- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

[UPDATED] "One assumes there is some innocent explanation"


The Spencer Trust must have broken down the amounts into parcels of less than $10k and then they must have been sent through another layer of trusts in order to have been non-declarable. And that's the bit Winston doesn't want us knowing about presumably, because it's a dodgy method of maintaining a paper trail of anonymity. The alternative is that NZ First has lied on its electoral returns (not declaring donations over $10,000 (?)), but since the statute of limitations was only 6 months on those, there can never be any illegality. But it is such a dodgy look that Winston has every motivation to wriggle out of ever having to disclose either scenario. That is, I take it, the main issue for him.

[UPDATE 8:00PM: Well now the NZ First MP Peter Brown is admitting as such on TV tonight. Everyone's human and makes mistakes is what he was muttering about. The NZ First official line is that the non declaration of $50k was an administrative oversight! NZ Herald reporting:
New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown appears oblivious to any wrongdoing, saying it appears to be a genuine mistake and he does not know anything more about it.

It's as rich as National forgetting to add GST, it's as rich as Labour innocently overspending $800k, it's all that and a bag of chips... and rummaging around... hang on... a sachet of sauce - bonus! Because it was Winston in parliament only last week who was slagging off Bob Clarkson for not declaring money in his campaign. That was the basis of Winston's electoral petition against him, wasn't it? That Clarkson was hiding the truth about how much he spent. Oh, Winston you can't say that again with a straight face. It's so bad.

It's so bad that if we do not accept that it was a genuine oversight that the Spencer Trust money was not declared then we must conclude that NZ First is run by crooks. We do not accept that it was an error - the architects of these elaborate deals either figured it would work this way and no one would ever find out,
or,
got cold feet about the declaration because it would look politically damaging to brand "kiwi-battler" and the limitless howlings against secret trusts that the Party Leader engages in to this day. Maybe Winston's lawyer Brian Henry and his off-sider aren't as smart as Winston has to believe they are. Maybe they knew that if the Spencer Trust became public knowledge it would not survive a probe? It obviously is not surviving the probe the SFO are giving it now because the NZ First minions are chucking the dead bodies out and claiming they all must of had accidents - in a pathetic effort to spin the public before the cops can get in and declare the whole place a murder scene. The snake oil doesn't even look like snake oil anymore.

Why the Vela cheques (all under the $10k cap) had to be put into the Spencer Trust and not just given directly to NZ First (on my understanding they would not have to be declared) is still a mystery to me. One possibility is that the NZ First finances really are a shambles and that Dail Jones or another senior figure will have to fall on Winston's sword and be sacrificed for him by admitting all blame. It was Jones after all who was merrily telling people at the beginning of the year (?) that $150k (?) had shown up in their accounts suddenly but he didn't know from whom it came. Then he was admonished by the party and had to then pretend that he had made a mistake and that was all wrong. Another mistake.

The biggest mistake was the public's - to trust that Winston wasn't like that. And to keep that faith Winston had to keep the public away from the truth. The truth that he knows because he is part of that system:
For every politician eating free in a restaurant there is a businessman picking up the tab. For every corporate interest seeking influence there is a lawyer waiting to take their cheque. For every bag man there is a slush fund. And for every revelation of the ignominious truth there has to be a fall guy. No one has taken the role of fall guy at this point. The selection process must be underway.

Are there any other mistakes waiting to emerge right before the SFO gets its hands on the evidence of those mistakes? Are there? What about the legal fees? Did the money solicited for Winston's legal fees really go to pay his lawyers? Or did that money get re-donated by the lawyer to NZFirst? If any of that money ends up going to the Spencer Trust then there is trouble. But who knows at this point? The Spencer Trust could of owned vehicles and campaigning items and other property for all we know.

We know we will find Winston holding the other end of the ball of string when we finally unravel it. At the moment the questions are: how long is that piece of string? and how long will it take to reach the end of it? If it's before the election Winston will need a political miracle to survive.
UPDATE ENDS]

The scampi inquiry allegations that Winston took hush money are quite another. If the SFO can get a solid hold on just one edge of that and they start pulling they have the potential to tear the whole tent down. Is this why the PM is defending him so vigourously? Her insistence in parliament this afternoon that it was someone in the SFO or a government agency that leaked news to National that the SFO investigation would commence was Nixonian. As a diversion tactic a demonstration of her paranoia was a mistaken one. She was lashing out randomly at her own departments in an effort to cover up the fact she has let Winston's shonkyness get the better of her. There's three things we must remember about Helen Clark:
1. She is always right and everyone else is to blame if it looks like she is wrong
2. She acts cautiously, but can speak losely
3. She remembers everything
I never had her pegged for a conspiracy nut - especially not when she has the Police wrapped around her finger. Her attempt to shoot the messenger and the agency and continue to draw a conclusion that rumours and coincidence point to the revelations of a Davinci Code type relationship with National and the worlwide conspiracy against Winston Peters is absurd and damages her credibility. Her attack on the Serious Fraud Office under a backdrop of her abolishing it makes it look like she's engaging, vicariously, in a classic piece of Winston Peters revenge crusade.

So, Winston's slush fund saga continues today. Buried in lawyers, camouflaged in writs, drowned in leaks, stupified with obfiscation - on and on this meltdown smoulders. We await the point it bursts into flames and explodes.

SFO investigators took the records away from Whangarei lawyer and Spencer Trust trustee Grant Currie last night.
Mr Currie said the SFO took the "complete records" of the trust from when it was opened in August 2005.


He showed the entry in the accounts to TV3 (image c/o Whaleoil) with bits blacked out which made it more suspicious not less. How bad does it look. The first thing you ask yourself is who are the other two donors?

10 Comments:

At 2/9/08 7:52 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is democracy under attack from the electoral Finance Bill, as the Herald’s front page claimed on Monday. Excessive restrictions on free speech.
Failing to address, the problem of large anonymous donations to political parties, the Bill ignored one of the most pressing problems with our electoral process.

Legitimate concerns about incumbent advantage at election time limiting of third party election speech. Simply put, free speech does not come free. Using cash to bribe voters or to treat them to food or drink has been unlawful since 1858.

No one can buy time on television or radio for partisan political purposes, unless they are using money specifically provided at election time through the broadcasting allocation. Campaign spending by the primary electoral participants should be limited in order to prevent a grossly unfair contest.

The 2005 general election campaign was notable not only for its close fought nature, but also for a range of deeply concerning and in some cases undoubtedly unlawful behaviour by various participants.The Labour party exceeded the statutory minimum on its election expenses by at least $418,603, primarily due to the costs associated with producing and distributing its pledge card to voters.The National party’s negligence in failing to account for G.S.T when booking election broadcast time meant that it was able to screen some $112,000 more in campaign advertising than the law allowed.Both National and Labour and to a lesser degree some smaller parties used anonymous donations and trusts to shield the identity of their major donors; like the Spencer Trust for example now being raided by the SFO!

The Electoral Act 1993 does require that the identity and address of donors giving $10,000 or more to a political party be reported annually to the Electoral Commission.Donations of $1000 or more to an individual candidate must be disclosed to the chief electoral officer Helena Catt following the election.However, where the donors identity is not known to the party, the contribution is listed only as coming from an anonymous source.In 2005 the Labour party received $275,000 by way of such anonymous donations.In 2005 the National party received $1,741,793 from such sources.
This deception and breach of the law to declare donations over $10,000 allowed a hundred thousand dollars to just disappear?

To flow into their campaign coffers from hidden sources.

An extensive leaflet campaign funded by members of the exclusive brethren and devoted to attacking the Labour and Green parties was carried out with a (still disputed) degree of knowledge on the part of the National party, and on at least some occasions breached the legal requirement that they identify the true identity of the person publishing them

 
At 2/9/08 7:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

HEY TIM, DID YOU HAVE ANY MOULD ON THE CEILING IN HAWKES BAY PRISON, AND WERE YOU REALLY MOVED AROUND THE COUNTRY BY PRIVATE JET?

 
At 2/9/08 8:24 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought he was at Mt Eden.

Anyway, when can we expect your prison diaries to hit the press?

 
At 2/9/08 8:31 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO?

HE WAS IN WANGANUI AS WELL!

 
At 2/9/08 9:27 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

Last three Anons (ie. Chris Prudence and someone else):
To answer your questions:
No, occasionally, and my blogs from prison were posted by my co-blogger at the time.

End of subject. This post is about Winston's dodgy financing - not mine!

 
At 2/9/08 9:49 pm, Blogger Swimming said...

..and the second question you ask is why was the Jones amount direct credited into the spencer account when Jones gave them a cheque. ANyone got an answer?

 
At 2/9/08 10:05 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really think that once everyone realises how long Winston's been pissing in their gumboots Helens position is going to go from untenable to absolute disaster on every front.

She'll be hoping it doesn't happen before the election.

I was predicting she'd call the election tonight. Oh well, I was wrong once before (1978 I think). Maybe tomorrow.

Chris Prudence (or who ever)- Really it was OK to give Tim a bit of a poke about his *ahem* misdemeanors when he was first released, and he took it with good humour, but its just getting BORING now and you're actually helping Tumeke get more popular on the blog ratings with all your comments, which is, I imagine, the opposite of your plan.

So maybe its time to just STFU about it?

Heh - As I was writing the first sentence The Dead Kennedys - Chemical Warfare rotated itself on my playlist. Might be my election anthem -

"you're starved and beseeched
you suck like a leech
you want everyone to act like
you"

Not much has changed since 1981

 
At 3/9/08 12:59 am, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

Dave,
The answer might be that the document is not from an outside institution but is generated by a person acting for the Spencer Trust and thus the entries are what they think the public should see, and maybe not what is actually the case. Who knows?

 
At 3/9/08 8:20 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tim I enjoy reading your blogs, they're well written and thought out ... but please would you get the use of the word 'of' sorted out! Here's two examples where you have used 'of' but should have used 'have'

"First minions are chucking the dead bodies out and claiming they all must of had accidents..."

"The Spencer Trust could of owned vehicles..."

It's off putting.

NS

 
At 3/9/08 12:28 pm, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

I should have known - of course.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home