Right Court: charges don’t match the facts

33 comments on “Right Court: charges don’t match the facts ”

• Comments are now closed

1. roger nome 1

   24 September 2008 at 6:14 pm

   heh – brilliant!

   Of course, bring up any of these facts over at kiwiblog, and the standard line will be ‘well, in my experiance as a free-market idealouge small business owner, New Zealand is a commie suckhole’.

   For people with the wealth to have done a fair bit of traveling, they have a surprisingly small-minded world view. No perspective at all.
2. roger nome 2

   24 September 2008 at 6:18 pm

   It appears that i’ve been caught in the moderation trap. Could it be that, because of the number of spelling mistakes in my last post, that i’ve been automatically suspected as a right-wing troll?
3. Chris 3

   24 September 2008 at 6:37 pm

   nice
4. Nick C 4

   24 September 2008 at 8:25 pm

   Sorry, hate to thread jack, but any possibility of a post on the issue of the Maori Party being pressured into voting against censuring Peters? Or is this just standard practise for the Labour Party these days?

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/4704345a6160.html

   And I thought it was National who were politically biased in the committee hearing!

   [lprent: Usual response – read the last section in the About – “You must…”. Why ask questions for which you already know the answer. It is a risky trait because I eventually hit the “bloody nuisance” point ]
5. Joel 5

   24 September 2008 at 8:52 pm

   Yeah nice bit of diversion there Nick C 🙂 Well done.

   Anyway, I think you’ll find the Maori Party are simply trying to make the front page. Good effort considering we don’t hear much of them atm…
6. randal 6

   24 September 2008 at 9:09 pm

   listen nikc… the only thing parekura can heavy is hamburger and a thickshake. If Pita cant handle Parekura then tough titty. why didnt we get to see the hearings on afternnon teevee?
7. Chris S 7

   24 September 2008 at 10:52 pm

   Of course, bring up any of these facts over at kiwiblog, and the standard line will be ‘well, in my experiance as a free-market idealouge small business owner, New Zealand is a commie suckhole’.

   I can’t stop laughing at this!
8. G 8

   28 September 2008 at 12:57 am

   “The least corrupt country on Earth.”

   HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAA!!! Oh that’s so good!!! Yeah, except for the $830,000 Labour ‘misappropriated’ for last-minute electioneering that got them the extra 1% they needed to win in ’05!! Except for the blatant bullying of the judiciary to drop the prima facie case of the theft!! Except for the rewriting of the law to make their theft legal and avoid being taken to court!!

   Transparency International. Transparent alright!!
9. r0b 9

   28 September 2008 at 1:11 am

   Are you OK G? You seem a little – hysterical.

   NZ is rated as the least corrupt country in the world (first equal with Finland and Denmark). All of your above ranting is just that – ranting – a loony interpretation of events held only by the Kiwiblog right.

   Mind you, as you are a firm believer in climate cooling, I guess we already knew that your grasp of factual matters was a little tenuous.
10. G 10

    28 September 2008 at 4:19 am

    “NZ is rated as the least corrupt country in the world (first equal with Finland and Denmark).”

    MWAAA-HA-HAAA!!! 😀

    Rob says: “All of your above ranting is just that – ranting – a loony interpretation of events held only by the Kiwiblog right.”

    Sunday Star Times says: “Election ad spending was illegal, Auditor-General’s report finds.”

    Michael Morris, chairman of Transparency International NZ says: “Using money intended for legitimate parliamentary purposes to help get votes, and then to avoid the issue of culpability, brings the law, the people who make the law, and the system that generates the law into public contempt.”

    http://www.95bfm.com/assets/sm/26408/3/ShaneCave.mp3

    Tui says: Yeah Right!

    If Labour’s actions were all perfectly legal, Rob:

    1) Why did the police say there was a prima facie case?
    2) Why wasn’t Darnton’s lawsuit summarily thrown out?
    3) Why did Labour change the law to avoid his case in court?
    4) Why did Labour finally pay it back?

    You guys crack me up!!! 😀
11. r0b 11

    28 September 2008 at 10:01 am

    Sunday Star Times says: “Election ad spending was illegal, Auditor-General’s report finds.’

    Yes, the AG found that all parties (except the progressives) misspent money – including National, including ACT, including the Greens (who’s MP Rod Donald had written the legislation). The spending was the responsibility of parliamentary services, but the AG did not hold them to blame, he said it was a failure of the system of checks and balances.

    1) Why did the police say there was a prima facie case?

    That was for a different issue. They concluded the same about National’s GST overspend.

    2) Why wasn’t Darnton’s lawsuit summarily thrown out?
    3) Why did Labour change the law to avoid his case in court?

    The Darnton case was thrown out by parliament, not even ACT voted to support it.

