Another forgery
April 30th, 2007 at 7:39 am by David Farrar
The Dominion Post reports on the upcoming auction of another Helen Clark forgery. One wonders how many forgeries she signed before she got caught out.
It sounds like the doodle will fetch a good price at the auction, due to notoriety of being a forgery.
Related posts:
- Pay It Back Suggestions
- Great summary of forgery debate
- The great ACT auction
- The forgery debate continues
April 30th, 2007 at 10:28 am
At least Helen has said she signed them but didnt draw or paint them.
Not like one politician who said the got the emails but didnt read them
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Hmmn but which one is a crime under the Crimes Act?
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Helen has just ‘autographed’ someones elses work, thereby making more valuable.
Does An All Black commit forgery if he signs a T shirt that has been created by someone else.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Jennifer, you’d have to ask the Police as they are ones that found a Prima Facie Case of Fraud and Forgery against helen Clark…..only for some strange reason it “wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute”
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Why is everyone talking about Clark’s Doodle, I didn’t even know she had one.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
They can no longer be ‘forgeries’ if there is no one is saying they created them.
Key has yet to be tested over his forgetfullness
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Sorry Jennifer they are still forgeries, even without the actual author being identified.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 6:59 am
Jennifer when you are getting hundreds of emails a day nearly all from people you do not know, it is quite credible you would not read them. I certainly do not I just delete anything from someone I do not know. As for the “T” shirt anlogy even a Labour voter would realise an Allblack did not make the t shirt. But the above piece of bad art could well have been done by Clark. Her non answer leaves it wide open she did not do it. She is using the “I smoked but did not inhale” defence of Bill Clinton.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 7:52 am
Prima facie and the political doddle police puppets thought it was in the best interests not to charge a fraudster thing – who later went on to set a land speed record for a PM in transit. What if a little child had run out in front of the speeding maggot?
It would be fair to for sane people to interpret these situations as acts of blatant corruption by a deluded person who is unreasonable, obsessive and a psychologically abusive person. The PM ‘s actions raise serious doubts to her credibility as a role model for children and it would be the public’s best interests for her to undertake a psychiatric assessment immediately.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 7:52 am
Fraud is committed when there can be shown to be a purpose to damage the interests of another person or party.
Signing a painting for charity fund raising purposes, where the nature of the signature is clearly stated at auction is not damaging anyone’s interests at that point in time.
Therefore the signatures were not forgeries. Get over yourselves.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 8:21 am
I totally agree with you RedRag, Helen Clark signed this and others for charity, sure it was an error of judgment as signing a painting or drawing proclaims you as the artist, she has since acknowledged that error.
To still be going on about this when the original intention was charitable is small minded, but I guess it plays to the ‘Helen hate mob’ who occupy this blog.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 8:26 am
where the nature of the signature is clearly stated at auction
Vote:Except that only makes it not a forgery when sold the 2nd time?
Especially given that that was not the case when the infamous first case came to light?
May 1st, 2007 at 8:53 am
Redrag and Rocket Boy that is the silliest argument ever. Unworthy of even the biggest apologists. If I rob a bank to feed the family next door, I am guilty of theft. And there are two firemen in NZ with driving convictions because they crashed on their way to a fire and injured a passerby. There is also a cop who had been charged for DIC when during an off duty period he raced off to go and help at an accident.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:01 am
Section 256, Crimes Act 1961
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who makes a false document with the intention of using it to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration.
Vote:(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with the intent that it in any way be used or acted upon, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, as genuine.
(3) Forgery is complete as soon as the document is made with the intent described in subsection (1) or with the knowledge and intent described in subsection (2).
(4) Forgery is complete even though the false document may be incomplete, or may not purport to be such a document as would be binding or sufficient in law, if it is so made and is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted upon as genuine.]
May 1st, 2007 at 9:32 am
If Miss Clark thinks that doodles look anything like this,she hasn’t seen many.It doesn’t even have any bollocks!
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:33 am
If Miss Clark thinks that doodles look anything like this,she hasn’t seen many.It doesn’t even have any bollocks!
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:01 am
If the true creator of thew work isn’t identified, who gets the 5% of the increase in value?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:03 am
I quess the old cow will now want her 5% on top of the sale price. Is it any wonder Dear Leader wanted artists to get royalties on old works.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:21 am
Mara – I thought it was bollocks.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:16 am
I have to wonder about the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act, October 2006? Surely this is a forgery as it validates “illegal practices” which breached New Zealand Statutes and undermined our democratic right to a fair election.
Frank
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Why didn’t she just donate money to charity? She didn’t because charity art receives far more attention. All those people @ the auction discussion how wondering Helen’s painting is & how generous she is with her time for a good cause. In fact one starts to wonder if charity even factored in the Klark’s decision to carry out forgery.
Vote:“Sometimes I think I’m a victim of my own success as a popular & competent Prime Minister” – Helen Clark, Art forger.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pm
There was clearly a prima facie case against Clark. No one knows what Clark’s for sure motive for signing the painting was. It may have been that she was embarrassed that she could not paint or draw. It should have been obvious to her that she would gain votes if voters thought as well as climbing mountains she was also a reasonable artist.
If she lied about mountains she climbed she would not be breaking any law. However, when she signed paintings that she not paint she was clearly breaking the law and benefiting personally as well.
It appears she acted like most criminals. She got away with signing a few doodles and then she progressed to signing an oil painting she did not paint. She must have known that the painting would fetch a higher price with her signature on it.
To make matters worse a corrupt lawyer by the name is Simon Mitchell bought the painting and gave it to Miss Clark’s Auckland staff member Joan Caulfield who destroyed the painted with the assistance of her husband.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=52BE50F6-39DD-11DA-8E1B-A5B353C55561
I had made a genuine offer to buy the painting which was being considered when this poor excuse for a lawyer paid $5500 for the painting which would make a private prosecution much more difficult. I put in a written complaint to the Law Society which dismissed it out of hand without an explanation.
I could accept that Clark signed a doodle without really considering all the ramifications. However, she signed about half a dozen paintings one of which fetched $1,000. She would known that she was deceiving the purchaser and that the painting would not have sold for $1,000 without her signature.
Let us not forget here is woman who got married to advance her political career. I cannot believe that she did not believe that passing herself off as artist did not have the potential to help her politically.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Right on Chuck Bird Remember its only 555 days until election 08 so we have to keep the memories of the Divine Heavenly Beloved Leaders crimes against the citizens of New Zealand alive. Lest the Socialists Forget.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Get the basic facts right Chucky.
1. HC did not personally benefit from the sale of the paintings. They were sold as fund raiser’s for a charity.
2. The purchaser’s at that auction were fully informed that HC was not the artist.
A case would not have lasted 5 minutes in Court because the prosecution would not have been able to establish that ” the intent that it in any way be used or acted upon, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, as genuine.” When the original purchaser was told that the signature was not that of the actual artist, there can have been no possibility that that it would be regarded as genuine, nor could any intent to defraud be established.
The original purchaser happily paid over the market value for the painting in exactly the same manner that for instance you might pay $1000 for a seat at a charity fund-raising dinner.
The problem arose when the painting was subsequently sold without the second owner being informed about the nature of the signature. That transaction had nothing to do with HC, but it became apparent that the original perfectly benign idea was open to later abuse, so the painting was legitimately recovered and destroyed in order to put an end to that possibility.
But feel free to go on wilfully ignoring the facts. Hate mongers always do.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I see Jennifer has the Clark-diversion down pat. Don’t like the message – attack the messenger or someone else.
I wonder if this one will be snapped up by a Labour party hack to be subsequently burnt?
And for what it is worth I agree that it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute (although it set a bad precedent for the police). The issue was that the PM’s arrogant handling of the situation – refusing to apologise, obstructing the investigation and generally blaming everyone else.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Why do we care?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pm
RedRag, firstly it would be good if you would stick to the issue instead of childish name calling. At least I have the gumption to use my own name.
It you bothered to read my post you would see I had already covered your first point.
Are you claiming that all the purchasers of Clark’s forgeries were informed that Clark had not painted the painting? I do not know for sure about the half dozen doodles she signed but I met the original purchaser of the oil painting. He definitely believed Clark was the artist when he paid $1,000 for the forgery.
I also read the police file and had a lawyer who was considering a private prosecution until some sleazy lawyer bought the painting and gave it to someone who destroyed it.
The police found a prima facie case. If the original purchaser was told that Clark was not the artist although she signed the painting they would not have found a prima facie case.
I have heard so many lies by left to justify Clark but your story tops them all.
Show us all some proof to support your wild claims.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Charle Tan – yes we care that Helen Clark is the most CORRUPT Prime Minister we have ever had in our short history. She has cursed the Nation with her criminal behaviour !
She is a role model for the word corruption.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Redreg
“1. HC did not personally benefit from the sale of the paintings. They were sold as fund raiser’s for a charity.”
Yes she did, she was elected as PM. Her popularity was enhanced by this act for charity. It’s just a shame that as soon as she got into power (with a higher salary than she would have got in opposition) she claimed she didn’t benefit…. Typical…She supports charity when doing so is good for her…
Her party normally calls it Tory Charity because we all know the only real charity is called welfare…
Only money taken as taxes can benefit the poor – yeah right !
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Drawn by a 5 year old, signed by a 6 year old, yep its definitely authentic.
Maybe someone will put it to good use, looking at the size of it you’d be able to get 4 sittings at the long drop with it.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 4:27 pm
While you are on the subject I know of a worrying storm in a teacup that may be worthy of comment.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Redrag says
“1. HC did not personally benefit from the sale of the paintings. They were sold as fund raiser’s for a charity.”
So, if I forge a signature on a cheque and give it to charity, will I be prosecuted?
then,
“2. The purchaser’s at that auction were fully informed that HC was not the artist.”
So, what were they buying,her signature or the painting?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Shit, is Helen forging signatures on teacups now?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Mark outlines the crimes act in part:
(2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with the intent that it in any way be used or acted upon, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, as genuine.
If the first buyer was told that HC didn’t paint the work, it probably would be a questionable prosecution.
But if, as Redrag states, the second purchaser was not told about the authenticity of the artist, surely THAT would be the scenario in which HC should have been prosecuted?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Hello, I’m a first time caller.
Is there anyone here who talks about something vaguely important or relevant?
At first glance I would say this old chestnut is worth a look. And then I’d notice there was no intent. Which is a very valid defence. So I wouldn’t prosecute.
Just like I wouldn’t prosecute for a light corrective tap on the bum. But if you slap me with your order papers I’ll see you in court.
If this is what passes for the intellectual right wing god help us, wot a bunch of girls.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Jenni, some anonymous blogger makes an unsupported claim that the purchaser was told that the which paid $1,000 for was not painted by Helen despite having her signature in the place on the front of the painting where artist sign their paintings.
RedRag cannot substantiate his claim which does not make sense. The purchaser who was mislead was most unhappy.
What would the auctioneer at the charity auction say when he described the painting? Here is a painting by an unknown artist but it has Helen Clark’s signature in the normal place – Yeah Right.
When one applies for a job one fills in a job application one is asked about their hobbies, sports and other interests. If two people had similar experience these other factor could make there difference on who gets the job.
When a politician stands for Parliament some swinging voters will take these other factors into account.
Helen stood to gain by by signing a painting she did not paint.
Section 256, Crimes Act 1961
(1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years who makes a false document with the intention of using it to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration.
The benefit does not have to be monetary although in Helen’s case it was as well.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Jennifer Robson? Fuck you.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:08 pm
where do these armchair lawyers like slarty get their opinions from?
I drove through a red light while under the influence and killed some-one….oops i slurred no intent there, “just wanted to get home”. “Sure” says PC plod, “I understand. Off you go sir.”
Slarty that is up there with “I did not know that, that was a crime…”
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:30 pm
vanzylnz -
different legal test
fraud requires intent
negligant use of a motor vehicle causing death only needs negligence
btw, if you choose to get drunk and then commit a crime, the requirement for intent is satisfied by the fact that you chose to impair yourself.
I might suggest you don’t criticise other ‘armchair lawyers’ (and who knows maybe slarty is an actual prosecutor) if you can’t understand different mens rea tests.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Sam
Vote:So she signed the painting because….? she wanted to practice her signature? My analogy holds true. The intent is in the action in both cases.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Sam
Vote:So she signed the painting because….? she wanted to practice her signature? My analogy holds true. The intent is in the action in both cases. Like you pointed out in the choice to impair myself. You would find it as hard to argue that there was no intent my hypothetical scenario as in her actual one.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:45 pm
And Sam after the recent string of prima facie cases that is deemed not worthy of prosecution, one would be slow to put your hand up as a prosecutor, not so? Anyway I am off for 3 weeks in Africa.
Vote:Cheers
May 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Vanzylnz
You know it wouldn’t surprise me if the PM choose other people “art” to practice her signature on.
Vote: