Key and McClay sorting out their lines

16 comments on “Key and McClay sorting out their lines ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kevin 1

   4 May 2016 at 9:56 am

   Once again, Key’s first instinct is ALWAYS to lie.

   He can’t help himself. Lying to him is like breathing to the rest of us.
   • mary_a 1.1

     4 May 2016 at 10:24 am

     @ Kevin (1) … yep, FJK in typical dodgy mode. If you are caught out, first lie, lie again and then lie some more. He can’t help himself! Truth doesn’t exist in FJK’s slippery, murky world. His lies will bury him.

     Karma is on its way!
2. Mosa 2

   4 May 2016 at 10:21 am

   As usual its all Labours fault eh!
   Its as ridiculous as his claim that he plays it straight..
3. North 3

   4 May 2016 at 10:23 am

   A very unimpressive man and certainly committed to forces beyond NZ’s shores. Just underlines that he’s always been the beneficiary of the MSM’s self-interested, advised, pulling of punches. The gloss painted on the turd is wearing thin.
4. Lanthanide 4

   4 May 2016 at 10:31 am

   No one in the media has yet to ask if it’s normal procedure for a minister to make a visit to the office of the contact.

   I would have thought it would be more normal for the contact to visit the minister’s office? Guess it depends in they’re both in Wellington or not.
   • ianmac 4.1

     4 May 2016 at 10:56 am

     I think that they could answer that with “We are very accessible and meet constituents every where.” Probably not so for formal meetings but deniable.
5. Macro 5

   4 May 2016 at 1:14 pm

   Surely the PM is entitled to have a few private words with his private lawyer
   😈
   • Nick Morris 5.1

     4 May 2016 at 1:38 pm

     And why shouldn’t that Trust-enabling-former- lawyer drop Key’s name, why shouldn’t Key give a heads up to his newly-appointed junior minister and why shouldn’t Todd McLay change his position on trusts, and why shouldn’t New Zealand be turned into the Jersey – or Bermuda – of the South and why shouldn’t they all be allowed to keep the whole thing secret?

     Nothing to see here….did I mention paintergate recently (that’s forgery!) and pledgecardgate (corruption!)

     Ah yes I remember it well….
6. amirite 6

   4 May 2016 at 1:49 pm

   Oh! The shit just keeps popping up to the surface…

   ‘John Key’s lawyer Ken Whitney was criticised by the High Court after creating a sham trust for a bankrupt property developer then failing to disclose it to authorities probing his client’s insolvency.’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11633406
   • Anno1701 6.1

     4 May 2016 at 3:14 pm

     career criminal……
7. Frank Stark 7

   4 May 2016 at 3:01 pm

   NZ Herald’s Matt Nippett reveals John Key’s “lawyer” Ken Whitney was criticised by a High Court judge for setting up a sham trust for a bankrupt property developer, then failing to disclose it to authorities probing his client’s insolvency.
   http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11633406
   Among the gems in the case revealed by Nippett, Whitney was asked under cross-examination if he had concerns around setting up structures to allow a bankrupt to continue in business. “No, not particularly,” said Whitney. “It’s a common thing for people to do. It may not be morally as white as it could be but it’s normal practice.”

   This seems in stark contrast to Key’s comments that the conduct of his lawyer, who actually isn’t a lawyer, is “highly ethical”.

   In the August 2014 ruling, High Court Justice Ed Wylie noted Whitney repeatedly failed to disclose the sham trust nor did he volunteer that Las Vegas-based bankrupt Rod Neilsen and his wife had been appointed discretionary beneficiaries of that trust.

   Justice Wylie recorded some oddities around the signature. “Whitney purported to witness Nielsen’s signature. Whitney acknowledged in cross-examination that he was not present when Nielsen signed the document. Neilsen signed it in Las Vegas, and Whitney witnessed Nielsen’s signature when the document was later returned to New Zealand.
   The ruling records Mr Whitney, responding to what “in the presence of” meant in terms of witnessing signatures, saying he had “taken it to mean also if you know the person’s signature and you’ve discussed it with them and they acknowledge it then that’s fine”.
   Justice Wylie said of this explanation and behavior: “Again, this is far from satisfactory.”

   I wonder how long it is before Key decides his long time friend and “lawyer” is a liability?
8. greywarshark 8

   4 May 2016 at 3:17 pm

   The puppet in the image reminds me of an old kids tv program about a toy called Lamb Chop.
   Here is one where Lamb Chop and friends find a wallet. I wonder if this would be suitable viewing for politicians. I haven’t found out yet whether good Lamb Chop follows the rule and returns the wallet to its owner, or whether the naughty friends win the day.
   Tata I am just going to watch the story. Do you guess what the outcome is? Let’s watch together!
   (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY8qeWdn6QU
   • Henry Filth 8.1

     4 May 2016 at 3:30 pm

     If politicians are involved, then d’you think it might be a foregone conclusion?
   • greywarshark 8.2

     4 May 2016 at 9:15 pm

     I was just thinking that this video Lamb Chop and the wallet should go on a list of values training videos for rich kids.

     They are the ones that are growing up to be criminals in the major areas of finance that lead to our economy living on borrowed money and borrowed time. But soon it will end = they will have purloined all our resources, and then they can drive their enslavement legislation even tighter.

     We will end up like the Yorkshireman determined to have the worst sob story about childhood – ‘We used to work 25 hours a day and when we got home our dad would murder us and dance on our graves singing hallelujah. Yes, tell that to the young people today and they’ll never believe you.”

     But something very like that has happened in the western world in WW2. So could do again, you’d better believe it.
9. Anno1701 9

   4 May 2016 at 3:32 pm

   “According to Justice Wylie: “Indeed, Whitney accepted in cross-examination that this was done to maintain secrecy as against all parties, including the Official Assignee.””

   doesn’t that make him an Accessory before the fact & practically an accomplice ?
10. Neil 10

    4 May 2016 at 7:02 pm

    When Whitney rung Key,
    Key would’ve known who he was speaking to straight away, Given that Whitney has been Key’s personal lawyer for 20 years(Oh that’s right Whitney is not a lawyer) & told Whitney exactly what it said in the email to McClay, that Whitney had contacted Key & Key had given Whitney the assurance that they had no plans of tightening up on the foreign trust laws & wanted a meeting.
    Then McClay would’ve freaked out being a noobee & shut down any IRD investigation into it to appease his master.
    It sticks out like a pimple on a 16 year old school boy on heat, that all this is rather plain to see, why do people prefer to keep their heads in the sand & ignore it?.
    Not only is Key up to less than desirable practices MSM are no where to be seen asking the hard questions until they get an answer.
    I tell you what if Labour were in charge of this, they would get crucified for it, not that they aren’t now for anything they say.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS