We don’t need this here.

Ev, please please please post online the opinion letter from your lawyer once you have it.

Ev is a liar, a fruitcake, and is mentally disturbed, in need of psychiatric therapy. Rather than waste her money in legal fees, suggest she spend it on therapy instead.

According to the TUMEKE website some 2300 individual visitors visited this site last month. You calling me ignorant, dishonest, a liar and mentally unstable in front of such a crowd would be enough for me to take you to court for slander but since it is in print it will be even easier because than it’s called libel (If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel according to Wikipedia)

I support my allegations with regards to JK’s lies with sufficient links to make it perfectly clear that JK is lying about or obfuscating his career timeline.

The fact that I do so on both my blog and here at the Standard, in fact a reggit link to an earlier post on my blog about JK’s dealings with AK appeared a full 12 hours on the front page of the Scoop site and the fact that JK’s minders do not take action is enough for me to suggest that JK and his minders are not interested in publicity around the subject.

Perhaps they hope that by you calling me a “mad woman” people will not catch on.

You have accused me of lying in a very public court of opinion and you are doing so in print with the intention of damaging my credence and character. This is called libel and there are laws to stop this from happening.

You have until Friday 9:45 am to provide proof for your allegation that I am wilfully lying about JK and his career timeline in order to damage his good name or you will apologise to me in full in a comment in the latest post or I will consider my options. I have your allegations in print and it should make for a very interesting read for a libel lawyer.

One of my options perhaps being in an eventual court case to call JK as a witness and to have him cross examined.

For those of you just joining the following in response to TE’s talking points:

1. John Key did deals with Andrew Krieger.

2. John Key worked at various stages with Elders New Zealand and Bankers Trust New Zealand.

John Key worked for Elders bank and after that he worked for Bankers Trust. What is in debate is the date at which JK left Elders banks in order to start working for BT. In the links above I provide prove that there is at the very least a discrepancy in JK’s timeline. If as 5 journalists in NZ mainstream (see links above) claim JK did not start to work for BT until Late August early September 1988 than he could not have worked with Andrew Krieger in his early days for BT because Andrew Krieger according to three different NYTimes articles left the Bankers Trust in February 1988 and stopped trading altogether on 30 June 1988 and did not return to forex trading until September 1990.

Yet in two different interviews John Key, confirmed by his boss states that he worked with Krieger dealing in hundreds of millions of dollars.

The only time ever in the history of the NZ financial history these amounts were traded was during AK’s attack on the NZ dollar in late 1987.

TE suggests that obfuscation of this career period is of no consequence and tries to dim down it’s importance but it will become clear that it is very important we know why JK choose to state that he only worked with AK after the raid.

3. John Key was involved in the H-Fee deals.

If JK worked with AK he must have done so in 1987. He may or may not have known about the H-fee scandal but it is a small issue compared with his involvement with Krieger. Krieger earned $ 338,- million in only hours for the BT and if JK is complicit we have the right to know.

4. John Key was a currency trader.

TE tells you I allege great malfeasance in the Forex trade and he states that no trader can be the market and that seems indeed to be a grand statement to make but we are talking about events taking place 21 years ago when the $ NZ was still an obscure new currency and an emerging new economy and not something that happened yesterday.

TE also alleges that in order to sell there has to be a buyer agreeing on the price but at the time the option trade was a new instrument so is TE’s statement which sounds reasonable enough correct?

Let’s start with allegation one: Could a trader at the time be the market?

Well, yes and what is so interesting is that both the Bankers Trust and a book written in 1998 name Andrew Krieger’s 1987 attack as the perfect example of one trader being the market.

In this article, again from the invaluable NY Times online archive, a Bankers Trust executive goes on record as saying:

However, there were times, particularly in some of the more obscure currencies, ”that Mr. Krieger was the market,”

In this article a quote is taken from a book ominously called:

Apocalypse Roulette: The Lethal World of Derivatives. Published in May 1998.

And about who should it be but AK and his raid of the $NZ.
This how the book describes Andrew Krieger:

He quickly became one of the most aggressive dealers in the world, with the full sanction of Bankers (trust). While most of the bank’s currency traders had an upper dealing limit of $50 million, Krieger’s was in the region of $700 million—around a quarter of the bank’s capital at the time. By using options, Krieger could leverage this exposure to many times that size ($100,000 of currency options would buy control of $30 million to $40 million in actual currency). In 1987 he did this to launch a speculative attack on the New Zealand dollar.

And you read that right using this nice new tool called “options” he could control real currency by a multitude of 300 to 400 times that amount. That is a whopping US$ 21 to 28 billion in real currency.

The article continues:

If his own claims can be believed, he sold short the entire money supply of the country. In a matter of hours, the NZ dollar plunged 5 percent against the U.S. dollar. It was enough, at any rate, to draw an angry complaint from the New Zealand central bank. But with typical arrogance, Sanford (BT CEO at the time) later turned this on its head. “We didn’t take too big a position for Bankers Trust,’ he grumbled, “but we may have taken too big a position for that market.’ It was New Zealand’s fault, in other words, for being too small to cope with Bankers.

So now that we have established that a single banker could actually “be the market” and have equally established that in fact AK was the market for the NZ dollar at the time of the raid on the NZ dollars lets have a further look at the statement that for every dollar sold there has to be a buyer agreeing on a price.

Is this necessarily so?

Well again in a word no. The NY Times quotes Mr. Vojta an executive director for BT at the time:

Mr. Vojta told analysts that the valuation had been complicated because, since such options were new financial instruments traded over-the-counter, there was no way to check their prices against an official market price. In addition, the lack of active trading made it harder to determine pricing.

In fact the whole attack on the $ NZ in 1987 and it’s aftermath turned out to be a bit of an embarrassment to the BT because it turned out that when AK left in February 1988 they were forced to write down their earnings to the tune of US $ 80 million. It seems that AK complicated wheeling dealing lost a lot of it’s value when AK left.

This how the book describing AK’s attack on the $NZ puts it:

Krieger resigned the following year in disgust at the ingratitude of his employers who had paid him a mere $3 million for his efforts which had netted the bank a profit of more than $300 million. But after his departure an odd thing happened. Regulators discovered discrepancies in the way Bankers valued its currency options portfolio. The bank was forced to admit that $80 million of foreign exchange trading income had disappeared and that it had deliberately overstated its 1986 earnings. It seemed, on the face of it, that the bank had been simply unable to understand Krieger’s complex options positions. Dealers in other banks, however, wondered how it was that Krieger’s options portfolio only maintained its value as long as Krieger himself was in charge of it. Whatever the reason for the readjusted profit, the whole episode was a serious embarrassment. An even bigger embarrassment, though, should have been that Bankers had been willing deliberately to publish figures that were inaccurate by $80 million as if it didn’t matter. But the bank showed no sign of blushing.

This was yet another warning of its attitude: anything goes as long as the suckers don’t find out. Bankers (trust) was lean and very, very mean and there were no bigger suckers in sight than in the derivatives markets.

5. John Key was responsible, at least partly, for the world financial crisis.

As the above shows 1: JK lied about his career timeline 2: JK lied about his relationship with AK 3: Andrew Krieger was the market at the time of the attack on the NZ$ and 4: There was no need for a buyer agreeing on the price of the NZ dollar. Just suckers willing enough to buy.

In fact the above makes it abundantly clear that the attack was an aggressive manipulation of this countries currency for monetary gain and without any thought for the economy it might destroy.

If John Key was involved in this despicable act than he has the acumen and the will to go very far in his actions without much empathy for the damage he might cause others and he is willing to lie about it 20 years later.

Why is this important to establish?

If as I allege JK was willing to damage his own countries economy 20 years ago while aiding and abetting a speculative raid from a banker in NY and he is happy to lie about it 20 years later then he would have gone far in the shark invested waters that is the Wall street/ City of London banking world.

During his tenure with ML JK was involved in the derivatives trade as described above. In fact the book “Apocalypse Roulette: The Lethal World of Derivatives.” makes it crystal clear (as confirmed in this interview by John Key himself that JK was involved in the speculative and lethal world of the derivative trade and as such had the correct mind set to be involved with the LTCM hedgefund’s attacks on the Russian and Asian currencies and the selling of the derivatives based on subprime mortgages and other assets. In fact ML was one of the most aggressive banks partaking in both with JK in the most prime position to do his masters bidding.

And that is the man who is going to be sworn in as our new PM. Be afraid be very afraid.

TE Friday 21 9:45 am in a comment on the latest post a full apology or prove of me being a liar, dishonest or mentally unstable.

I continue to struggle to see what Ev’s point is, because she insists on remaining ignorant, dishonest, and mentally disturbed in her claims.

Is Ev saying:

1. John Key did deals with Andrew Krieger. Yes, we know that. Key has admitted to it. Nobody has denied it.

2. John Key worked at various stages with Elders New Zealand and Bankers Trust New Zealand. Yes, this is public record as well. Not a secret. Key appears to have made a mistaken reference to a journalist of him leaving Elders in 1987, as opposed to 1988. Is this mistake an indication of a massive conspiracy to lie? Ev would like everybody to think so, except Key made every effort to correct the statement, and it has no material consequence anyway.

3. John Key was involved in the H-Fee deals. This is the question that both Australian and New Zealand anti-fraud agencies investigated. They found no link between John Key and the H-Fee. They found that the first H-Fee deal, hatched at Elders Australia in January 1988, had no connection with Elders New Zealand, where Key worked. They also found that Key was not working at Elders New Zealand when the second H-Fee transaction was set into train. Mike Williams tried to find a link, fell flat on his face, and contributed to the downfall of the Labour Party at this election through his muck-raking.

4. John Key was a currency trader. Yes, this is true. Ev alleges great malfeasance in this profession, claiming Key was involved in a “raid” on the New Zealand dollar. Ev, through sheer ignorance, doesn’t understand that for every seller, there has to be a buyer. A single trader can’t just short-sell currency ad infinitum, without having somebody else at the other end of the transaction agreeing that it is a fair market price. The assumption that individual traders can “be the market” is just nonsense.

5. John Key was responsible, at least partly, for the world financial crisis. This argument is an extension of a web of silliness, stupidity, dishonesty, and mental instability from Ev. John Key was one of hundreds of senior executives at ML. His role related to foreign exchange. Key had nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage lending market in the US. Key’s role at the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve of New York had nothing to do with sub-prime lending. Ev knows this, but will make a broad sweep of the order of “but some of his best mates did, so he was guilty”.

These are Ev’s principal stupidities and dishonesties. They have been pointed out to her multiple times. Each time she either ignores these facts, or glosses over them. She does not acknowledge her own glaring inconsistencies and errors, but creates great conspiracies out of the only inconsistency that Key has made in this matter: a verbal recall of which year he left one company to join another.

A fine economic historian. WOW.

I am a very happily married woman but there are times. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

That is an interesting angle: Key working for Elders while AK attacks the NZ$.

I would be happy with that if it wasn’t for the fact that in two interviews Gavin Walker, John Key’s BT’s boss is quoted as saying that it was JK’s job to cater to AK’s account.

I just found this little diddy by the way, a speech from Gavin Walker in 2002.

In it he condemns the Muldoon era and he heralds Cullen’s and Clark’s fiscal prudence in front of no kidding: the Rotary club.LOLOLOL.

All this while JK loved Muldoon. Be afraid be very afraid. Big economy, big spending, big debt!

He Will,

Thanks a bunch

LOLSMIBI

If you really have no idea of the veracity or otherwise of your points, do you think you could refrain from attacking those of us who are making them?

Alternatively it occurs to me that I simply do not believe you. You have participated in a least three separate threads on this matter and made dozens of replies to posts where authorative links were posted verifying each one the points listed.

Yes it is a lovely evening. Enjoy the beach….lots of sand to bury head in.