Surprise Surprise
April 26th, 2006 at 4:11 pm by David FarrarNewstalk ZB reports that David Parker will not be prosecuted.
He’ll be back in Cabinet by lunchtime.
UPDATE: Scoop has the full report. Basically clears him on false declarations, finds other parts of the Companies Act were breached but are so minor as to not require prosecution.
Related posts:
- So much for acting properly
- Is it just bad book keeping or criminal behaviour?
- Parker is a lucky man
- The Parker Inquiry
April 26th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
I am not surprised and I have always said that the reasons a badly briefed and flat footted Prime Minister gave caused his resignation when she talked about the highest standards for an Attorney General. I note they used Meredith Connell for the opinion – perhaps the Sol Gen considered there was too much back chat about his independance. I expect him back fully into the Cabinet and fair enough too.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 4:39 pm
Filing company returns just got a whole lot easier folks.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
the Release and the legal opinion at @ http://www.companies.govt.nz
It will be interesting to see how this is spun, but the fact he admitted fault must surely make the whole “rehabilitation” process take longer than this,
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Wow. A quick read of the decision seems to indicate a fairly significant cock-up by the Official Assignee, in whom Parker should have been entitled to place some faith (Parker sent him a signed share transfer form after they agreed on a nominal $1 price for the company to acquire Hyslop’s shares; the form was never sent back, hence the company register wasn’t altered, hence the false declarations).
The media release doesn’t equivocate: “no basis whatsoever” for prosecution.
The decision also very clearly states that Russell Hyslop personally had no cause for grievance at all. I think Graeme deserves a chocolate fish for being bang-on with the bankruptcy thing.
If a private citizen had been threatened with prosecution in such circumstances there’d have been an outcry, and justifiably so. David, I think you should acknowledge that this was a quite correct decision.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
April 26th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
I’m not surprised. They were being a little bit nit-picky on this one. Shame they don’t apply the same standards to a certain ex-teacher.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Having read the report, this isn’t just refusing to prosecute – this is exoneration. There was simply no basis for Hyslop’s claims, and the rest of the offences are things that no-one is _ever_ prosecuted for – and in one case is normally handled through the simple payment of a late fee. Given this, I think your headline is just a teensy bit misleading…
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
As I see it, it was the impact of the bankruptcy of Mr Hyslop upon his rights, in 1997, that “Investigate” may not have fully investigated.
This is not to say Mr Hyslop is without grievance over circumstances leading to his bankruptcy. But could this tale of woe cause continued harm to David Parker?
By the way, you may all remember that David Parker said he may look at his legal options with respect to “Investigate” ……
I will remember 26 April 2006 for a while. Not an auspicious day for “Investigate”, Maxim Institute or Bishop Brian Tamaki!
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
Did Investigate fail to Investigate?
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
I haven’t criticised the decision. In fact I am also on record as saying no prosecutions for Clark, Hodgson and Benson-Pope for their primae face offences were also the right decisions.
The two clearly wrong decisions, which has set the double standards, are:
1) Prosecuting Shane Ardern over the tractor
Vote:2) Not prosecuting over election spending
April 26th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Did Investigate fail to Investigate?
Surely not!!
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Thanks RB, but I’m still pretty chocolated out from Easter
I also can’t really take credit for actually working it through to the conclusion as the Auckland Crown Solicitor did (sensible too of the Companies Office to get advice from Meredith Connell instead of the Crown Law Office).
I’d take issue with this statement of RB’s ‘though “hence the false declarations”; there were in fact (and law) no false declarations at all.
Can we imagine the relief David Parker would have felt when he came across (and had his memory jogged by) the official assignee’s waiver in his accountant’s files? And understand now why the PM said a few weeks ago that he could be back in cabinet if “cleared” (and not a statement of an infinitely more weasely variety if “it’s decided not to prosecute”).
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Exoneration alright.
Investigate is shown up again as a shabby little rag.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Graeme: I’d take issue with this statement of RB’s ‘though “hence the false declarations”; there were in fact (and law) no false declarations at all.
Right you are. There’s the letter of the Official Assignee quoted on page 5 . ” Please note that the Official Assignee waives the requirement to seek confirmation on a yearly basis that a unanimous resolution was achieved in respect of no auditor being required for the above company.”
Apparently Parker had forgotten about the existence of the letter, or he’d have waved it around at the time.
So like Idiot and Graeme say, this is an exoneration. Hands down. So WTF was Rodney Hide on about on the radio just now? Presumably he knows he’s talking complete crap and just saying it anyway.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
April 26th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
As I said before…
There was Helen Clark on the steps of the Beehive, holding a knife into Don Brash, who was now dying as blood gushed from his heart.
But police decided not to prosecute.
It was only prima facie evidence that she killed Brash, they decided, and it was certainly not in the public interest to presecute.
Seriously, with the way Liar-bour ministers get away with things, even the things they admit to doing, as Parker did, you do wonder about the reliability of our legal system.
Is this why the Australians, to paraphrase Sir Humphrey’s this week, judge Kiwi courts to be Kangaroo courts and are inacapble of fair prosecutions.
And, yes, I wonder how Ian Wishart and Investigate feels now.
Vote:Not to mention, just what does it take to find Liar-bour guilty of anything?
With the way the government seems to get away with everything, will anybody bother investigating the government?
Will anyone ever see any point?
The New Zealand media is feeble enough as it is.
And now, when the only printed publication that seems to have any balls to act as the eyes and ears of the public on our party leaders, finds itself wrongfooted by an overpowerful executive that seems able to have its way with all the agents of state.
Yes, She Really Must Be Obeyed!
April 26th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
No surprise in respect for the decision in under the Companies Act any shareholder can waive the right to recieve documents etc from the company. For me the concerning thing is that even though there were other breaches of the Companies Act as outlined in the legal opinion it didn’t really matter. So, are we left in the situation the Companies Act really is a toothless piece of legislation? Should the clauses dealing with the requirement of a unanimous shareholders resolution not to appoint an auditor be done away with? Should the requirement not to file the annual return within the described time frame be deleted? Should the requirement that company documents be kept at the registered office be consigned to the scrapheap?
I think the legal opinion reflects the reality of 99% of NZ companies – they are run on the smell of an oily rag and administrative requirements are only given lip service. It will certainly make the Companies Office think twice about prosecuting anyone from now for those offences on especially now there is a legal opinion from the Crown solicitors saying it is effectively alright.
RIP Companies Act.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Well it seems to me that whether he committed an offence or not, he put in returns which he thought were false even though fortuitously that turned out not to be the case. He thus displayed the same degree of integrity as Benson-peep and Clark had preceded him in showing.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
If the share transfer was not actioned as is stated that would seem like a reasonable excuse to file one false return. But Parker wrote Hyslop
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
DPF: “I haven’t criticised the decision.”
But your headline and post is doing its damndest to insinuate, isn’t it?
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
burt – it is not breaking the law because the official assignee (who “owns” the shares) wrote a letter to David Parker before any of the “false” declarations were made stating:
“Please note that the Official Assignee waives the requirement to seek confirmation on a yearly basis that a unanimous resolution was achieved in respect of no auditor being required for the above company.”
You need consent from everyone not to have an auditor and Parker’s Accountant, who prepared the returns for Parker to file, appears to have had this letter in his file for Parker’s company.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
So If he thought he was filing false returns (as he stated – under no duress) then he believed he was breaking the law. As such I concur no law was broken
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Parker’s situation is not clean.There is grubby stuff here.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Marcus D, Burt, Mara, You need to stop sucking on your dummies.
Vote:I’m please to see that all of you have such perfect memories that you have instant recall of all relevant facts in your life.
I’m sure you all will get over it in a few weeks
April 26th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
There are a lot of i’s that weren’t dotted and t’s not crossed by Parker and the Official Assignee.
First if you check the Companies Act, s196, you will find that shareholders, including the OA, cannot “waive” the right to further resolutions. The waiver for an audit expires each year, and must be renewed each year, by law.
On the face of it, I’m not sure that the OA letter of 99 gets either Parker or the OA off the hook, regardless of Russell Brown’s jubilation.
As a lawyer, Parker would be required to know that little fact.
Secondly, if he genuinely believe Hyslop was not a shareholder, why did he continue to file returns for years falsely stating that he was? If the returns were not false because Hyslop didn’t have to be consulted because he was no longer a shareholder, then arguably they were false by continuing to list Hyslop as a shareholder.
Thirdly, a decision not to prosecute on the late filing of returns. I’ve been given gazette files suggesting about a dozen such prosecutions a week of ma and pa kettle. Presumably the Companies Office will no longer prosecute ordinary Joe Public on these technical breaches any more.
Fourthly, if the transfer of shares did not legally take place, and it is agreed they did not, then by virtue of s78 of the Insolvency Act and s89 of the Companies Act it appears the shares did indeed re-vest in Hyslop by virtue of the company continuing to list him as a shareholder after his discharge from bankruptcy.
S78 of the Insolvency Act says that the OA can transfer the shares to either another party or the bankrupt, and that if no transfer is effected then the company can either sell them, which it failed to do, or cancel them (but only with permission of the Court).
Instead, the Company has listed the now-discharged Russell Hyslop as owner of the shares for the five years following his release from bankruptcy.
By that act alone, the Company and its director could be said to have re-vested the shares in Hyslop himself.
Look, good on David Parker for avoiding the gallows based on a Crown Law office opinion, and it may well show the pointlessness of the Companies Act in this regard. Nonetheless, Parker was at best careless with the legal niceties, and Investigate is comfortable with its story and its analysis of the legal issues. Filing the proper documents, without mistakes, is a strict liability offence, much like a speeding ticket. To file returns with a false shareholder for five years seems to me to still be a breach of s377 of the Companies Act.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
There are a lot of i’s that weren’t dotted and t’s not crossed by Parker and the Official Assignee.
First if you check the Companies Act, s196, you will find that shareholders, including the OA, cannot “waive” the right to further resolutions. The waiver for an audit expires each year, and must be renewed each year, by law.
On the face of it, I’m not sure that the OA letter of 99 gets either Parker or the OA off the hook, regardless of Russell Brown’s jubilation.
As a lawyer, Parker would be required to know that little fact.
Secondly, if he genuinely believe Hyslop was not a shareholder, why did he continue to file returns for years falsely stating that he was? If the returns were not false because Hyslop didn’t have to be consulted because he was no longer a shareholder, then arguably they were false by continuing to list Hyslop as a shareholder.
Thirdly, a decision not to prosecute on the late filing of returns. I’ve been given gazette files suggesting about a dozen such prosecutions a week of ma and pa kettle. Presumably the Companies Office will no longer prosecute ordinary Joe Public on these technical breaches any more.
Fourthly, if the transfer of shares did not legally take place, and it is agreed they did not, then by virtue of s78 of the Insolvency Act and s89 of the Companies Act it appears the shares did indeed re-vest in Hyslop by virtue of the company continuing to list him as a shareholder after his discharge from bankruptcy.
