend more time with his family…
        • Clemgeopin 25.1.2.1

          4 December 2013 at 11:21 am

          Lucky chap! He will have one family outside and another one in prison to spend time with ! A soap opera!
26. North 26

    4 December 2013 at 11:17 am

    Just read the judgment of Heath J. Clarity (and fairness) defined. Meet that Banks apologists read it. They will not of course. They’ll prefer to stick like shit to a blanket to Textor-inspired spin and half-truths.

    http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/Banks-v-Auckland-District-Court.pdf

    If having got past their wounded sense of entitlement they can countenance a read they should pay particular attention to mention of “wilful blindness” at [42]-[44] of the judgment.

    At [43], quoting the Court of Appeal in Millar v Ministry of Transport [1986] 1 NZLR 660 (CA) – the “wilful blindness” rule – “a major safeguard against spurious claims of lack of knowledge” – Cooke P and Richardson J.

    Now who does that put one in mind of…….couldn’t be ShonKey Python could it ?

    What of those much-vaunted “higher standards” Prime Minister ? You seem to be the grossest offender. “Haven’t read the police report……won’t read the police report” or words to that effect.

    There was a time in New Zealand when the prime minister was a role model, more or less. Sadly we now live in Textor-land where winning, however questionably pursued, is applauded. Thank you MSM for growing that malignancy.
    • Tracey 26.1

      4 December 2013 at 11:23 am

      People who want to believe Banks wont read the decision, even though it does contain some light at the end of the tunnel for their man. But it is a speck only.

Links to post

1. Showdown at Auckland Council - The Standard: posted on 19 December 2013 at 1:03 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS