Discussion:
The trouble with the two Foundations and alleged fraud
(too old to reply)
Crash
2020-02-18 02:52:12 UTC
Permalink
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.

There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html

Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.

The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
the SFO for deception over donations to the National party:

https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html

While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.

The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-18 03:28:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.

I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.

DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .

More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.

So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
JohnO
2020-02-18 21:38:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.

In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.

Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's has a web page.

https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369

Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Rich80105
2020-02-19 02:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
apparently this was a total surprise to Simon Bridges:
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.

In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
individuals who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Tony
2020-02-19 03:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Rich80105
2020-02-19 03:55:27 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
thing:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations

According to Geddes:
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.

The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.

The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Tony
2020-02-19 04:17:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Rich80105
2020-02-19 04:34:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Tony
2020-02-19 05:42:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Rich80105
2020-02-19 05:57:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Tony
2020-02-19 06:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Rich80105
2020-02-19 07:26:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some sort of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Tony
2020-02-20 19:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
John Bowes
2020-02-20 20:55:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Rich has the problem that he only listens to the voices in his head. Regrettably they're even sillier than Rich :)
Rich80105
2020-02-20 22:07:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
.
Post by Tony
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Tony
2020-02-20 22:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually
maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by
holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears
to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of
this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged
by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
No, that is nonsense - your imaginary friends are at it again.
Post by Rich80105
.
Post by Tony
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Crash
2020-02-23 08:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
Rich, the Electoral Commission has been explicit:

https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2020/statement-on-donations-enquiries/

Rich, what part of "Based on the information available, we have formed
the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations
which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand
First Party. " do you not understand?
Post by Rich80105
.
Post by Tony
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-23 09:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2020/statement-on-donations-enquiries/
Rich, what part of "Based on the information available, we have formed
the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations
which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand
First Party. " do you not understand?
They have made no charges, and I predict they will not charge the NZ
First Party. I ask again the queston above that remains unanswered -
what do you believe NZ First has done wrong, and what evidence is
there for that allegation?

The claim was made that because National were not charged, that means
they have done nothing wrong, but apparently that argument does not
work for NZ First, who have also not been charged - in the mind of
that poster that means they have done wrong.

"Pretty legal" sems to be acceptable for friends, but not for others .
. .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
.
Post by Tony
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Crash
2020-02-23 22:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2020/statement-on-donations-enquiries/
Rich, what part of "Based on the information available, we have formed
the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations
which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand
First Party. " do you not understand?
They have made no charges, and I predict they will not charge the NZ
First Party.
Rich you are just plain wrong. The Electoral Commission has made the
determination as I cited in respect of NZF. No such similar
determination has been made against the National party.
Post by Rich80105
what do you believe NZ First has done wrong, and what evidence is
there for that allegation?
Only the Electoral Commission can answer that.
Post by Rich80105
The claim was made that because National were not charged, that means
they have done nothing wrong, but apparently that argument does not
work for NZ First, who have also not been charged - in the mind of
that poster that means they have done wrong.
"Pretty legal" sems to be acceptable for friends, but not for others .
. .
The donation complaint in respect of the National Party, made to the
Police by Jamie-Lee Ross and referred to the SFO, has resulted in
charges against JLR and the donors. Clearly there is the possibility
that JLR was motivated in his complaint by political malice. There is
no such possibility in respect of the allegations made against NZF by
the Electoral Commission.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
.
Post by Tony
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-02-24 00:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2020/statement-on-donations-enquiries/
Rich, what part of "Based on the information available, we have formed
the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations
which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand
First Party. " do you not understand?
They have made no charges, and I predict they will not charge the NZ
First Party.
Rich you are just plain wrong. The Electoral Commission has made the
determination as I cited in respect of NZF. No such similar
determination has been made against the National party.
You referred to the NZ First Foundation, but are now talking about the
NZ First political party. The two are not the same. I repeat that I do
not believe that NZ First will be prosecuted. They have formed a view
about donations received by the NZ Frst Foundation. That may well
result in prosecutions, but it also may not - we will have to wait and
see. But a prosecutin of the NZ First Party is most unlikely.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
what do you believe NZ First has done wrong, and what evidence is
there for that allegation?
Only the Electoral Commission can answer that.
Post by Rich80105
The claim was made that because National were not charged, that means
they have done nothing wrong, but apparently that argument does not
work for NZ First, who have also not been charged - in the mind of
that poster that means they have done wrong.
"Pretty legal" sems to be acceptable for friends, but not for others .
. .
The donation complaint in respect of the National Party, made to the
Police by Jamie-Lee Ross and referred to the SFO, has resulted in
charges against JLR and the donors. Clearly there is the possibility
that JLR was motivated in his complaint by political malice. There is
no such possibility in respect of the allegations made against NZF by
the Electoral Commission.
I think you will find that the complaint was made in respect of Simon
Bridges or other persons in the National Party. The subject of another
thread is "Spectacular 'own goal' by Jamie-Lee Ross" - I doubt many
disagree with that description.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
.
Post by Tony
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
John Bowes
2020-02-24 21:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2020/statement-on-donations-enquiries/
Rich, what part of "Based on the information available, we have formed
the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations
which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand
First Party. " do you not understand?
They have made no charges, and I predict they will not charge the NZ
First Party.
Rich you are just plain wrong. The Electoral Commission has made the
determination as I cited in respect of NZF. No such similar
determination has been made against the National party.
You referred to the NZ First Foundation, but are now talking about the
NZ First political party. The two are not the same. I repeat that I do
not believe that NZ First will be prosecuted. They have formed a view
about donations received by the NZ Frst Foundation. That may well
result in prosecutions, but it also may not - we will have to wait and
see. But a prosecutin of the NZ First Party is most unlikely.
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
what do you believe NZ First has done wrong, and what evidence is
there for that allegation?
Only the Electoral Commission can answer that.
Post by Rich80105
The claim was made that because National were not charged, that means
they have done nothing wrong, but apparently that argument does not
work for NZ First, who have also not been charged - in the mind of
that poster that means they have done wrong.
"Pretty legal" sems to be acceptable for friends, but not for others .
. .
The donation complaint in respect of the National Party, made to the
Police by Jamie-Lee Ross and referred to the SFO, has resulted in
charges against JLR and the donors. Clearly there is the possibility
that JLR was motivated in his complaint by political malice. There is
no such possibility in respect of the allegations made against NZF by
the Electoral Commission.
I think you will find that the complaint was made in respect of Simon
Bridges or other persons in the National Party. The subject of another
thread is "Spectacular 'own goal' by Jamie-Lee Ross" - I doubt many
disagree with that description.
when it comes to own goals Rich you and JLR share that in common. Is it stupid or a belief that like Keith you are never wrong that is the problem ?
John Bowes
2020-02-24 00:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 13:38:29 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 19 Feb 2020 00:20:50 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 23:42:22 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 22:17:15 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:19:10 -0600, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:52:12 +1300, Crash
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation.
This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no
resemblance
to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
And it is now apparent that, at the time, the arrangements by National
were through a different trust than the National Foundation, but which
is still a separate trust that is said by many in National to operate
independently of the party. Fundamentally, both arrangements were
legal at the time, provided they understood exactly what had to be
done. The problem occurs when an amateur gets involved, which is why
https://soundcloud.com/user-68865949/jami-lee-ross-releases-simon-bridges-audio
Post by JohnO
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the
foundation
has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF
Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is
secretive,
and
hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and
very
clear
to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the
party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund,
National's
has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding
the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to
pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to
be
No, they are not, you liar.
Since the National Party arrangements were not in the past the current
National Foundation, you are jumping to a conclusion that I had not
made.
In any case it now appears that the National Fundation was not
invovled at all in the actions which have now resulted in charges
being laid - including a similar issue a year earlier.
Post by JohnO
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those
differences;
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite
anything
in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
Post by Crash
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation)
are
on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party
donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
Indeed the National Party could not have been prosecuted; it is only
Are you sure about that? I doubt it is correct, unless there is some
sort
of
special protection for political parties. Certainly trustees can be
prosecuted
and so can party secretaries which is nearly the same thing.
Nearly the same thing does however confirm that it is not the same
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018731861/criminal-charges-filed-over-national-party-donations
* For Bridges to have personally been charged he would have had to
explicitly told the donors that he wanted them to pay the donations to
the party in this specific illegal way. Geddis didn't believe anyone
would be that stupid.
* Re the Party officials, the Party Secretary is the one essentially
with legal liability but their duty is simply to receive the
donations, bank them and then pass information onto the Electoral
Commission.
* There is no duty on the part of the Party Secretary to check or
verify the information provided re the donations is accurate or true
etc other than, for example, the donations were made by these named
people and these people exist.
The National Party is not an incorporated Society so cannot be
charged. The same will apply to any charges that may arise from the
investigation into donations to NZ First.
The political parties clearly understand that part of the Law, but
that does not stop at least one politician from pointing out that the
National Party has not been charged. I do not believe that NZ First's
Foundation has been charged either; I leave it to others to judge
whether that was misguided, a mistake or a deliberate lie.
Thank you, that is all good.
So National have done no wrong.
How can you conclude that from my comments or the interview? The
National Party is not an entity that can be charged - but not being
charged is no guarantee that the Party, or members of the party, have
done no wrong. has
Not too hard, that is what you implied. Your call, not mine.
Rubbish, I did not imply anything of the sort - your logic is
deficient.
Yes you did.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
NZ First on the other hand - we shall see.
We can be confident that NZ First will not be prosecuted. Does that
mean NZ First has done no wrong, Tony?
Of course not.
And yet you claim that National not being charged means they have done
nothing wrong. It is now for the courts to decide if those charged
are guilty; but whatever the result it may not prove that the National
Party did anything right, or anything wrong.
I did not claim that. But there is no evidence that they did, unlike NZ First.
I'll bite - perhaps it will make your day! - what do you believe NZ
First has done wrong, and what evidence is there for that allegation?
Posted several times by Crash, myself and others. Clearly the SFO is interested.
The SFO get interested in a lot of things that do not end up with a
prosecution, but there have been no charges against either NZ First or
Winston Peters. If you were consistent, you would accept that because
NZ First have not been charged, that they have done nothing wrong . .
https://elections.nz/media-and-news/2020/statement-on-donations-enquiries/
Rich, what part of "Based on the information available, we have formed
the view that the New Zealand First Foundation has received donations
which should have been treated as party donations for the New Zealand
First Party. " do you not understand?
They have made no charges, and I predict they will not charge the NZ
First Party. I ask again the queston above that remains unanswered -
what do you believe NZ First has done wrong, and what evidence is
there for that allegation?
The claim was made that because National were not charged, that means
they have done nothing wrong, but apparently that argument does not
work for NZ First, who have also not been charged - in the mind of
that poster that means they have done wrong.
"Pretty legal" sems to be acceptable for friends, but not for others .
. .
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
.
Post by Tony
Perhaps you should listen to others, especially those without political bias.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
individuals
who can be prosecuted, and that has now happened, (he is
not now a member, but was at the time of the alleged offence)
individual is no longer a member .
Once again you complain about your very own practices on numerous occasions Rich. does the accolade stupid hypocrite apply to you in spades? No why don't you bugger off and start practicing what you preach for once in your miserable and worthless life!
Rich80105
2020-02-19 02:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
I have not heard of any charges being laid regarding political
donations other than the 4 relating to a donation to the National
Party. Can you giove a reference?
James Christophers
2020-02-21 22:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
In recent posts, one of our contributors has continually maintained
that NZF (the Foundation) was modeled on the National Foundation. This
is completely incorrect. NZF (the foundation) bears no resemblance to
the National Foundation.
Winston Peters has stated that, when it was set up, the NZ First
arrangements were based on those used by National.
Winston has also stated, out the other side of his mouth, that the foundation has nothing to do with him and he doesn't know anything about it.
In other words, Winston tells lies to suit himself.
Of course we all (apart from thickos like Dickbot) know that the NZF Foundation is nothing like National's foundation. The former is secretive, and hides details from donors and the public. The latter is public, and very clear to donors about exactly where the money will end up.
Post by Rich80105
I have also said that differences in the way they were used have
developed. In particular, it seems that NZ First did not have the
large amounts of capital that Nationa had - they needed to use money
for current year expenses, so the Foundation made loans to the party.
DPF doesn't say how money from the National Foundation is used, but
The foundation itself is very clear. Unlike Winston's secret fund, National's has a web page.
https://www.nationalfoundation.org.nz/Category?Action=View&Category_id=369
Go read it, Dicknot, and stop telling stupid, transparent lies.
Post by Rich80105
clearly it has some value other than benefitting a bank by holding the
money . . .
More recently, it seems that NZ First did use their Foundation to pay
some expenses directly, without declaring donations from the
Foundation to the party. That does appear wrong, and may well be why
the SFO is currently investigating.
So yes the NZ First arrangements were modelled on the National party
arrangements, but they way those arranagmenets were used appears to be
No, they are not, you liar.
Post by Rich80105
different now.
Post by Crash
There are two recent articles that starkly portray those differences;
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
Now I know that some posters here will disparage the source of this
article because DPF is a well-known for his involvement with the
National party, and to them I would challenge them to cite anything in
that article as an exaggeration or untrue.
The second article is related. There are 4 people being charged by
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/02/debunking_the_lie_that_the_nz_first_foundation_is_like_nationals.html
While more information has will come to light as both issues are
progressed, it is obvious that the two are unrelated.
Since it appears to be the same article, does that mean that the
issues are related? Or perhaps there is another url?
Post by Crash
The potential wrongdoings of NZF (the party and the Foundation) are on
a vastly greater scale, involving far more people.
So far it is 4 prosecutions relating to two National Party donations,
none for other donations. Which has the greater scale again?
National are not being prosecuted. NZFirst's foundation is.
“When two of the three biggest political parties in parliament are being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office you know you have a problem.”

“New Zealand has been complacent about the question of corruption for too long, helped along by regularly featuring at the top of Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perception Index.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/19/vested-interests-in-new-zealand-politics-are-too-big-to-ignore-we-need-a-royal-commission

Referring now to Edwards' article (which itself demands way more than a once-over-lightly glance):

"Corruption perception" and corruption reality can never be one and the same. Yet the moment New Zealand is reported as the least - or among the least - corrupt nations in terms of its "perceived" - not **actual** - corruption, the nation succumbs to a collective paroxysm of ecstasy over the good news as if it were concrete affirmation of its unassailable probity and virtue in every aspect of private, corporate and political life.

“100% Pure New Zealand”? Ya gotta be ‘aving a larf, innit?

But you and I know larding with such praise is simply not justified and never has been since in truth it only serves to engender and boost the most wilful of wishful self-deception - hypocrisy no less - among the already institutionally smug and self-unaware.

No country is more vulnerable to corruption than one whose chronically under-performing economy can only stagger along on ever-mounting truckloads of printed fiat debt doled out to it by rentier foreigners with nothing but their own interests in mind. In essence, this debt-slavery is nothing short of patronage writ large, and it hardly needs saying that corruption invariably accompanies patronage as surely as night follows day. Unchecked, terminal decline and fall must inevitably follow.

Apropos of which, I’m now re-posting (cut and pasted as is) the full eye-watering exposé previously submitted by “Rich” in another thread, but which passed unnoticed in the general noise:

---------------------------------------------------
Article from time magazine. 26 April 2019

HOW KIWI'S PAID BILLIONS FOR AUSTRALIA'S HIGHEST HONOUR.

Between 2008 and 2016 there was one man who did more for the
Australian economy than any other individual in the world.

He was not an Australian citizen, or American, British or Canadian.
Because of his actions, literally billions upon billions of dollars
were created for Australian business, predominantly the banking
industry, and this created a massive tax windfall for the Australian
government.

The man in question was a New Zealander and he was awarded Australia's
highest honour - The Honorary Companion in the Order of Australia, in
recognition for the significant impact he had on the Australian
economy.

That man was John Key.

The order of Australia is very similar to honours issued to New
Zealanders.
There are those that collect them on merit - for services to their
country, ex-politicians, sportspeople, business people and the more
dubious category, donations.

In Australia, like New Zealand, many business people are awarded
Honours for services to the economy.
These are usually people who build companies and generate income for
the government through taxation, thereby lifting the overall standard
of living.
In Australia businessmen like Sir Roderick Carnegie, Douglas Daft,
Hugh Morgan, Frank Packer are just a few who have received honours.

John Key's contribution was well understood by Australian Treasury but
not unsurprisingly went unnoticed by the NZ media.

To understand how Key contributed to Australia, first you have to
understand what he was up to.
Like Helen Clark, John Key entered politics to fulfil a personal
ambition, indeed a boyhood dream to be Prime Minister. The job title
was the motivation, not the welfare of the country, and because of
this, the policies implemented during his tenure had one purpose, to
keep the National Party popular.

As Key himself stated, the primary consideration if you want to be
popular with the voting public is employment. The public doesn't
understand the economy and many aren't interested, what people care
about is having a job. (and if that job is paid for using debt, who
cares. )

Dick Smith ( from Dick Smith electronics fame ) has written a number
of articles about Australian Politicians "cooking the books" by using
immigration to fool the public into believing that the economy is
strong, (search google) and John Key took the very same playbook off
the Aussies to run New Zealand's economy.

It involves using debt, mortgage debt, and masses of it.

It works very simply.
You open the floodgates to immigrants, this creates massive housing
and construction demand. It also creates demand and employment across
nearly every other sector of the economy as the new migrants set up
home in New Zealand.
There is a lift in house building and all the necessary trades. This
flows through to retail and all the brown and white goods to furnish
the new homes. You create demand for car sales, supermarket sales,
restaurants, takeaways, hairdressers, mechanics etc. Professionals
like lawyers and accountants, even doctors and dentists, everyone gets
a boost in sales and employment.

But as Smith has stated, nearly everything is paid for with debt !!

The first thing new migrants do when they arrive in New Zealand is set
up house, and to do this they head to the bank to get a loan.
Between 2008-2016, 20 to 30 billion a year was spent on construction
activity ( mainly houses but also infrastructure like supermarkets and
gas stations) In comparison Tourism revenue is about 15 billion a
year.
Mortgage debt over the same period (mostly borrowed off the Aussie
banks) went from 133 billion in 2008 to 247.8 billion in 2016, so even
though migrants bring capital with them many have little and debt has
been the predominant source of funding.

Let's put it another way.
When Key was elected in 2008 New Zealand's population was 4.2 million
and total mortgage debt was around 133 billion. 8 short years later
New Zealand's population had climbed to 4.7 million and mortgage debt
had soared to 247.8 billion.
So in 8 years we added roughly 500,000 people and nearly doubled
mortgage debt! That is truly staggering and no wonder Key was showing
up on The Australian Treasury departments radar.

Why such a huge rise?
Under Key house construction rose but according to figures from the
real estate institute, property values in Auckland went up 91% over
the same period, as massive demand from immigrants and property
speculators outstripped supply.
Everyone was talking about prices and lack of supply, but when
questioned John Key denied time and time again that there was a
housing crisis, he could not stop the immigrant borrowing or the
economy and his bubble would crash.

It didn't stop there.
With the inflated values on homes, people started dancing along to
their banks to borrow on cars, investment properties, renovations,
holidays and other luxuries. Again the Aussies were only too happy to
lend money, pushed by shareholders and directors keen to keep profits
and bonuses flowing.
By 2016 when Key resigned, ( knowing the public were becoming aware of
carhouses, using motels for homeless and overcrowded schools and
hospitals) household debt, (excluding investment property) had climbed
to a historic 163 billion dollars!

Bank profits.
In 2018 as John Key's legacy of high house prices, massive mortgages
and mass immigration continues, the top four Australian banks, ANZ,
ASB, BNZ and Westpac reported combined statutory profits after tax of
$5128 million.

That's $580,000 every hour!
So every day Australian owned banks are taking massive amounts of
interest payments off Kiwi workers and sending that money to their
head offices in Australia.

$5128 million is almost double the amount of profit the Aussie banks
were making pre-John Key.

It gets worse. ( for us, but not for them )
New Zealand is littered with Australian owned companies.
Some of the debt the Aussies are lending us is being sent back to
Australia as immigrants set up homes with purchases from companies
like Harvey Norman, Bunnings, JBHiFi, Freedom furniture, Target and
Country Road etc. The Aussie owned supermarkets are also setting
record profits as population growth and debt keep everything going.

The Australian government couldn't believe John Key and Bill English.
Here was a Prime Minister who was underpinning the popularity of his
party by using immigrants, borrowing billions of dollars, and at the
same time burying his own countrymen under record mortgage debt, while
using Australian banks in the main to provide funding.
On top of that, a lot of the debt was being used to purchase goods off
Australian companies sending even more New Zealand dollars offshore.

It gets worse.
Because debt can't be taxed (other than the GST component when it's
spent) the New Zealand government has not been getting the necessary
increase in taxation to help fund the massive infrastructure upgrades
needed for the (more than)1000 people that have been flooding into NZ
every week for the last 10 years. And that is why our hospitals are
full, our schools are overcrowded, most councils are in record debt,
our roads are underfunded and our welfare system and environment are
collapsing.

New Zealand is closing in on 550 billion dollars of total debt. That's
government, housing, personal, everything.


During 2007, on this very group and about year before he rose from nowhere to become PM, I said that John Key would turn out to be this country’s most dangerous prime minister yet.

On 18 October 2017 - only 10 brief months after resigning his New Zealand premiership – his Australian bosom buddies rewarded John Key with the further accolade of Chairman of ANZ Bank New Zealand.

Patronage through and through – and, remember, what accompanies patronage as surely as night follows day...?

So......what price Transparency International?

Think on.
Loading...