S78 of the Insolvency Act says that the OA can transfer the shares to either another party or the bankrupt, and that if no transfer is effected then the company can either sell them, which it failed to do, or cancel them (but only with permission of the Court).
Instead, the Company has listed the now-discharged Russell Hyslop as owner of the shares for the five years following his release from bankruptcy.
By that act alone, the Company and its director could be said to have re-vested the shares in Hyslop himself.
Look, good on David Parker for avoiding the gallows based on a Crown Law office opinion, and it may well show the pointlessness of the Companies Act in this regard. Nonetheless, Parker was at best careless with the legal niceties, and Investigate is comfortable with its story and its analysis of the legal issues. Filing the proper documents, without mistakes, is a strict liability offence, much like a speeding ticket. To file returns with a false shareholder for five years seems to me to still be a breach of s377 of the Companies Act.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
There are a lot of i’s that weren’t dotted and t’s not crossed by Parker and the Official Assignee.
First if you check the Companies Act, s196, you will find that shareholders, including the OA, cannot “waive” the right to further resolutions. The waiver for an audit expires each year, and must be renewed each year, by law.
On the face of it, I’m not sure that the OA letter of 99 gets either Parker or the OA off the hook, regardless of Russell Brown’s jubilation.
As a lawyer, Parker would be required to know that little fact.
Secondly, if he genuinely believe Hyslop was not a shareholder, why did he continue to file returns for years falsely stating that he was? If the returns were not false because Hyslop didn’t have to be consulted because he was no longer a shareholder, then arguably they were false by continuing to list Hyslop as a shareholder.
Thirdly, a decision not to prosecute on the late filing of returns. I’ve been given gazette files suggesting about a dozen such prosecutions a week of ma and pa kettle. Presumably the Companies Office will no longer prosecute ordinary Joe Public on these technical breaches any more.
Fourthly, if the transfer of shares did not legally take place, and it is agreed they did not, then by virtue of s78 of the Insolvency Act and s89 of the Companies Act it appears the shares did indeed re-vest in Hyslop by virtue of the company continuing to list him as a shareholder after his discharge from bankruptcy.
S78 of the Insolvency Act says that the OA can transfer the shares to either another party or the bankrupt, and that if no transfer is effected then the company can either sell them, which it failed to do, or cancel them (but only with permission of the Court).
Instead, the Company has listed the now-discharged Russell Hyslop as owner of the shares for the five years following his release from bankruptcy.
By that act alone, the Company and its director could be said to have re-vested the shares in Hyslop himself.
Look, good on David Parker for avoiding the gallows based on a Crown Law office opinion, and it may well show the pointlessness of the Companies Act in this regard. Nonetheless, Parker was at best careless with the legal niceties, and Investigate is comfortable with its story and its analysis of the legal issues. Filing the proper documents, without mistakes, is a strict liability offence, much like a speeding ticket. To file returns with a false shareholder for five years seems to me to still be a breach of s377 of the Companies Act.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
“Look, good on David Parker for avoiding the gallows based on a Crown Law office opinion”
Interesting take Ian, and I can see some of your points, this quote however suggests you should look somewhat more closely at the companies office release before drawing your final conclusions.
Crown Law had no involvement in the opinion sought by the companies office. They appear to have had no involvement in the case whatsoever. The opinion was obtained from the highly regarded Auckland Law Firm of Meredith Connell, which holds the warrant as Crown Solicitor for Auckland. Crown Solicitors are not a part of the Crown Law Office.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
IW: On the face of it, I’m not sure that the OA letter of 99 gets either Parker or the OA off the hook, regardless of Russell Brown’s jubilation.
I’m not sure what “absolutely no basis for prosecution” means to you Ian, but it reads like an exoneration to me. Basically, you got the story wrong, a bit like you did in the case of Kay Goodger, because your desire for the story trumped your diligence on it.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
April 26th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Ian, you got served.
Back to writing articles on the great soy milk makes you gay conspiracy and creationism oops I mean “intelligent design”.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Russell, when you say “I’m not sure what “absolutely no basis for prosecution” means to you Ian”, did you not read any of Ian’s three posts further above? You might find that any one of them might give you an inkling.
If legal opinions were always cut and dried, we could dispense with the prosecution, and just decide on how well the defence makes their case.
I agree the report seems to exonerate David Parker, and as far as small business and bureaucracy go, I’d side with small business every time. However, the points Ian raised are still valid. David Parker didn’t resign for no reason.
He’s acted properly throughout this, and all credit to him. Still, I would like to know if I’m going to get off from any penalties for late returns (my one this year was 3 days late) and if I can use the Parker defence to avoid having my legs broken, which is the customary penalty I am told.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
Idiot – you have to complain to my sub-editor about the headings
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
So where do you stand DPF ? Is he exonerated or is he exonerated ?
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
I’ve posted a more elaborate analysis on http://www.tbr.cc
Sorry about the triple post above, got error messages.
Graeme, I do understand the distinction between Crown Law and Crown Solrs, it is a semantic one. Meredith Connell hold the Crown warrant in Auckland, and I’m using the phrase “Crown Law” in all my posts for simplicity’s sake.
I have read Woolford’s opinion, and it appears to have a serious weakness, as you will see when you read my preliminary analysis.
Russell, I didn’t get it wrong. Parker filed documents right up until October last declaring Hyslop was a shareholder. He had a statutory responsibility to file accurate annual returns with the Companies Office. Slam dunk.
Either the returns were false because they claimed a unanimous resolution that wasn’t unanimous, or the returns were false because they listed a shareholder who wasn’t a one third shareholder at all. Slam dunk.
You can’t have it both ways. The annual returns remain false.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
I’ve posted a more elaborate analysis on http://www.tbr.cc
Sorry about the triple post above, got error messages.
Graeme, I do understand the distinction between Crown Law and Crown Solrs, it is a semantic one. Meredith Connell hold the Crown warrant in Auckland, and I’m using the phrase “Crown Law” in all my posts for simplicity’s sake.
I have read Woolford’s opinion, and it appears to have a serious weakness, as you will see when you read my preliminary analysis.
Russell, I didn’t get it wrong. Parker filed documents right up until October last declaring Hyslop was a shareholder. He had a statutory responsibility to file accurate annual returns with the Companies Office. Slam dunk.
Either the returns were false because they claimed a unanimous resolution that wasn’t unanimous, or the returns were false because they listed a shareholder who wasn’t a one third shareholder at all. Slam dunk.
You can’t have it both ways. The annual returns remain false.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Russell…not sure what you’re on about in regard to Kay Goodger. I made no retraction on that, we stood by our story and we were right.
The documents I quoted from were written by Goodger, and I was easily able to establish it.
Perhaps you can tell me which ones weren’t?
Otherwise, I’ll have to assume you’ve got your facts wrong again.
Vote:April 26th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Ian asserts a ‘slam dunk’ for breach of s 377 of the Companies Act 1993.
I’m not so sure.
For our purposes, s 377 reads:
Vote:“(1)Every person who, with respect to a document required by or for the purposes of this Act,
April 27th, 2006 at 12:56 am
Ian
Firstly thanks for putting your side of the story into this fascinating forum.
Further clarification would be appreciated ..
When you say..
“.. the Company has listed the now-discharged Russell Hyslop as owner of the shares for the five years following his release from bankruptcy.
By that act alone, the Company and its director could be said to have re-vested the shares in Hyslop himself.”
aren’t you contradicting yourself when you go on to say …
“Sure, the OA could have expressly legally transferred the shares back to either Hyslop or QPML, but didn’t …”
and
“S78 of the Insolvency Act says that the OA can transfer the shares to either another party or the bankrupt, and that if no transfer is effected then the company can either sell them, which it failed to do, or cancel them (but only with permission of the Court).”
Quite simply, the OA did not transfer the shares to anyone, did he?
….
You then go on to say …
“Sometimes an Official Assignee will become legally saddled with property that he or she does not want, it being thought to be worthless … There are two ways in which an Official Assignee can extract himself or herself from that kind of dilemma: by formal disclaimer under ss75 and 78 of the Insolvency Act 1967, or (apparently) by the invocation of the doctrine of abandonment. Under the existing law, the latter occurs when the OA evinces an intention to abandon the propery, and has under s86 sufficiently manifested that intention.”
I can’t find evidence that the OA overtly declared that the property was abandoned. That could be the reason why Mark Woolford did not follow this line of enquiry.
…
As I see it, the Official Assignee did not transfer or abandon the shareholding under his/her control.
While David Parker listed Hyslop as a shareholder, it seems that he was mistaken each year he did so after the bankruptcy.
While the legal opinion is under the name of Woolford, I would be amazed if it was released without a good deal of peer review.
It remains to be seen who truly ends up in a quagmire after this – David Parker may well look again at his own litigation options, given the damage that this case has done to his reputation, his loss of ministerial income/privileges, and given the exoneration he has now been given. If the reasoning you now put up in YOUR defence appear to differ from those in your original article .. could this be a problem to you?
But it is also clear that even in politically “right” circles such as this forum, there was considerable sympathy for Parker – even prior to his exoneration. After all, this forum (under the excellent guidance of David Farrar) is primarily of the right, not the fundamentalist right.
The dominant party of the centre-right, the National Party, has shown little or no enthusiasm to pursue the David Parker issue so far. Did they have some inkling about how this case would be likely to go? It will be interesting to see if they now go onto the offensive, or whether they elect to leave well alone.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 6:41 am
John D – as I said in my post I am not surprised that David Parker was not prosecuted. The point I was trying to make, and maybe not clear enough, is that if the Companies Office have decided not to prosecute for other breaches of the Act where does it leave us? Is there any point of having those administrative provisions in the Companies Act if the Registrar of Companies is going to ignore the? Do all shareholders in NZ companies now have the right to say to the Registrar of Companies well you didn’t prosecute David Parker etc for these offenses so what right do you have to prosecute me? I would say after today there are a lot of provisions in the Companies Act that could be considered pretty redundant.
You are right: I don’t have instant recall on all of the facts of my life. But that wasn’t the point I was making.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Ian: Russell…not sure what you’re on about in regard to Kay Goodger. I made no retraction on that, we stood by our story and we were right The documents I quoted from were written by Goodger, and I was easily able to establish it. Perhaps you can tell me which ones weren’t?
Or perhaps you could provide evidence to support your claims, rather than simply alluding to it. I believe that’s the way it usually works. As far as I know she wrote the introduction, and it includes an excerpt of a speech by her which refers to the League’s submission.
But the quality of your story can be summed up in this sentence: “Kay Goodger is now a senior advisor on government policy initiatives, and is mentioned in dispatches on the website of the Portuguese Communist Party as recently as three years ago”.
Two major errors in one sentence here. Goodger is not a “senior advisor” to the government, she’s a research analyst – she works with statistics. Very, very big difference. Her “mention” on the Portugese website came about when the site re-published a international petition to the European Parliament arguing against harsh new abortion laws in Portugal, which she had signed. That was the sum total of her contact. Amazingly, elsewhere in the story, this is parlayed into a claim that she “still mixes with Marxist organizations in Europe”. This is beyond reckless.
Perhaps we could conclude with a comment from the forums at a prominent mens’ rights organisation about your supposed commie feminist sleeper agent:
“Over the years, Kay has been very helpful to me in my research, sending me data, answering questions etc. She has known all this time I have an association with
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 9:09 am
George, you probably need to read s78 more closely. Basically if no transfer occurs then the shares appear to re-vest with the company which under subsection 5 can then either sell them or (with Court approval only) cancel them.
The key point is that the shares are given back to the company under that particular construction. So what did the company do? It listed Hyslop as the shareholder in each of the annual returns it then filed.
It was this “act” which gave the shares back to Hyslop, reinforced by s89 of the Companies Act which says the name on the share register is the legal owner of those shares.
The OA did not take steps to keep the shares, and his name is not on the share register or the annual returns.
I hope I have now made this abundantly clear.
Russell: the Kay Goodger story was not about Goodger per se but about documents she authored back in the seventies listing a radical feminist wishlist to achieve. I worked for Labour during the period that many of those feminist networks were starting to get power in the first Lange administration.
The story was a valid and accurate description of how many goals had been set back in 73, and how nearly all but one had now been ticked off as achieved.
I accepted at the time as I recall Goodger’s correction re her job status, the confusion arising from a listing she’d been given on a governemnt website several years prior, but we rejected any assertion that the documents were not hers, as you continue to assert. We were able to very easily establish the substantial role Goodger had played in drafting that wishlist.
Was our story wrong? No. Did the feminists have a list? Yes. Did they infiltrate Labour as they said they would do? Yes. Did they move radical feminists into key networks and positions as they promised to do? Yes.
If one sentence in a 5,000 word article is the best fisk you can do Russell, you’re flogging a dead horse.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 9:35 am
We were able to very easily establish the substantial role Goodger had played in drafting that wishlist.
Whoops. You’re sliding away, Ian. Didn’t you claim she *wrote* them? In fact, your entire story is founded on the idea that she wrote the booklet select committee submissions in the booklet (even though library catalogues say differently) and continues to pursue its agenda.
The same factoids emerged in Sandra Paterson’s column in the Herald, occasioning an “unreserved apology” from the paper once it had investigated the claims:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00194.htm
Then Muriel Newman apologised (“The NZCPD did not imply or mean to imply Ms Goodger has used or is able to use her position in the public service to pursue a personal agenda.”)
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0512/S00093.htm
You apparently lack the sense or simple decency to do the same.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
April 27th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Did the feminists have a list? Yes. Did they infiltrate Labour as they said they would do? Yes. Did they move radical feminists into key networks and positions as they promised to do? Yes.
Do you think the Knights Templar were also involved?
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Russell
FYI, the full text of the article we did is here:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/pdf's/new%20women.pdf
Every where in that article where we said Goodger wrote something or said something, she wrote or said it. She even appeared personally before the select committee saying the things that someone else later compiled in a separate document.
I ask you again Russ…deal with the substance, fisk it properly or don’t fisk it at all. The problem with my woolly liberal colleagues, and God help me I used to be one once, is that you’re all very quick to take a tiny bit here or a tiny bit there out of context and build a vast conspiracy theory from it.
Are you too daft to realise that if I didn’t approach investigative work from a devil’s advocate perspective, I’d have been sued out of existence. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer, says the proverb. I attack all of my stories before they are published, as my lawyers have trained me to do.
On the other hand, I have seen halfwit leftie journos having a go at me over the past month who’ve made factual error after factual error, for which I’m probably going to end up suing them if only to prove the point – if the high legal standard I set is good enough for me, it’s good enough for those who attack me to face it as well.
Do you realise I’ve had to put out fires caused by halfwit leftie bloggers who can’t get their facts straight? I found out I was being attacked the other day for promoting the Moon Landing Conspiracy, when our Investigate story clearly takes entirely the opposite view? (see http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan3moon.htm )
Why is the left so intellectually Neanderthal? Every time I think Intelligent Design is right, along comes a liberal to prove to me that the missing link may well be walking amongst us.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Russell
FYI, the full text of the article we did is here:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/pdf's/new%20women.pdf
Every where in that article where we said Goodger wrote something or said something, she wrote or said it. She even appeared personally before the select committee saying the things that someone else later compiled in a separate document.
I ask you again Russ…deal with the substance, fisk it properly or don’t fisk it at all. The problem with my woolly liberal colleagues, and God help me I used to be one once, is that you’re all very quick to take a tiny bit here or a tiny bit there out of context and build a vast conspiracy theory from it.
Are you too daft to realise that if I didn’t approach investigative work from a devil’s advocate perspective, I’d have been sued out of existence. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer, says the proverb. I attack all of my stories before they are published, as my lawyers have trained me to do.
On the other hand, I have seen halfwit leftie journos having a go at me over the past month who’ve made factual error after factual error, for which I’m probably going to end up suing them if only to prove the point – if the high legal standard I set is good enough for me, it’s good enough for those who attack me to face it as well.
Do you realise I’ve had to put out fires caused by halfwit leftie bloggers who can’t get their facts straight? I found out I was being attacked the other day for promoting the Moon Landing Conspiracy, when our Investigate story clearly takes entirely the opposite view? (see http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan3moon.htm )
Why is the left so intellectually Neanderthal? Every time I think Intelligent Design is right, along comes a liberal to prove to me that the missing link may well be walking amongst us.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Russell
FYI, the full text of the article we did is here:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/pdf's/new%20women.pdf
Every where in that article where we said Goodger wrote something or said something, she wrote or said it. She even appeared personally before the select committee saying the things that someone else later compiled in a separate document.
I ask you again Russ…deal with the substance, fisk it properly or don’t fisk it at all. The problem with my woolly liberal colleagues, and God help me I used to be one once, is that you’re all very quick to take a tiny bit here or a tiny bit there out of context and build a vast conspiracy theory from it.
Are you too daft to realise that if I didn’t approach investigative work from a devil’s advocate perspective, I’d have been sued out of existence. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer, says the proverb. I attack all of my stories before they are published, as my lawyers have trained me to do.
On the other hand, I have seen halfwit leftie journos having a go at me over the past month who’ve made factual error after factual error, for which I’m probably going to end up suing them if only to prove the point – if the high legal standard I set is good enough for me, it’s good enough for those who attack me to face it as well.
Do you realise I’ve had to put out fires caused by halfwit leftie bloggers who can’t get their facts straight? I found out I was being attacked the other day for promoting the Moon Landing Conspiracy, when our Investigate story clearly takes entirely the opposite view? (see http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan3moon.htm )
Why is the left so intellectually Neanderthal? Every time I think Intelligent Design is right, along comes a liberal to prove to me that the missing link may well be walking amongst us.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 10:32 am
Russell
FYI, the full text of the article we did is here:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/pdf's/new%20women.pdf
Every where in that article where we said Goodger wrote something or said something, she wrote or said it. She even appeared personally before the select committee saying the things that someone else later compiled in a separate document.
I ask you again Russ…deal with the substance, fisk it properly or don’t fisk it at all. The problem with my woolly liberal colleagues, and God help me I used to be one once, is that you’re all very quick to take a tiny bit here or a tiny bit there out of context and build a vast conspiracy theory from it.
Are you too daft to realise that if I didn’t approach investigative work from a devil’s advocate perspective, I’d have been sued out of existence. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer, says the proverb. I attack all of my stories before they are published, as my lawyers have trained me to do.
On the other hand, I have seen halfwit leftie journos having a go at me over the past month who’ve made factual error after factual error, for which I’m probably going to end up suing them if only to prove the point – if the high legal standard I set is good enough for me, it’s good enough for those who attack me to face it as well.
Do you realise I’ve had to put out fires caused by halfwit leftie bloggers who can’t get their facts straight? I found out I was being attacked the other day for promoting the Moon Landing Conspiracy, when our Investigate story clearly takes entirely the opposite view? (see http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan3moon.htm )
Why is the left so intellectually Neanderthal? Every time I think Intelligent Design is right, along comes a liberal to prove to me that the missing link may well be walking amongst us.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Russell
FYI, the full text of the article we did is here:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/pdf's/new%20women.pdf
Every where in that article where we said Goodger wrote something or said something, she wrote or said it. She even appeared personally before the select committee saying the things that someone else later compiled in a separate document.
I ask you again Russ…deal with the substance, fisk it properly or don’t fisk it at all. The problem with my woolly liberal colleagues, and God help me I used to be one once, is that you’re all very quick to take a tiny bit here or a tiny bit there out of context and build a vast conspiracy theory from it.
Are you too daft to realise that if I didn’t approach investigative work from a devil’s advocate perspective, I’d have been sued out of existence. Keep your friends close but your enemies closer, says the proverb. I attack all of my stories before they are published, as my lawyers have trained me to do.
On the other hand, I have seen halfwit leftie journos having a go at me over the past month who’ve made factual error after factual error, for which I’m probably going to end up suing them if only to prove the point – if the high legal standard I set is good enough for me, it’s good enough for those who attack me to face it as well.
Do you realise I’ve had to put out fires caused by halfwit leftie bloggers who can’t get their facts straight? I found out I was being attacked the other day for promoting the Moon Landing Conspiracy, when our Investigate story clearly takes entirely the opposite view? (see http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan3moon.htm )
Why is the left so intellectually Neanderthal? Every time I think Intelligent Design is right, along comes a liberal to prove to me that the missing link may well be walking amongst us.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 10:44 am
“Every time I think Intelligent Design is right…”
and there we go.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Ian: So …
- We’ve retreated from the claim that she actually wrote the material.
- We’ve acknowledged that she is not in fact a “senior advisor” to the government (a key plank of the story’s allegations of malign influence on policy) but a research analyst.
- We have correspondents to a men’s rights forum refuting the idea that she is an anti-family feminist zealot and noting her helpfulness towards them.
-We’re agreed, are we not, that the claim that she “still mixes with Marxist organizations in Europe” is 100% baseless and reckless (even though you apparently had enough confidence in it to use it in large coloured type as a pull-quote).
- We have apologies and retractions from both the NZ Herald and Muriel Newman with respect to the same set of allegations.
I’m not going to discuss this any more, because it’s unfair to the person you have attacked, and who, as a civil servant cannot defend herself.
Perhaps now we could get onto discussing Simon Pound’s amusing column about your infamous ‘Helen Clark is secretly a lesbian’ cover story:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00183.htm
Go on, Ian, hand over your proof for *that* little beauty …
Cheers,
Vote:RB
April 27th, 2006 at 11:13 am
“if the high legal standard I set is good enough for me, it’s good enough for those who attack me to face it as well”
Agree completely, high standards and honesty are as good as blue skys and kittens in my book.
So I guess we shall see a retraction of your claim that the judge in the Dover trial on ID is a ‘secular humanist’ who allowed his personal theology to influence his decision.
The judge in question is by all other accounts a Lutheran, as I am sure you discovered while attacking your draft. Must have been an oversight or something.
And leaving aside the transparent ad hominum nature of your comments re the dover decision (he only decided it that way ’cause he’s a humanist), does your arguement not imply that ID is a religious theory, rather than a secular one?
Vote:Would that not in turn mean Judge Jones was correct in finding as he did?
April 27th, 2006 at 11:23 am
I’m not sure you’ve learnt how to read yet Russell. In her career Goodger was working in the area outlined. I acknowledge she is not in that area now. The point is irrelevant, so I’ll spell out the issue in words even a caveman can understand:
SHE DID WRITE A WISHLIST
THE WISHLIST CAME TRUE
FANCY THAT
And for the last time, the story was not about Goodger per se, it was about the plans that she set in motion all those years ago.
If I fisked your posts and columns for inaccuracies I’d be here till Christmas…deal with the substance of the issue.
PS…re Helen Clark the lesbian. From a very close associate of said Prime Minister, a person who remains in her circle and who has a high public profile. Additionally from one who knows her husband. I’m not burning off either of those sources just to satisfy your cravings.
Again, the point of the article was to establish how one’s worldview colours one’s approach to the Prime Ministership – a job which after all affects all of us.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Personally, I would sue Investigate if they ever claimed Russell Brown was a decent journalist who can read and write!
Another point: if Parker didn’t know the letter exonerating him existed, or if he forgot about it, this inspires confidence in his abilities to handle ministerial material doesn’t it. NOT!
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Whew, keep going lads, this is entertaining and illuminating stuff!
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 11:33 am
SHE DID WRITE A WISHLIST
THE WISHLIST CAME TRUE
FANCY THAT
Thanks Ian. I think that admirably sums up both the substance of the story, and your approach to journalism. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
April 27th, 2006 at 11:39 am
you’re all very quick to take a tiny bit here or a tiny bit there out of context and build a vast conspiracy theory from it
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! (ooops, I peed a little)
Oh sorry, was that not a joke?
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 11:43 am
I’ve now read s78 more closely, and I certainly have some further questions.
Ian says:
‘Basically if no transfer occurs then the shares appear to re-vest with the company which under subsection 5 can then either sell them or (with Court approval only) cancel them.
The key point is that the shares are given back to the company under that particular construction. So what did the company do? It listed Hyslop as the shareholder in each of the annual returns it then filed.’
Would “selling” or “transferring” not be a formal transaction? Would evidence of this not be necessary? I can’t see that Hyslop could have claimed or even wanted to be a shareholder again by default.
Ian then says:
‘It was this “act” which gave the shares back to Hyslop, reinforced by s89 of the Companies Act which says the name on the share register is the legal owner of those shares.’
Was the name of Hyslop at any stage removed from the share register (for 5 years) and then deliberately added?
Once the Official Assignee has complete his period of shareholding, surely nothing would automatically revert to Hyslop – his express agreement with relevant documentation would be needed to clarify his ongoing stake.
If his stake was to automatically revert to what he had prior to the OA period, then could he not be as vulnerable as he was before – and without his knowledge? I can’t see how the law would have been interpreted that way because the consequences could be wide-reaching.
I think Winston Peters (a lawyer) would express the concerns of many including me when in his latest press release he says:
“It is one thing to highlight scandals WHEN THE PUBLIC GOOD IS AT RISK OR WHERE GENUINE ISSUES OF INCOMPETENCE AND FAILURE EXIST. It is another entirely to shamelessly indulge in the politics of personal denigration without the evidence to back it up.”
and Peters goes on to say:
“The Companies Act, AND THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE LAW where bankruptcy is concerned, suggests he was right. I said so at the time and now the evidence, ABSOLUTE in this case, backs him up …
Vote:A fortunate lapse in procedures for the timely destruction of documents has saved him. The mob, and the pack that raced to follow, is now proved wrong.”
April 27th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Classic, George. You quote Peters, hated by the left until he fell in with Helen.
How many times do I have to repeat s196(2) of the Companies Act to all of you: The OA could not give an ongoing future waiver. It is illegal under the act. The 1999 letter, despite the frothings of Clark, Parker and now Peters, does not do what these three politicos (two of them lawyers who should know better) claim.
With the best intentions in the world, shareholders cannot give a one-off waiver of future resolutions. It has to be renewed in writing each year.
So tell me again, what factual legal point did Peters get right?
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
I don’t think it’s that simple, Ian.
You may be right, although I tend to gravitate toward the Crown Solicitor’s view that the matter is open to debate.
The section you are quoting is this:
“(2) A company need not appoint an auditor in accordance with subsection (1) if, at or before the meeting, a unanimous resolution is passed by all the shareholders who would be entitled to vote on that resolution at a meeting of shareholders. Such a resolution ceases to have effect at the commencement of the next annual meeting.”
The resolution ceases to have effect; that is not necessarily to say that an agreement by one person that their consent is not needed ceases to have effect. You may remember that there was agreement between the two solvent shareholders each year – they turned their mind to the matter each year, and relied through their accountant each year when formulating the new resolutions. You may be right, but I would suggest that at the very least this subsection was open to such an interpretation.
At the very least this isn’t a slam dunk either.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Graeme, The unanimous resolution must be passed by all the shareholders, each year, and must be signed off in writing each year, whether by email, fax or direct paw to paper.
The shareholder purporting to waive his need to be consulted for future years cannot do so under the Act. He is required to re-state his wish afresh.
It is a tedious requirement of the Companies Act, but it is there regardless.
Whatever written assent was made on a given date prior, lapses in the new company year.
All this pre-supposes that the OA remained the shareholder in perpetuity, which I think the evidence is now clear that he did not.
Good to see, incidentally, that Russ knows how to read Neanderthal. My 5,000 word features are clearly wasted on him, if 11 words in capitals can finally flick the switch on for him.
What a shame I can’t express complex legal argument in pictures…
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Graeme, The unanimous resolution must be passed by all the shareholders, each year, and must be signed off in writing each year, whether by email, fax or direct paw to paper.
The shareholder purporting to waive his need to be consulted for future years cannot do so under the Act. He is required to re-state his wish afresh.
It is a tedious requirement of the Companies Act, but it is there regardless.
Whatever written assent was made on a given date prior, lapses in the new company year.
All this pre-supposes that the OA remained the shareholder in perpetuity, which I think the evidence is now clear that he did not.
Good to see, incidentally, that Russ knows how to read Neanderthal. My 5,000 word features are clearly wasted on him, if 11 words in capitals can finally flick the switch on for him.
What a shame I can’t express complex legal argument in pictures…
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Ian, please – write, post, wait.
For the love of God, before the whole interweb thingie collapses.
Vote:April 27th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Yeah, sorry. It’s a caching problem I think, aggravated by an error message where DPF’s blog comes back and says I need to resubmit with a new human number.
Vote:April 28th, 2006 at 10:01 am
What a loser. Thank you Russell for exposing this man for the flake he is. Your 1st public appearance on a blog Ian and you seem to have comprehensively blown it.
For fucks sake you can’t even master simple technology let alone anything approximating journalistic integity or standards.
Game set and match to Russell.
Vote:April 28th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Stop cheerleading, jamesdean, you fucking sycophant.
Vote:April 28th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
jamesdean – to be fair, the multiple posts thing isn’t really Ian’s fault.It is an idiosyncrasy of DPF’s site that most of us are used to. I wasn’t really having a go at Ian, I just saw an opportunity to say interweb thingie at Ian’s expense.
Vote:April 28th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
OK, I’ll retract that part of the statement – it was unfair but the temptation to put the boot in was irresistable considering the depths this man plumbs to to make his point. Sorry Kimble, I’m not being a sycophant it’s just nice to see someone exposed when their behaviour and integrity as a journalist has been so lacking.
Vote:April 28th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Ian, it seems the only defence to your logic is an attack of the way you have used DPF
Vote:April 28th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Ian, it seems the only defence to your logic is an attack of the way you have used DPF
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
dkmfthwnj fnlapwh cyslzg itpnw vpiwsy qxweg bvpjz
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:42 am
dkmfthwnj fnlapwh cyslzg itpnw vpiwsy qxweg bvpjz
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:44 am
byukrmt neulsjxfz yaokhe swhykqfo ochvdrfta ixbd ogpt http://www.ksyj.vspak.com
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:45 am
iwfyth pjlfrgdxq oudcisn zgjsc qhxs rpxqd vdfogp cpmokqrhg drpmxn
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am
iwfyth pjlfrgdxq oudcisn zgjsc qhxs rpxqd vdfogp cpmokqrhg drpmxn
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:47 am
iwfyth pjlfrgdxq oudcisn zgjsc qhxs rpxqd vdfogp cpmokqrhg drpmxn
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
vxjcnzpbt uchay wocfbgzmu xfbnsp hpurwga itvsbu wecb [URL=http://www.atpq.vrhlw.com]iatqygd fiqnrgjct[/URL]
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
vxjcnzpbt uchay wocfbgzmu xfbnsp hpurwga itvsbu wecb [URL=http://www.atpq.vrhlw.com]iatqygd fiqnrgjct[/URL]
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
hkpr fchlx gvsaqpfx voyuzsk owehd gferwhtb xktusozym [URL]http://www.ceyitm.zefdnvlx.com[/URL] exwt ykxvdzg
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
hkpr fchlx gvsaqpfx voyuzsk owehd gferwhtb xktusozym [URL]http://www.ceyitm.zefdnvlx.com[/URL] exwt ykxvdzg
Vote:June 13th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 14th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 15th, 2007 at 3:46 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 15th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 15th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 15th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 16th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 17th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 19th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 19th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 20th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 20th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 21st, 2007 at 7:56 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 21st, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 5:26 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 9:33 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 6:28 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Cool site. Thank you.
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 4:17 am
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 24th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 26th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 5:45 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 27th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 12:23 am
Very good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Nice site. Thanks:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:June 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 3:55 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:June 29th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Cool site. Thank you!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Cool site. Thanks.
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 4:27 am
Nice site. Thanks!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:June 30th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 3:31 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 3:31 am
Very good site. Thanks!
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Very good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Cool site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 12:41 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 3rd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Very good site. Thank you!
Vote:July 4th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Good site. Thanks!
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Cool site. Thanks!!!
Vote:July 6th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Good site. Thanks.
Vote:July 8th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:July 8th, 2007 at 5:24 am
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 6:02 am
Nice site. Thank you.
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Nice site. Thanks.
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:July 9th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
Vote:July 10th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Nice site. Thank you!
Vote:July 10th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Good site. Thank you!!!
Vote:July 10th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Good site. Thank you.
Vote: