Sadly for you the smiley face oft proclaims the arsehole.

Hamlet — Act III, scene II

Do you know what prima facie case means? I’m sure that you don’t from your comment and selective quoting.

Quite simply the police said that there may be a case at a superficial level (prima facie). So they bumped it up to the crown solicitors to decide if they wanted to proceed. The reason that they did that was because it was in the Crimes Act, not the Summary Offenses Act. The police do not decide to lay charges at that level. What the police do is act as a filter on the evidence against the law, to decide if there is sufficient evidence technically to fulfill the minimum requirements of the section of the act – ie the prima facie case.

The police are required not to (indeed are forbidden) from making a judgment about if the case should be placed in front of a court. Essentially what they said was that a case could be made on what they had in evidence. They did not say that a case should proceed, or that it could be won, or even if there were illegalities (the latter is the prerogative of the court). That is decided by lawyers because they have to determine if the case has merit, and is winnable. It takes a bit more than a few weeks in police training to do that.

So what did the crown solicitors say? I notice you haven’t brought that up at all. I’d have imagined that they’d have looked at the legal factors for bringing the case forward, and dumped it immediately.

For instance on the actus reus – did Helen instruct Mrs Fouhy or was it someone else – like the SAFE organiser? You note that the police say that it ‘joins’. That means that Helen wasn’t considered to be the perpetrator, but was a party because of association – ie that she signed it. It does not say that she was aware of how the paintings were to be sold.
In other words it is likely that the first part of the police case was likely to fail against Helen before looking at the mens rea.

For the rest of the organizers of the charity auction, I’d guess that mens rea would have applied. There would have been a hell of a legal issue trying to prove that they’d intended to defraud.

Now on your selective quoting. I think I could make case about that. I notice that you’ve been very selective about the quotes from the police statement. I assume the missing bits are the ones you don’t want others to look at. Why didn’t you provide a link to the full statement? Because you don’t want others to make up their own minds? Why haven’t you quoted from the solicitors statement? Because it makes your assertions look like a pile of drivel? Or possibly because you didn’t understand them?

Is that an malicious act? Perhaps you’d care to explain those act of deliberate omission and linking? What were you thinking when you performed it?

BTW: From the circumstances described, it isn’t a occasion I attended. I do support SAFE, but not enough to attend a function.

BTW: The purchaser looks to have been somewhat of a fool. The key word there is ‘completed’, I’m afraid that translating that in his head to executed is an interesting leap. Technically that is exactly what Helen did, she completed the painting or sketch.

As for the other side – the money. It is a charity auction, not a session at Sotherby’s. I’ve seen weird things auctioned off. Purchasers don’t come along to bargains – they come along to donate. Perhaps this guy should have been aware of that – it is hard to not be.

Hell I buy them – some of the most expensive bottles of wine I’ve ever had have been cheap plonk sold at a charity auction. I have campaign posters signed by a number of politicians that I’ve purchased at outrageous cost (who knows they might be collectible some day). I’ve brought soap, books, etc etc…. It is a way of donating money to causes.

Here’s one of the artworks in question. The same pen has been used to draw it, label it, date it and sign it. Unlike your book signing there is only one name that appears on it. I think any reasonable person would assume it was by the same hand. But that would require reason as opposed to a bucketful of post-rationalisation.

As far as intent goes, I bet you your bottom dollar that Miss Clark would’ve have known ‘her’ sketch would have gotten more money for the charity — and more goodwill from the eligible voters present at the auction — than her signature on a poorly drawn doodle by some nobody in her staff. Indeed the buyer said as much.

Hence, the police found there was a prima facie case of fraud.

Now you accuse me of lying about the police statement?! Well, here are some excerpts from the Police press release date 21 June 2002 concerning three cases including the painting which she signed, but not actually completed, and left everyone to believe she had, which was sold for the not inconsiderable sum of $1000:

“After a good deal of pre-event publicity and a ten-day exhibition the items were auctioned at the Sky City Casino on 5 March 1999. The pre-event publicity by SAFE specifically referred to the fact that Miss Clark had completed the work herself… There does not appear to have been any rebuttal of this information by Miss Clark or anyone from her office.

Mr van Dijk framed the canvas and hung it in his house. It was his belief, based on what he had been told at the auction that this was an original work executed and signed by Miss Clark. Mr van Dijk is clear he would not have paid more than $60 for the item without that belief.”

Then there’s the Ponsonby Primary “two-minute doodle” which fetched $1300.

“The item was subsequently featured in media coverage of the auction as a work completed by Miss Clark. Again there appears to have been no rebuttal from Miss Clark’s office.”

And this is what the Police determined:

“6.1.1 SAFE Painting

It seems compelling, on an objective view of the evidence, that there was an intention for the completed painting to be acted upon as if it were genuine… Prior to the painting being completed Mrs Fouhy states she was instructed to make it look amateurish… The act of signing the painting is further evidence that it would be passed off as a work completed by Miss Clark and joins Miss Clark to the offence… On the face of it, despite their assertions that they were trying to help a charity, there is evidence that Miss Clark and her staff member, Mrs Bush are liable for the offence of forgery.

Miss Clark states that she has no recollection of these events. It is, however, difficult to see how Miss Clark could not have possessed the relevant knowledge about how the painting was to be used. It is considered that where that knowledge exists there must be an agreement.

It is therefore considered that Miss Clark has agreed, with others, to have the painting portrayed as. her own work despite her lack of independent recollection of these events.

It is submitted that there is sufficient prima facie evidence to consider charges of forgery pursuant to section 264 of the Crimes Act 1961 against Miss Clark and Mrs Bush.”

This one’s about trust alright.

Tell me, do you have any books with your name marked inside. I do that all of the time. Am I trying to make a forgery of a book? Nope. Why – because there is no intent to create a forgery.

Now if you’d ever bothered to look at any law rather than looking at your entails for guidance, you’d know the difference in law between mens rea and actus reus. One is the act that could be an offence. The other is the intent. Both have to be fufilled to be able to convict of an offense.

Now I’d say that you’re lying about the police statement. That is apparent.

However I think that you’re just too dumb and stupid to understand that you are doing it because you haven’t bothered to move beyond chanting someone else slogan. You fufill actus reus, but not mens rea in my opinion because you look like a idiot in law.

captcha: prejudice lawyers

Lynn’s spin didn’t wash with me — or the cops.

Do you think Clark should have resigned because she signed a painting for charity? Really? To be honest, i don’t reckon I’d be able to take you seriously if you say yes to that. I know you’ll ramble on about ‘prima facie’ but Lynn’s pretty much made you look out of your depth there, so perhaps not.

I bought a bottle of wine from an MP – should I sue the bastard because they did not grow the grapes, nor produce the wine? Should I demand their resignation? Or should I behave like a normal adult and realise that said MP was merely trying to help a charity raise funds?

“Jesus, I’m sick of repeating myself on this blog.‘

Why would Jesus care that you’re repeating the same worthless kiwiblog lines?

“Jesus, I’m sick of repeating myself on this blog”

Good. Accepting that you have a problem is the first step.

Lprent has just dealt with that rather nicely above G. Had it been a lie, to aid with fundraising for charity makes it a “white lie” in my books, and as above, if this is the only example you can find after 9 years in office, it just goes to illustrate what high standards the PM holds herself to.

Now compare and contrast with TranzRail – where Key lies blatantly to the public to conceal his earlier lies and possible dodgy financial dealings. Does that bother you at all G? Does it work you up as much as you get worked up over signing paintings for charity fund raising?

Re Motorcadegate: you’re calling the PM’s security guy a liar, Rob?

Not as far as I know G, just saying that I don’t necessarily trust your recall or interpretation of the “facts”.

I know the election rules better than you, mate, since I’ve read …

Reading and understanding are not exactly the same thing G. The way you read is to decide your position, and then selectively find people who agree with you to “confirm” it. As per your position that the climate is cooling.

Helen Clark, who was quoted as saying the ‘spending is allocated to parties to promote their policies.’ That is a lie.

Oh G don’t be silly. Here is how the AGs report (Summary) begins:

Advertising and publicity play an important role in the dialogue between members of Parliament (MPs), parliamentary parties, and the public that is central to representative democracy. Because of this, taxpayers meet the costs of MPs’ and parliamentary parties’ advertising.

This funding is not to be used for “electioneering”, but it can be used for “advertising and publicity”. That’s a difficult border to call, as witness the fact that at the last election all parties got it wrong (except the Progressives). The AG judged that even the Greens (Rod Donald wrote those rules!) got the rules wrong.

A while back I quoted the Sunday Star Times: “Election ad spending was illegal, Auditor-General’s report finds.’ To which you replied: “Yes ‘ Now you’re in effect saying, “No,’

Not at all. It was illegal according to the AG. But it wasn’t the parties that broke the law, it was Parliamentary Services. The AG found them to be at fault, but didn’t criticise them for it, noting that the systems to support their decision making were broken. He recommended a review, which then occurred. The parties did not break the law in this respect, unlike National which broke the law with its GST overspend, and rorted the law with its 1.3 million dollar covert advertising campaign. You may recall that the public outcry at these dirty tactics cost Don Brash his political life. I’m sure you recall G, it was in all the papers.

we were rObBED — geddit?

Heh – not bad! No, fortunately, Don stuffed up and didn’t get away with it.

Now G I find it interesting that you keep avoiding the question, so I’m going to ask it again. Do you think John Key should step down for lying to the public over his Tranzrail shares? If not, why not?

I would not like to be a politician – so much rubbish spun it would just do my head in (further).

I’m pretty sure I was at that auction – if I wasn’t then it was one of the others just like it. The person who said that they thought Helen had done the painting was either lying or too damn stupid to understand the phrase “signed by” rather than “painted by”. No-one claimed that Helen had painted them, they were just donated material that Helen had signed to show that people supported her. In most of the paintings that I’ve seen at the auctions, the scrawl of the artist has also been there.

My guess is that the complainant was lying through their teeth. They wanted to do a beatup on Helen because she was too popular at the time. There were usually books that that she’d signed, framed signed campaign posters, and signed pictures. It was rather obvious that she hadn’t done those.

The reason that the police declined to bring a case was because they talked to other people at that auction and realised that there was no case. As far as I was concerned, the complainant should have been charged with wasting the polices time.