«
»

The Winston Allegations

June 23rd, 2004 at 3:07 am by David Farrar

TVNZ reported last night on allegations that there were “cash payments from Simunovich Fisheries to Winston Peters” and these have been made by way of a sworn affadavit, meaning criminal sanctions are possible if the affadavit is false.

Various MPs have been playing pass the parcel with the affadavit, none of them wanting to be seen to be endorsing the allegations, which are at this stage unsubstantiated.

Peters really need somethign more convincing though than claiming they are simply part of a vendeta by Bill Ralston.

There is an irony in Peters facing such allegations, as he built his political career on making unfounded false allegations against dozens of people, destroying many careers un the process.

The role of Ross Muerant is potentially pivotal in all this. He was once a National MP also, and few have good memories of him. He became a ROC MP and was eventually sacked by Bolger as an Under Secretary when (IIRC) he refused to accept that one can not be a member of the Executive, and also be a director of a Russian tax dodge bank registered in Vanuatu.

Related posts:

  1. False Allegations
  2. Further Field allegations
  3. Russell Brown on Investigate allegations
  4. More on false rape allegations
No tag for this post.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2004 at 3:07 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

8 Responses to “The Winston Allegations”

  1. Lewis Says:
    June 23rd, 2004 at 3:45 pm

    Personally, I hope the allegations are true. I know the allegations are as yet unproven, but I would love to see Winnie eat his words. He does more damage for the middle of NZ politics (and the innocent victims of his outbursts) than anyone else in the house, IMHO. Honestly, does he really think people will buy into the whole Bill Ralston conspiracy theory? Even if Bill is involved, why would anyone go to the extent of getting a sworn affadavit if they just had a vendetta against you?

    Lewis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Emily Says:
    June 23rd, 2004 at 8:16 pm

    Don’t forget Ross’s involvement in the Red Squad, or was it the blue squad, I think he wrote a book about it.
    Oh the irony IF these charges can stick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Peter Metcalfe Says:
    June 23rd, 2004 at 11:22 pm

    Didn’t Ross quit the RoC party after falling out with its only other MP, Trevor Rodgers, and failing to make him leave?

    –Peter Metcalfe

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. span(ner in the works) Says:
    June 24th, 2004 at 11:31 am

    how do you get a Russian tax dodge bank and can i have one too?

    i suspect this may be one of those ones we will never know the whole and complete truth about. Winston, whether being truthful or not, will defend himself to the death (political or otherwise) in court, in the media and in the House. With him playing like that I highly doubt any other people who could confirm or deny accurately would confirm, eg Siminovich (sp).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Greyshade Says:
    June 24th, 2004 at 11:35 am

    Lewis: As I understand it TVNZ got the affidavit (and probably several others) when they ran their earlier fish dinner story. Since they didn’t include these allegations then (to the best of my recollection) I assume they rightly decided they weren’t worth the paper they were printed on. One can only speculate on the root(sic) by which it turned up on Ewen-Street’s desk.
    Affidavits only involve legal sanctions if it can be proved that the signatory knew it to be factually incorrect at the time. This affidavit would not be perjury as long as Meurant did, in fact, tell Dossetter that he received the money – even if they both knew that to be untrue (which is why we have rules about hearsay). A successful charge of perjury would require proof that Meurant made no such statement and made no statement that Dossetter might have innocently misinterpreted. Difficult at the best of times – impossible when the conversations are protected by spousal immunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Lewis Says:
    June 24th, 2004 at 12:07 pm

    Thanks Greyshade,

    I agree with you on TVNZ – Seems strange that they didn’t use the affidavit during the no free dinner. As you summise, it’s obviously not worth the paper it’s printed on. Winnie must think the same, as he’s going to sue TVNZ for $7m…

    Lewis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Farrar Says:
    June 24th, 2004 at 11:41 pm

    Emily – yes he was commander of the red squad.

    Peter – for once my memory totally fails me. What you say rings a bell but I can’t recall anything abour ROC after Meurant was sacked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. span(ner in the works) Says:
    June 25th, 2004 at 9:55 am

    Wasn’t Peter (?) Holt, who was National, Glenfield, also in ROC, then he joined with Clive Matthews and a few others plus Peter Dunne to form the first incarnation of United?

    Not very sure about that at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
«
»