    4) Why did Labour finally pay it back?

    Because they lost the public perception war, it was the only way they could be seen to be making good.

    If you’re interested in corruption G, you need to start closer to home. Start with National. After the 2005 election it was National, not Labour, who lost their leader (the unlamented Don Brash) due to the public outcry at National’s despicable electoral tactics. You can rant and rave and lie about the facts all you like, but the public, and history, has already rendered its verdict on “corruption” in the 05 election. Thanks for every opportunity to mention this G, much appreciated.
12. G 12

    28 September 2008 at 11:04 am

    You’ll get no argument from me regarding National’s over-spending, Rob, but only one party actually gained power because of it. Labour would NOT have won had it NOT illegally misappropriated the taxpayers’ money and squeaked in by a measly 1%.

    Furthermore:

    1) National is not my party and as far as I’m concerned they should have been prosecuted too — with proportionate consequences ($11k is a far cry from $800+k).

    2) Darnton’s case was not legally ended in Parliament; it was ended when Labour — in true banana republic style — retrospectively rewrote the law.

    3) Once again, if what Labour did was legal there would be no reason to change the law to make it so.

    4) No, Rob, they had to pay it back because the money they took didn’t belong to them and the public knew it.

    Everything else is a desperate side-tracking of the real issue here: Labour stole the election and quantifiably remains the most corrupt government in New Zealand’s history.

    The question is, Rob, are you so desperate that you’d maintain that Labour’s actions were legal — prior to their rewriting of the law?
13. G 13

    28 September 2008 at 11:10 am

    * correction: Darnton’s case was not legally ended by a judge and jury in a court of law (where, in an uncorrupt country, it would have been tried) — it ended when Labour retrospectively rewrote the law and all the guilty thieves (including ACT) got in behind it. As I said, true banana republic style.
14. RedLogix 14

    28 September 2008 at 11:29 am

    G,

    You appear to be underinformed. Read the last few hundred comments on this thread and get back to us when you understand some of it.
15. G 15

    28 September 2008 at 11:44 am

    I have read it, Red, and nowhere there — or here — is there a denial that a) what Labour did was illegal, because b) the money was not theirs, and c) they used for electioneering, which d) kept them in power.

    The point is, in a country that’s not corrupt, this would have been litigated in court, not on a socialist blog.

    [lprent: It is unlikely that you did read it. Because you wouldn’t have reiterated points a-d. That was a particularly good discussion where they went through exactly what points were in the legal framework. It wasn’t a litigation, it was a look at the legal underpinnings that eventually resulted in parliaments decisions (which is the highest court).

    BTW: You sound like one of those strange fans of the US constitutional limited monarchy who doesn’t really understand exactly how they are locked into a 18th century system. Of course it is a relatively simple system – makes it easy to teach in schools.]
16. G 16

    28 September 2008 at 12:31 pm

    I see you don’t deny points a-d, Iprent — but then how could you refute the facts according to the highest independent legal authority at the time?

    U.S. monarchy, Iprent? Oh dear, how embarrassing. I think you’ll find they ended their monarchy some time ago. 1783 as I recall.
17. lprent 17

    28 September 2008 at 12:51 pm

    G: I see that you didn’t deny my point that you hadn’t read the material that red pointed you to. You’d have found your answers there. But thats right – you don’t read alternative views. They might upset your way of looking at things. That became evident in previous discussions.

    Are you deliberately playing the fool. They ended the actual monarchy and setup the presidential office that looks exactly like a limited monarchy. Just because the label got changed doesn’t change the function.
18. G 18

    28 September 2008 at 1:10 pm

    I don’t deny I haven’t read it, Iprent, because I specifically stated that I did – duh. And still you don’t explicitly deny that labour’s actions were illegal – as A.G. Kevin Brady categorically did, a man whose independent opinion in this scandal holds infinitely more stock than all of you partisan socialists put together.

    Regarding your foolish notions of monarchies, Iprent, here’s a picture to help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Monarchies.png
19. lprent 19

    28 September 2008 at 1:23 pm

    G: Sure they were illegal in the viewpoint of Brady, as were those of all other parties with the exception of the Progressives. Similarly the electoral commission found that National illegally overspent their TV allocation.

    I also think that if Brady had extended the period outside of the 3 month period that he limited himself to, that National would have had a far higher level of illegality in Brady’s view than Labour.

    The problem was caused by Parliamentary Services and the parties following previous practice about communications and other expenditures. Brady had a different viewpoint to everyone else about what the relevant law and practices should have been. In reality the only people that could have been prosecuted would have probably been in Parliamentary Services.

    Consequently parliament (the only body that could judge it) tidied up the law to make sure that the guidelines and the legislation were far less open to interpretation by any party. Similarly the EFA extended to electoral period to something that is closer to what had been happening to ensure that subsequent investigations by the AG and EC covered the whole electoral period.

    Basically it was a left-over from the bloody stupid Electoral Act 1993 and other legislation passed in the 1990’s and never fixed until recently. But of course you never bothered to look at the relevant law did you?

    BTW: Who cares about the brand. If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc – then it probably is a duck. If a US president looks like an elected monarch, has much the same powers as other monarchs, etc – then it probably is a monarch. I can’t help it if you’re hung up on labels – seems to be common amongst the young.
20. Felix 20

    28 September 2008 at 1:38 pm

    I don’t want to get into what could become a very silly discussion about monarchies, but that picture implies some very odd arrangements in NZ…
21. lprent 21

    28 September 2008 at 1:43 pm

    🙂 Yeah looks like Kwamikagami had interesting ideas
22. randal 22

    28 September 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Yeah G so what. That 1% was necessary to ensure that New Zealand was not taken over by right wing religious fundamentalist nutbars.
    And the New Zealand Labour Party is still going to be the government after November the eighth.
    The people of New Zealand are not so silly that they cant see what the tories and the maori party are dreaming up. Looks like they are both cut from the same dominate for pleasure and extort for profit cloth. Their arrangements would have all of us slaves in no time flat and getting bashed by bullies just for the hell of it and no redress.
23. G 23

    28 September 2008 at 2:05 pm

    “Sure they were illegal in the viewpoint of Brady, as were those of all other parties with the exception of the Progressives. Similarly the electoral commission found that National illegally overspent their TV allocation.”

    Heard the expression “six wrongs don’t make a right?” Iprent? They were all guilty as sin. Guilty — and not just according to the A.G., this was not some arbitrary opinion — it was a breach of the constitution. So, in a nutshell: Labour broke the law to fund their electioneering that saw them snaffle the 1% that retained their desperate hold on to power. Ergo: guilty of stealing an election.

    “In reality the only people that could have been prosecuted would have probably been in Parliamentary Services.”

    And the Parliamentary Service staff is made up of members from all the guilty parties. Still guilty.

    As you well know, Iprent, ALL the parties were specifically warned 3 months before the election NOT to do what they did. They not only ignored this legal advice, they ignored what they — the so-called “highest court in the country” — surely should have already known.

    Guilty as hell.

    And you know it.
24. randal 24

    28 September 2008 at 2:23 pm

    g its sounds like you were abducted by aliens in another life who made you read nostradumbass 100 times and now you think the whole world is a conspiracy. go for a walk
25. G 25

    28 September 2008 at 2:28 pm

    Read the Constitution Act 1986 section 22(c), and the Public Finance Act 1989 sections 4, 5 and 9, Randy, and get back to me.
26. RedLogix 26

    28 September 2008 at 6:28 pm

    G,

    I can’t be arsed repeating the reasoning that was laid out in great detail on the thread I pointed you to. You obviously did not read it with a view to understand; at best you skimmed through it to selectively confirm you fixed ideas.

    But in a nutshell. Parliament wrote the rules. The AG interpreted them very narrowly and in a manner Parliament had not intended. The retrospective legislation you are so exercised about was in fact the normal and correct procedure in the circmstances.

    It was in fact a Parliamentary matter, to be resolved by Parliament; not the Courts.
27. G 27

    28 September 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Narrowly? Those ‘rules’ were law, Red, in black and white.

    Let me simplify it for you — in a nutshell:

    1) The law which Parliament wrote regarding Parliamentary Business explicitly excludes “party political, promotional or electioneering material.”

    2) The A.G., suspecting this law was going to be contravened, explicitly told ALL parties not to use those funds for electioneering.

    3) Labour paid for their pledge cards using money from that fund.

    4) Labour were electioneering; they broke the law.

    What part of this has been misinterpreted?
28. randal 28

    28 September 2008 at 8:33 pm

    g …dont you know that brady was just shilling for the Nats. what makes you think his integrity, probity and credentials were any better than anyone elses. we live in a post modern relativistic world where own truths can be bought for with a discount and retailed for full price. anyway the New Zealand Labour Party will win the election so stop wasting bandwidth and choking the net with undergraduate drivel and clutter.
29. r0b 29

    28 September 2008 at 9:17 pm

    3) Labour paid for their pledge cards using money from that fund.

    Every other party (except the progressives) got it “wrong” too. National got it wrong. Act got it wrong.

    The law which Parliament wrote regarding Parliamentary Business

    That law was largely written by Rod Donald of the Greens. According to the AG Rod Donald broke his own law – the Greens got it wrong.

    Or do you think that it’s just possible that the AG was interpreting the law much more narrowly than Rod Donald, and National, and ACT, and Labour, were expecting?

    4) Labour were electioneering; they broke the law.

    So were National. So were ACT. So were the Greens, and everyone else except the progressives. You’ll notice I’m repeating my answers. That’s because you’re repeating your incorrect assertions. Round we go.
30. G 30

    28 September 2008 at 11:27 pm

    randal @ 2:23 pm “g its sounds like you were abducted by aliens in another life who made you read nostradumbass 100 times and now you think the whole world is a conspiracy. go for a walk”

    randal @ 8:33 pm “g … dont you know that brady was just shilling for the Nats. what makes you think his integrity, probity and credentials were any better than anyone elses. we live in a post modern relativistic world where own truths can be bought for with a discount and retailed for full price.”

    Beautiful.
31. G 31

    28 September 2008 at 11:56 pm

    G @ 2:05 pm “Heard the expression “six wrongs don’t make a right?’ Iprent? They were all guilty as sin.”

    Rob @ 9:17 pm “Every other party (except the progressives) got it “wrong’ too. National got it wrong. Act got it wrong… the Greens got it wrong… You’ll notice I’m repeating my answers… Round we go.”

    Tiresome indeed.

    You conspicuously ignored these points Rob:

    1) The law which Parliament wrote regarding Parliamentary Business explicitly excludes “party political, promotional or electioneering material.’

    2) The A.G., suspecting this law was going to be contravened, explicitly told ALL parties not to use those funds for electioneering.

    But at least you’ve implicitly admitted Labour were wrong (along with the other parties) in breaking the aforementioned law.

    But here’s the rub, Rob: how many votes do you think ACT’s $18k bought? Or the Nat’s $11k? I know you love Miss Clark to bits, mate, but does your infatuation run so goddamn deep you honestly think that the opposition’s $30,000 made one jot of difference to their campaign, compared to the coalition’s $1,000,000?

    Statistically, an $800k direct mail campaign to the whole country could be expected to yield a 1% response.

    And that’s all Labour needed.
32. RedLogix 32

    29 September 2008 at 5:25 am

    G,

    Your entire assertion pivots on the definition of the word ‘electioneering’. MP’s serve two masters; their Party and Parliament. Virtually everything they do can be interpreted to contain some aspects related to both purposes at the same time, and almost every word or action committed by an MP could be described as electioneering in one form or another. It is impossible to objectively and rigorously define exactly where “parliamentary purpose” ends and “party political” begins.

    NZ political parties are not especially wealth creatures. Mostly they relying on a trickle of funds from a relatively small membership base which is manifestly inadequate for them to operate effective electoral campaigns. As a result ALL the parties over the last 20 odd years have operated a gentlemens agreement that tolerated a moderate amount of PS funding to be used for some purposes that was fairly open electioneering. This had been going on for many elections. The sums involved were relatively small and the period limited, but because the PS rules were wide open to abuse, they were revised and made clearer after the 2002 election in order to try and define some upper boundaries on the practise.

    In a post above I said that the AG interpreted the rules too narrowly; well in this context it was more a case of him extending his definition of electioneering to a rather more literal and cruder usage than Parliament had intended. This is proven by the fact of every Party (including the leader of the Party that had most to do with attempting to clarify the rules) being found in breach of them. Despite your jaundiced preconceptions, in general political Parties do not deliberately set about openly flouting laws and regulations. It’s usually embarrassing and counterproductive.

    At the same time… and to my mind this was the most critical matter… the AG clearly flagged well prior in 2005 that he was only going to audit the three months prior to the election. National took this as a sign to get busy and spend as much of it’s PS funding (which it did) on whatever electioneering purpose it liked before this period. Because National had so much cash sloshing around in its secret money laundering trusts it was the only party in a position to exploit this pre-signalled three month limit. It could use up all of its PS funding three months out, secure in the knowledge that it could then fund the later part of it’s campaign from it’s own cash… and totally escape any scrutiny from the AG.

    As I said, political parties don’t usually set out to openly flout the rules; but National is the one party proven to happily exploit whatever loopholes and dubious dodges it can.
33. G 33

    29 September 2008 at 10:06 am

    “Your entire assertion pivots on the definition of the word ‘electioneering’.”

    Okay, if you say so, Red:

    “Hodgson told the Sunday Star-Times from Australia last week that if asked what it thought of the pledge card, “the public would say that it is clearly for political purposes – and for Christ’s sake, of course it is, you know?

    “If it wasn’t we would put out a pledge card the day after the election not before it.’

    Asked if that meant it was electioneering, he said, “Yes.’

    And of course Mike Williams also confirmed the Pledge Card was electioneering.

    Case closed.

    (And – *sigh* – once again, totally off-topic, I have no problem seeing National’s ass in a sling too, but since they didn’t win the election they didn’t technically steal it.)

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS