Shane Wenzel
Shane Wenzel appears to like threatening and intimidating people. According to this HoS story, he has:
* tried to take a camera from a Herald on Sunday photographer
* physically shoved a reporter
* tried to strip a mobile telephone from the hands of a reporter as he tried to call police
* verbally threatened National Party MPs Katherine Rich and Judith Collins
* demanded that Bob Clarkson’s office supply personal information about complaining students and when refused said he would ruin Mr Clarkson
Seems like such a nice man.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: New Zealand
May 20th, 2007 at 11:59 am
wow, this Mr Weasel sure has a lot of explaining to do – hope he get his fair share of uninvited attention in lockup.
May 20th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Who is this thug?
May 20th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
this fat routing idiot seems to live in dorklannd, so in the words of that estimed poet, BESTERTESTER i dont give a shit, i live where people are nice THE CAPITAL
May 20th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Police gave him a “warning”.
I’m coming to the conclusion that “businessmen” that are bankrupt are above the law. They can offer piss poor excuses to IRD, they can assault and intimidate people and the cops don’t care.
Strange world.
May 20th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Why was this oxygen thief not arrested on the spot for assault?
Oh that’s right. This is New Zealand. My bad.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:24 am
I ask again – who is he and who is he associated with?
May 21st, 2007 at 7:28 am
I ask again – who is he and who is he associated with?
May 21st, 2007 at 11:45 am
If you have any information about Shane Wenzell
contact David Fisher of the Herald on Sunday 3739345 and or Dennis Wood of McDonal Vauge 09 303 0506.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:47 am
If you have any information about Shane Wenzell
contact David Fisher of the Herald on Sunday 3739345 and or Dennis Wood of McDonal Vauge 09 303 0506.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:54 am
A particualarly dangerous and highly vemomous belly cralling cold blooded reptile. Do not approach allone as the behaviour is totally unprdictable. Lures pray with offers of help and freindship then slowly bleeds them dry while they are still intocicated with the lure
May 21st, 2007 at 6:58 pm
This lowlife is very real & totally dangerous. He’s a short, fat, sweaty sociopath who has sucked in 3 women, Robyn Case, Josie Barnes & Dianna Bongard & totally destroyed the dreams of a lot of people around the NI. He thinks he is a “god like” entity & even boasts about training Robert Kiyosaki………DUH.
He really rates himself as a heavy but he’s all sweat & wind. A real loser. Hope he goes away or at least gets exposed & exported. Maybe Robert maigarvi might want him a PR expert
May 21st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
This lowlife is very real & totally dangerous. He’s a short, fat, sweaty sociopath who has sucked in 3 women, Robyn Case, Josie Barnes & Dianna Bongard & totally destroyed the dreams of a lot of people around the NI. He thinks he is a “god like” entity & even boasts about training Robert Kiyosaki………DUH.
He really rates himself as a heavy but he’s all sweat & wind. A real loser. Hope he goes away or at least gets exposed & exported. Maybe Robert maigarvi might want him a PR expert
May 21st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
See: http://www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/Documents/20070515.htm#_Toc167013075
May 21st, 2007 at 7:55 pm
This lowlife is very real & totally dangerous. He’s a short, fat, sweaty sociopath who has sucked in 3 women, Robyn Case, Josie Barnes & Dianna Bongard & totally destroyed the dreams of a lot of people around the NI. He thinks he is a “god like” entity & even boasts about training Robert Kiyosaki………DUH.
He really rates himself as a heavy but he’s all sweat & wind. A real loser. Hope he goes away or at least gets exposed & exported. Maybe Robert maigarvi might want him a a PR expert
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Shane Wenzel is very good at intimidating people.What we need to do is deport him back to his own country. He is nothing but full of BULLSHIT. Hes promised alot of things to alot of people just to get them to invest all they have into such worthless properties, when that is done he doesnt give a shit about anyone else but himself, he doesnt give a shit about Robyn, Josie or Dianna. Dianna Bongard is the administrator for all those fake companies in that office, she has 2 beautiful children which she doesnt look after properly, and guess what people, shes been having an affair with this prick for a while now. YUK!!!!! Well Shane and Dianna can both go eat a fat one, because they are both the same.
Whos the one in charge now aye Shane???
Shane should go back to where he came from he is giving the New Zealand public a bad name.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Shane Wenzel is very good at intimidating people.What we need to do is deport him back to his own country. He is nothing but full of BULLSHIT. Hes promised alot of things to alot of people just to get them to invest all they have into such worthless properties, when that is done he doesnt give a shit about anyone else but himself, he doesnt give a shit about Robyn, Josie or Dianna. Dianna Bongard is the administrator for all those fake companies in that office, she has 2 beautiful children which she doesnt look after properly, and guess what people, shes been having an affair with this prick for a while now. YUK!!!!! Well Shane and Dianna can both go eat a fat one, because they are both the same.
Whos the one in charge now aye Shane???
Shane should go back to where he came from he is giving the New Zealand public a bad name.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Shane Wenzel is the sort of person that likes to play around with peoples minds. He doesnt give a shit about anyone but himself. Shane will take innocent people in and destroy their minds and give up everything they have for nothing. Shane is corrupt, he is a bankrupt, I cannot believe that all those innocent people with good jobs before meeting this prick fell for this low life scum. All i can say is that he needs to go back to where he came from, New Zealand will be a better place if we didnt have people like him. He has played with Robyn, Josie and Diannas minds. I really dont give a shit about Dianna Bongard, shes the one thats sleeping with Shane. YES shes having an affair with Shane. She has 2 beautiful children which she does not look after properly. And shes sleeping with the boss.Well hes getting whats coming to him.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Shane Wenzel is the sort of person that likes to play around with peoples minds. He doesnt give a shit about anyone but himself. Shane will take innocent people in and destroy their minds and give up everything they have for nothing. Shane is corrupt, he is a bankrupt, I cannot believe that all those innocent people with good jobs before meeting this prick fell for this low life scum. All i can say is that he needs to go back to where he came from, New Zealand will be a better place if we didnt have people like him. He has played with Robyn, Josie and Diannas minds. I really dont give a shit about Dianna Bongard, shes the one thats sleeping with Shane. YES shes having an affair with Shane. She has 2 beautiful children which she does not look after properly. And shes sleeping with the boss.Well hes getting whats coming to him.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Mmmmm, interesting as he’s been snapped in bed with Robyn Case as well.
Is Josie missing out or is she still enamoured by her Chrysler
May 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Thanks for the info folks.
Sounds like he would fit well into Clarks Cabinet.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Shane WENZEL is a short fat sweaty ugly little Aussie who should be deported. He is hilarious as he really believes he is a big shot when most people find him to be a joke! Robyn CASE past Director of Case Boreham & Associates Ltd – LIQUIDATED! is as corrupt as him, Jose BARNES signs herself off as a JP! (well if she is one it should be stripped from her coz JP’s are meant to uphold the law) and as for Dianna BONGARD I would like to know why? CYFS have not stepped in and taken her kids to a safe haven, she is an unfit Mother in every sense. Well ladies CASE, BARNES & BONGARD you have all got what you deserved public humiliation, and only the little sweaty fat man left to give you the time of day ha ha! but not for long I bet coz when the money has gone WENZEL will be gone too! Off to seek out other Disciples and victims you sad cows!
I see that you are trying to re open CBA calling it Case Boreham & Associates (NZ) Ltd or something. You can go into the http://www.companies.nz website to check it out along with their other companies like YSS, Right mortgages, SCI Finance and a string of other companies set up to rip NZ public off – beware and stay clear of any companies with any of the above names attached. WENZEL should not even be running a company he is a BANKRUPT! at least the Serious Fraud Office are holding his passport so he has to front up to the Papakura Courthouse to face the music for the 18 charges he faces (this month)- Why not go along to the courthouse and cheer our Aussie mate on – Bon Voyage WENZEL Hope you get a long stretch in Jail followed by a long swim home NZ don’t need your sort here go back to Aus~
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Shane WENZEL is a short fat sweaty ugly little Aussie who should be deported. He is hilarious as he really believes he is a big shot when most people find him to be a joke! Robyn CASE past Director of Case Boreham & Associates Ltd – LIQUIDATED! is as corrupt as him, Jose BARNES signs herself off as a JP! (well if she is one it should be stripped from her coz JP’s are meant to uphold the law) and as for Dianna BONGARD I would like to know why? CYFS have not stepped in and taken her kids to a safe haven, she is an unfit Mother in every sense. Well ladies CASE, BARNES & BONGARD you have all got what you deserved public humiliation, and only the little sweaty fat man left to give you the time of day ha ha! but not for long I bet coz when the money has gone WENZEL will be gone too! Off to seek out other Disciples and victims you sad cows!
I see that you are trying to re open CBA calling it Case Boreham & Associates (NZ) Ltd or something. You can go into the http://www.companies.nz website to check it out along with their other companies like YSS, Right mortgages, SCI Finance and a string of other companies set up to rip NZ public off – beware and stay clear of any companies with any of the above names attached. WENZEL should not even be running a company he is a BANKRUPT! at least the Serious Fraud Office are holding his passport so he has to front up to the Papakura Courthouse to face the music for the 18 charges he faces (this month)- Why not go along to the courthouse and cheer our Aussie mate on – Bon Voyage WENZEL Hope you get a long stretch in Jail followed by a long swim home NZ don’t need your sort here go back to Aus~
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Shane WENZEL is a short fat sweaty ugly little Aussie who should be deported. He is hilarious as he really believes he is a big shot when most people find him to be a joke! Robyn CASE past Director of Case Boreham & Associates Ltd – LIQUIDATED! is as corrupt as him, Jose BARNES signs herself off as a JP! (well if she is one it should be stripped from her coz JP’s are meant to with hold the law) and as for Dianna BONGARD I would like to know why? CYFS have not stepped in and taken her kids to a safe haven, she is an unfit Mother in every sense. Well ladies CASE, BARNES & BONGARD you have all got what you deserved public humiliation, and only the little sweaty fat man left to give you the time of day ha ha! but not for long I bet coz when the money has gone WENZEL will be gone too! Off to seek out other Disciples and victims you sad cows!
I see that they are trying to re open CBA calling it Case Boreham & Associates (NZ) Ltd or something, you can go into the http://www.companies.nz website to check it out along with their other companies like YSS, Right mortgages, SCI Finance and a string of other companies set up to rip NZ public off – beware and stay clear of any companies with any of the above manes atta ched. WENZEL should not even be running a company he is a BANKRUPT! at least the Serious Fraud Office are holding his passport so he has to front up to the Papakura Courthouse to face the music for the 18 charges he faces – Why not go along to the courthouse and cheer our Aussie mate on – Bon Voyage WENZEL Hope you get a long stretch in Jail followed by a long swim home NZ don’t need your sort here go back to Aus~
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
this guy is dangerous someone needs to lock him up and throw away the key.how he can brainwash seemingly inteligent people blows me away.the power of money aye.i hope all you case boreham lot rot in hell.also i cant understand how the nz system can be used by a crook like this against its own law abidding citizens, it just amazes me.
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Just a Guy who wants people to be the BEST and will tell them when they ask
The Reporter Charge Me A Lawyer was present
Have trained 100′s of people now some Love there medicine some hate it. should the medicine be band because a few cant and wont take the medicine for there Survival? JOB losses every month bankruptcies up, we hide unemployment in the education system. Brain drain nothing more than people cant get jobs
British system Keep confused and dependant
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I have known Shane Wenzel for nine months in a Professional and personal capacity. He is the Business Coach for the company I am contracted to. I am a Course Tutor.
I have completed Professional Development Courses under Shane’s direction. As my Business Coach we keep in regular contact.
Shane is an energetic and dynamic individual. He has inspired me to peak performance in my own career. Shane is a person of great integrity.
As a leader and coach Shane is outstanding. A gifted communicator Shane interacts with course participants, quickly building rapport and trust amongst any group. He successfully challenges people to embrace risks as a pathway to personal and professional growth. I always look forward to this biannual Professional Development.
In addition to his coaching role at the group level, he is also an effective tutor for me personally. I have come to rely on his wisdom and diverse range of problem solving skills. He is constantly available and approachable. His approach with tutor and students has a supportive and affirming demeanor.
Shane remains one of my greatest sources of inspiration.
Yours sincerely
Louise Lark
Re; Robyn Case & Shane Wenzel , MAKING A DIFFERENCE!.
Hi , my name is Matiu Ranapia aka (Bull) aka (JEE) , I have been a active member of the Mangu Kaha (chairman) for the last twenty years, I had joined the crew when I was 16 years old and in that time I had experienced everything you could think of to do with the that kind of life style, from robberies to drugs , prostitution and a whole range criminal activities (excluding rape & child molestation), I had been to jail a couple of times with my last sentence being five years for drugs, it was during my last sentence I had made a deep rooted decision to make changes ,not only to myself but changes to others around me that are needing new directions, I was even willing to give up on the crew but then I thought to myself that if I really wanted to make changes what better place than from within the crew , we have had a lot of members leave the crew and make their participation wrong and judge the life style but at the end of the day they never really looked at the cause of the destruction (themselves) and tried to do something about it, leaving to me would had been a easy way out but the real challenge is to stay with in the wound and heal it from the inside out, through what ever means and resources I can work with.
While I was in jail I had done every course ,program, rehab available ,thinking these will help me get a job and restart my life, I was released in 2003 , the reality was I spent the first 3 months constantly looking for employment , every interview & phone call I made, they asked if I had a criminal conviction and I replied honestly ,only to be told they will call me back , it never happened, so I started looking for any course I could do on the outside just to keep me occupied IE first aid, truck & fork hoist license and more, still no job and the old life was tempting me.
I was fortunate enough to meet Shane Wenzel (Business coach) & Robyn Case (Mentor) , since then I have learnt how to start companies , marketing , managing , building construction , sub divisions, project managing and a whole lot more ,now I own three companies and have a number of investment properties with Shane’s and Robyn’s support and total guidance I have managed to turn my life and some of my bros life’s around ,one for example Pou hepi (vice chairman) he has come from the same back ground as me and has the same vision as Shane and Robyn’s to help make a difference, he is also the manager for NZ Maintenance, this company is our franchise company we have started and are slowly growing , our main focus is labour hire but we do have a lawn mowing division, property maintenance division and a warehouse logistics division. Even though all these titles seem great and we have changed our lives it is only through the opened hearts , minds and souls of Robyn and Shane, two of the most genuine people I have ever meet dedicated to the dream of making differences.
Just to give you another example of their dedication , two months ago I had a meeting with the mayor of Papakura John Robertson over providing opportunities to the youth gangs in our community , immediately Shane &
Robyn offered their support of knowledge and networks, even though they had other major issues going on for them , they still had the heart to throw me in the car with them and drive around the most poverty stricken neighbourhood in south Auckland and asked the youth on the streets (even though sum were drinking) what they would like to see happen in their neighbourhood, the response was great, not even I would have thought of just driving around and asking them what they would want to change their hood, It made me wonder how many of the community leaders or pillars of society would have even attempted this task.
To this day I still look to Robyn & Shane for their support and have grown to love them as family, it is very heart wrenching to see the hassles they are going through in their battle for justice in a very unjust world where people live off the proper gander of what others say and how a simple contractor hired by the courts can manipulate the system and use the same old tools of society (IE media and perceptive truths) to play the same old game of point the finger and cry witch as a smoke screen to cover their own hidden agendas and crimes,( just as gang members were targeted for high rape & murder crimes in the mid to late eighties while the police had free range (Stowers killing), it is common knowledge now, that the truth of the truth there is no truth.
But all in all this is only a rain drop in a waterfall of changes shane wenzel and Robyn case has made to my life and others and the question must be asked , what is change ? and who is really MAKING A DIFFERENCE ?
For any further information please don’t hesitate to call me.
Kind Regards
Jee
NZ Maintenance t/a DLS 2006 Ltd
Ph: (09) 9742153
Fx: (09) 299 9829
Mb: (021) 1275139
Remember it easy to be critic and there are NO famous Critics
It is harder to make a difference it takes great courage and pain to suffer peoples judgments and misunderstandings history showes
us that time after time. How many wars how deaths will take for us to stand up for. INJUSTICES
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Just a Guy who wants people to be the BEST and will tell them when they ask
The Reporter Charge Me A Lawyer was present
Have trained 100′s of people now some Love there medicine some hate it. should the medicine be band because a few cant and wont take the medicine for there Survival? JOB losses every month bankruptcies up, we hide unemployment in the education system. Brain drain nothing more than people cant get jobs
British system Keep confused and dependant
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I have known Shane Wenzel for nine months in a Professional and personal capacity. He is the Business Coach for the company I am contracted to. I am a Course Tutor.
I have completed Professional Development Courses under Shane’s direction. As my Business Coach we keep in regular contact.
Shane is an energetic and dynamic individual. He has inspired me to peak performance in my own career. Shane is a person of great integrity.
As a leader and coach Shane is outstanding. A gifted communicator Shane interacts with course participants, quickly building rapport and trust amongst any group. He successfully challenges people to embrace risks as a pathway to personal and professional growth. I always look forward to this biannual Professional Development.
In addition to his coaching role at the group level, he is also an effective tutor for me personally. I have come to rely on his wisdom and diverse range of problem solving skills. He is constantly available and approachable. His approach with tutor and students has a supportive and affirming demeanor.
Shane remains one of my greatest sources of inspiration.
Yours sincerely
Louise Lark
Re; Robyn Case & Shane Wenzel , MAKING A DIFFERENCE!.
Hi , my name is Matiu Ranapia aka (Bull) aka (JEE) , I have been a active member of the Mangu Kaha (chairman) for the last twenty years, I had joined the crew when I was 16 years old and in that time I had experienced everything you could think of to do with the that kind of life style, from robberies to drugs , prostitution and a whole range criminal activities (excluding rape & child molestation), I had been to jail a couple of times with my last sentence being five years for drugs, it was during my last sentence I had made a deep rooted decision to make changes ,not only to myself but changes to others around me that are needing new directions, I was even willing to give up on the crew but then I thought to myself that if I really wanted to make changes what better place than from within the crew , we have had a lot of members leave the crew and make their participation wrong and judge the life style but at the end of the day they never really looked at the cause of the destruction (themselves) and tried to do something about it, leaving to me would had been a easy way out but the real challenge is to stay with in the wound and heal it from the inside out, through what ever means and resources I can work with.
While I was in jail I had done every course ,program, rehab available ,thinking these will help me get a job and restart my life, I was released in 2003 , the reality was I spent the first 3 months constantly looking for employment , every interview & phone call I made, they asked if I had a criminal conviction and I replied honestly ,only to be told they will call me back , it never happened, so I started looking for any course I could do on the outside just to keep me occupied IE first aid, truck & fork hoist license and more, still no job and the old life was tempting me.
I was fortunate enough to meet Shane Wenzel (Business coach) & Robyn Case (Mentor) , since then I have learnt how to start companies , marketing , managing , building construction , sub divisions, project managing and a whole lot more ,now I own three companies and have a number of investment properties with Shane’s and Robyn’s support and total guidance I have managed to turn my life and some of my bros life’s around ,one for example Pou hepi (vice chairman) he has come from the same back ground as me and has the same vision as Shane and Robyn’s to help make a difference, he is also the manager for NZ Maintenance, this company is our franchise company we have started and are slowly growing , our main focus is labour hire but we do have a lawn mowing division, property maintenance division and a warehouse logistics division. Even though all these titles seem great and we have changed our lives it is only through the opened hearts , minds and souls of Robyn and Shane, two of the most genuine people I have ever meet dedicated to the dream of making differences.
Just to give you another example of their dedication , two months ago I had a meeting with the mayor of Papakura John Robertson over providing opportunities to the youth gangs in our community , immediately Shane &
Robyn offered their support of knowledge and networks, even though they had other major issues going on for them , they still had the heart to throw me in the car with them and drive around the most poverty stricken neighbourhood in south Auckland and asked the youth on the streets (even though sum were drinking) what they would like to see happen in their neighbourhood, the response was great, not even I would have thought of just driving around and asking them what they would want to change their hood, It made me wonder how many of the community leaders or pillars of society would have even attempted this task.
To this day I still look to Robyn & Shane for their support and have grown to love them as family, it is very heart wrenching to see the hassles they are going through in their battle for justice in a very unjust world where people live off the proper gander of what others say and how a simple contractor hired by the courts can manipulate the system and use the same old tools of society (IE media and perceptive truths) to play the same old game of point the finger and cry witch as a smoke screen to cover their own hidden agendas and crimes,( just as gang members were targeted for high rape & murder crimes in the mid to late eighties while the police had free range (Stowers killing), it is common knowledge now, that the truth of the truth there is no truth.
But all in all this is only a rain drop in a waterfall of changes shane wenzel and Robyn case has made to my life and others and the question must be asked , what is change ? and who is really MAKING A DIFFERENCE ?
For any further information please don’t hesitate to call me.
Kind Regards
Jee
NZ Maintenance t/a DLS 2006 Ltd
Ph: (09) 9742153
Fx: (09) 299 9829
Mb: (021) 1275139
Remember it easy to be critic and there are NO famous Critics
It is harder to make a difference it takes great courage and pain to suffer peoples judgments and misunderstandings history showes
us that time after time. How many wars how deaths will take for us to stand up for. INJUSTICES
May 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Just a Guy who wants people to be the BEST and will tell them when they ask
The Reporter Charge Me A Lawyer was present
Have trained 100′s of people now some Love there medicine some hate it. should the medicine be band because a few cant and wont take the medicine for there Survival? JOB losses every month bankruptcies up, we hide unemployment in the education system. Brain drain nothing more than people cant get jobs
British system Keep confused and dependant
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I have known Shane Wenzel for nine months in a Professional and personal capacity. He is the Business Coach for the company I am contracted to. I am a Course Tutor.
I have completed Professional Development Courses under Shane’s direction. As my Business Coach we keep in regular contact.
Shane is an energetic and dynamic individual. He has inspired me to peak performance in my own career. Shane is a person of great integrity.
As a leader and coach Shane is outstanding. A gifted communicator Shane interacts with course participants, quickly building rapport and trust amongst any group. He successfully challenges people to embrace risks as a pathway to personal and professional growth. I always look forward to this biannual Professional Development.
In addition to his coaching role at the group level, he is also an effective tutor for me personally. I have come to rely on his wisdom and diverse range of problem solving skills. He is constantly available and approachable. His approach with tutor and students has a supportive and affirming demeanor.
Shane remains one of my greatest sources of inspiration.
Yours sincerely
Louise Lark
Re; Robyn Case & Shane Wenzel , MAKING A DIFFERENCE!.
Hi , my name is Matiu Ranapia aka (Bull) aka (JEE) , I have been a active member of the Mangu Kaha (chairman) for the last twenty years, I had joined the crew when I was 16 years old and in that time I had experienced everything you could think of to do with the that kind of life style, from robberies to drugs , prostitution and a whole range criminal activities (excluding rape & child molestation), I had been to jail a couple of times with my last sentence being five years for drugs, it was during my last sentence I had made a deep rooted decision to make changes ,not only to myself but changes to others around me that are needing new directions, I was even willing to give up on the crew but then I thought to myself that if I really wanted to make changes what better place than from within the crew , we have had a lot of members leave the crew and make their participation wrong and judge the life style but at the end of the day they never really looked at the cause of the destruction (themselves) and tried to do something about it, leaving to me would had been a easy way out but the real challenge is to stay with in the wound and heal it from the inside out, through what ever means and resources I can work with.
While I was in jail I had done every course ,program, rehab available ,thinking these will help me get a job and restart my life, I was released in 2003 , the reality was I spent the first 3 months constantly looking for employment , every interview & phone call I made, they asked if I had a criminal conviction and I replied honestly ,only to be told they will call me back , it never happened, so I started looking for any course I could do on the outside just to keep me occupied IE first aid, truck & fork hoist license and more, still no job and the old life was tempting me.
I was fortunate enough to meet Shane Wenzel (Business coach) & Robyn Case (Mentor) , since then I have learnt how to start companies , marketing , managing , building construction , sub divisions, project managing and a whole lot more ,now I own three companies and have a number of investment properties with Shane’s and Robyn’s support and total guidance I have managed to turn my life and some of my bros life’s around ,one for example Pou hepi (vice chairman) he has come from the same back ground as me and has the same vision as Shane and Robyn’s to help make a difference, he is also the manager for NZ Maintenance, this company is our franchise company we have started and are slowly growing , our main focus is labour hire but we do have a lawn mowing division, property maintenance division and a warehouse logistics division. Even though all these titles seem great and we have changed our lives it is only through the opened hearts , minds and souls of Robyn and Shane, two of the most genuine people I have ever meet dedicated to the dream of making differences.
Just to give you another example of their dedication , two months ago I had a meeting with the mayor of Papakura John Robertson over providing opportunities to the youth gangs in our community , immediately Shane &
Robyn offered their support of knowledge and networks, even though they had other major issues going on for them , they still had the heart to throw me in the car with them and drive around the most poverty stricken neighbourhood in south Auckland and asked the youth on the streets (even though sum were drinking) what they would like to see happen in their neighbourhood, the response was great, not even I would have thought of just driving around and asking them what they would want to change their hood, It made me wonder how many of the community leaders or pillars of society would have even attempted this task.
To this day I still look to Robyn & Shane for their support and have grown to love them as family, it is very heart wrenching to see the hassles they are going through in their battle for justice in a very unjust world where people live off the proper gander of what others say and how a simple contractor hired by the courts can manipulate the system and use the same old tools of society (IE media and perceptive truths) to play the same old game of point the finger and cry witch as a smoke screen to cover their own hidden agendas and crimes,( just as gang members were targeted for high rape & murder crimes in the mid to late eighties while the police had free range (Stowers killing), it is common knowledge now, that the truth of the truth there is no truth.
But all in all this is only a rain drop in a waterfall of changes shane wenzel and Robyn case has made to my life and others and the question must be asked , what is change ? and who is really MAKING A DIFFERENCE ?
For any further information please don’t hesitate to call me.
Kind Regards
Jee
NZ Maintenance t/a DLS 2006 Ltd
Ph: (09) 9742153
Fx: (09) 299 9829
Mb: (021) 1275139
Remember it easy to be critic and there are NO famous Critics
It is harder to make a difference it takes great courage and pain to suffer peoples judgments and misunderstandings history showes
us that time after time. How many wars how deaths will take for us to stand up for. INJUSTICES
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 am
I shall say the ideas Shane’s trying to dilever to people is good. We can benefit from it.
But why are people still leaving him?
Because it’s him in DEEPEST DENIAL…
he makes most EXCUSES….
he blames every failure to others…
If you want to change people and change the world as you say, is it your time to change for good first?
We will have own karma, maybe this is the time your’s coming…
If you are reading this, Shane, pls don’t use Jee’s good will to support you. You need to change yourself so that people can trust you!!!
Actions speakers louder than YOUR Words!
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
I see you have posted in your own name but posing as Jee Shane (above) or is it Jee posing as Shane? Who knows in your guys crazy mixed up world anything goes!! If it is you Jee I feel sorry for you bro your a sad individual still living under the illusion that Shane threw over you. At the end of the day my friend you are still living the same ‘gang’ life just masquerading as a ‘business entity’ you are merely the hired muscle. You can paint it any pretty colour you like but at the end of the day Shane Wenzel is a fraud, a bankrupt and a criminal. Robyn Case is as bad as him as she actively supports his activites and is happy to live off everyone elses back, same goes for jose Barnes and Diana Bongard – you are all leeches of society but the game is up and the law has caught up and hopefully justice will be served and Wenzel will do some long hard years in prison closely followed by Barnes, Bongard and Case.
All the little catch phrases you quote are dirrectly from Shane Wenzels mouth you poor guy have you lost the ability to even think for yourself? I may take the advise of another post on here and come the court to cheers the Judge on when he passes sentance – Your going down Wenzel and when your life is over may you burn eternally in hell.
Are you saying then that the lady who reported to HonS that she had been given a cheque in the amount of $44,000 being her FULL refund of her own money and the cheque written by Shane WENZEL bounced! are you saying this is untrue or that Shane is above the law so writing a rubber cq is fine? Are you saying that WENZEL and CASE only ‘support’ you in your business so they do not demand that they are written in as 51% holders and you are 49% on this or any other ‘Business’ they ‘support’? Are you saying that WENZEL is not a bankrupt that should not be running any business? Are you saying that WENZEL did not FULLY run Case Boreham & Associates while claiming to be a mere ‘Life coach’ of CASES? Are you saying that CASE & WENZEL did not try and force Course Tutors to collect funds in off students when the business was already in LIQUIDATION knowing full well those students would loose the money? Are you saying WENZEL does not bully and intimidate anyone who disagrees with HIS distorted views of the world? Are you saying that WENZEL did not send you (Jee) down to Hamilton while he went to Palmerston North so you could both intimidate and bully the 2 Tutors in those regions because NZQA were going in to talk to the students about their choices because Case Boreham & Associates was LIQUIDATED? Are you really trying to make people believe that WENZEL, CASE, BONGARD and BARNES are just poor innocent vistims of the world who cannot understand them? you need to wake up Bro and get real aye!
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Wow Louise. Weren’t you bullied by Josie to keep tutoring when NZQA tried to shut you down? Or was that another lie? See this is what CBA are so good at- divide & conquer. Jee it’s great that Shane helped you but he has hurt so mkany others. His actions do speak louder than words- he is a jumped up little bully. His tools are not his own. He has adapted what other, wiser people have said & used them to manipulate with no integrity. It is a company built on lies. Why has there been such a huge tutor turnover? Like the great Weasel says- you have to keep asking open ended questions. This is not just a few nasty people being mean to Wenzel & his cohorts. This is serious & has affected people hugely. There is no integrity with these people- just mind manipulation & greed. So don’t insult us with your false pledges of support & your denial. It is sickening. Go to cult busters or something, get some help & find the true you- not the Shane mini mes you seem to all have become. These are scary people folks. Make no mistake about that. Shane- take what is coming to you & get out of NZ. And Robyn- you are an insult to the integrity of education. Greed & education are not a good mix. Hopefully you never get a chance in the field again. So you control freaks- my message to you is for the 4 or so people who are singing your praises (quiet vomit in the background) there are far many more who want to see you all go down.
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:21 pm
mmmm Shane WENZEL so you coached/trained Robert Kiyosaki did you? You also lay claim to have worked with Donald Trump too don’t you? What a laugh who the hell do you think your kidding – you can’t even spell!!! Your a manipulator who uses people goods name and talents and exploit them to your own satisfaction. Robyn CASE if there is any justice in the world you should never be allowed to work in the area of education again! your a greedy money hungry unprofessional unethical person who cares nothing of students development and education but rather just lining your own pockets – shame on you!Diana BONGARD your a sad young woman who is clinging to this fat ugly and unappealing man (WEASEL) because you have no one else to turn to WENZEL makes sure of that by alienating you from family and friends. Sorry to say that the way you neglect your 2 children in heartbreaking those poor wee kids should be taken away from you I agree. Jose BARNES – What are you thinking woman? its obvious that you have once been an honest woman of integrity what has happened to turn you into the clone of WENZEL that you have become you are an insult to intelligent strong woman throughout the world come on lady wake up and redeem yourself back to your former self before you are stripped of everything. your poor parents over in Hamilton must be so ashamed of your behaviour – shame on you!
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Can I adopt Dianna’s two lovely kids since their mother does not want them anyway?
May 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Well well well, look whos below the line now!!!
And how are you going to pick yourself up??
I would have to say that Shanes teaching was GREAT, you can really learn from it, but his personality, not a nice person. Greedy,Greedy and VERY MEAN. He does not care for anyone but himself, he will not let mothers go home early to be with their children. People will work long hours for nothing. Alot of innocent people will work for nothing, and this greedy person will promise them a big salary but what do these people get nothing and what do we put in?? Our time and effort. Robyn if Shane was not involved in this business your business will be a success, but since he has brainwashed you, you have chosen to take that path. Dianna Bongard, A gorgeous blonde who is HONESTLY BLONDE, has two gorgeous kids and loves her work before her children, I m surprised her former partner has not got full custody of those poor innocent children who just need more time with their mother. Well shes dumb anyway.
The other thing about SHANE is his anger??? He yells everyday cannot stop yelling, he takes out his frustrations at everyone, can you not tell, he took out his anger at that poor reporter. How embarrassing is that.
Well just expressing how I feel.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
hey does anyone know when this fraudster is up in court? would love to get a front row seat.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
How many squares do you see WENZEL – Lots soon you will be surrounded by them (prison cell mesh). Be careful about asking the other inmates if they want SEX with you WENZEL they may take you up on it. Ask them all open ended questions and remember to teach them about BEDS – what did that stand for? oh thats right Blame, Excuses, Denial, etc; Just about sums up your life dosen’t it? oh and don’t forget your 5 solutions K?
May 24th, 2007 at 9:16 am
I was a contractor for this lot and they are just con artists. We often were not paid, made to work incredibly long hours and harrased by phone even when we went home at night. They try to cut you off from your family and friends so you are only left with them. Shane WENZEL has at least 1 daughter somewhere who he never even mentions my guess would be that he was forced to get out of Australia because he tried these cons over there and probably never saw his family again. He was living with Robyn case and she had shipped her kids out to their Dad and boarding school – thats how much influence this Wenzel has. Dianna Bongard used to take her 2 kids to the office in the morning without breakfast or anything and then get anyone who would to feed them for her. the kids would be there to 11 at night sometimes it was disgusting. Jose Barnes would do anything she was told to by robyn Case and Shane Wenzel and didn’t seem to have a mind of her own at all. There is no doubt in my mind that Shane Wenzel ran all the businesses operating out of that Takanini office and all the people involved in them. Robyn Case, Jose Barnes, Dianna Bongard were even dressed by him. how these woman could take appearance advise off a man who’s appearance is so disgusting is beyond me but they did. Shane Wenzel claims to have cured all sorts of Psychological disorders in people, to have travelled the world including India to study ancient healing, and to have been taught by the moonks themselves how to meditate – he really is so full of bull but I reckon he really thinks that people are so gulable that they believe him? I would like to know if he has so much comtrol over his body as he claims then does he choose to be that morbidly obese?
Robyn Case you are a foolish woman you had a great business (cba) that ran well for 17 yrs (your claim) why if Shane Wenzel is so good is it that he has managed to aid you to run that in to the ground. Since coming into your life you have had a string of Liquidations with a string of businesses – can you not see that? Have any of you stopped and asked yourselves why Shane Wenzerl makes you all front as all these comapnies directors but you have to take his orders. if he was such a business guru how the hell did he end up as a bankrupt- i think its called bad money management and then he runs money & you seminars telling others how to run a successful business when his own went belly up!
May 24th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Stone houses have nothing to hide !! we dont hide our posting name and throw stones from a Glass houses Christine, is that your name? DO You Bounce Cheques? Lie?: A golf Champ winning all around New Zealand winning 50k a week end, and no school will have you back as teacher.
The work I do EXPOSES people in there habit beleifs percepitions and you have Caught Remember I am NOT DIRECTOR A TRUSTEE OR A BENEFICIARY OF ANY THING jUST A COACH MAKING A DIFFERENCE. CAUSE VICTIM RESCUER WHAT IS YOU’RE JOB, My job is supporting people back to CAUSE . Some make a career out of being victims or rescuers, this becomes their ECONOMY NO ONE HAS ME CONTACTED ME JUST JUDGEMENT FROM THIRD PARTIES. COME AND PLAY THE GAMES IN TRAINING; STARTS 7.45 to 9.00 am 5 days week sat 9.00 to 2.00pm and find out really happens.
Be aware, really aware You might NOT like what gets exposed. All are invited
May 24th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Stone houses have nothing to hide !! we dont hide our posting name and throw stones from a Glass houses Christine, is that your name? DO You Bounce Cheques? Lie?: A golf Champ winning all around New Zealand winning 50k a week end, and no school will have you back as teacher.
The work I do EXPOSES people in there habit beleifs percepitions and you have Caught Remember I am NOT DIRECTOR A TRUSTEE OR A BENEFICIARY OF ANY THING jUST A COACH MAKING A DIFFERENCE. CAUSE VICTIM RESCUER WHAT IS YOU’RE JOB, My job is supporting people back to CAUSE . Some make a career out of being victims or rescuers, this becomes their ECONOMY NO ONE HAS ME CONTACTED ME JUST JUDGEMENT FROM THIRD PARTIES. COME AND PLAY THE GAMES IN TRAINING; STARTS 7.45 to 9.00 am 5 days week sat 9.00 to 2.00pm and find out really happens.
Be aware, really aware You might NOT like what gets exposed. All are invited
May 24th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Dear me, the above just shows how illiterate this man is. I think he’s disassembling folks so watch this space………..he’s losing it. Sad part is, he really believes all this crap. Imagine the differance he will make to prisoners in jail. Maybe he WILL take the place of religion inside & we will see lots of people going for parole because they have been Weasled. CHEER UP SHANE…….BETWEEN PREACHING & BUGGERY YOU MAY ENJOY IT.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am
You are a Liar Wenzel YOU are the one that gave us all the orders and you were definately running cba and all the other Businesses out of Takanini. No you did not have your name down as a trustee, Director etc; but you did all the decision making and gave out all the orders and I will be happy to swear that on oath in court. As for your brainwashing sessions (oh you call them trainings) I have been to them and would never go to any again. You are all hot air and sweat you do not walk your talk or lead by example. You bully and intimidate and let yourself believe that everyone falls for your lies. If you are such a good busness man that you label yourself a coach then why did your own business go under and why are you a bankrupt if you are so good and money management as you claim in your money & you seminars. If you are squeeky clean and have done nothing wrong then why do you have 18 charges of fraud on your head. You are a fake and a con man and your days are numbered Wenzel you have been caught at long last. Keep kidding yourself its all ok, keep running your ‘trainings’ to try and keep the few illusioned you have close by But at the court you alone will stand in the dock and you alone will do the time no one is going to prison for you.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Hi Shane
I am a close friend of Christine and NO she is not a person to write stuff about you because she has better things to do with her time. And for you to criticise her like that, SPEAK FOR YOURSELF coz its all ABOUT YOU here so dont change the subject. And HELL NO will anyone ever come to your BULLSHIT training, is that where you take in people and brainwash them. You should really think about doing something new like getting a good lawyer because if you are telling people that you can make them rich, Then the question still remains WHY ARE YOU BANKRUPT?????? If you can teach people to earn so much in so little time???? BULLSHIT!!!!
Well THANKS for the Invitation BUT NO THANKS, Ive been there years ago and never want to return.
So go shove your invitation up your ass.
!!!!
May 24th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I have to agree with the above post, as usual Wenzel you are trying to take the focus off YOU and tranfer it on to someone else! Christine you and your friend have my support and sympathy for having ever crossed paths with Wenzel. And Wenzel anwer the Question instead of avoiding “If you can make people rich, are the business and money management guru you potray yourself to be then why are YOU a BANKRUPT”? why do you and Robyn Case set up companies knowing full well you will not pay the creditors but instead get the money out and let it run into the ground and Liquidate? you don’t know how to manage money and businesses you can’t even manage yourself your a disgrace to society. you know how to con people, misuse tax payers money via funding from TEC, bounce chqs, commit fraud and send companies and people into Bankrupcy and Liquidation – thats what you can lay claim to and I will quite happily back you up.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
If life is a mirror What have I expose in you that you cant confront I am a bankrupt So Give the facts that i had business and HARTNER ABL GOODALLS did not pay me but I pay all wages and near all my debts back . The american express would not except pay off fig I lost every thing now I coach it is free world helping people. there people that are still here after 5years and are doing well and are expanding? Life has many elements to it summer winter autum spring which season are you in? I look fwd to getting into your spring of life and create something. My couching style did not work for you that s ok Its works for the Govt the SAS its call DISCPLINE !!! The team here have good Displine which mirriors there bank accounts what is your bank account like And how do you get paid ? are you in a zoo doing tricks to get paid(job – just over broke)? the team here learns how to create and get rewarded for effords? Loyality is a depandant INTEGRITY is the skill to create Where are you?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
If life is a mirror What have I expose in you that you cant confront I am a bankrupt So Give the facts that i had business and HARTNER ABL GOODALLS did not pay me but I pay all wages and near all my debts back . The american express would not except pay off fig I lost every thing now I coach it is free world helping people. there people that are still here after 5years and are doing well and are expanding? Life has many elements to it summer winter autum spring which season are you in? I look fwd to getting into your spring of life and create something. My couching style did not work for you that s ok Its works for the Govt the SAS its call DISCPLINE !!! The team here have good Displine which mirriors there bank accounts what is your bank account like And how do you get paid ? are you in a zoo doing tricks to get paid(job – just over broke)? the team here learns how to create and get rewarded for effords? Loyality is a depandant INTEGRITY is the skill to create Where are you?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
There he goes……..losing it. Deranged ramblings from the Weasel. You are all in liquidation……….don’t you get it???? If you are all doing so well financially then get yourselves out of court. Dumb arse
May 24th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
What’s the reward?
Having SEX with you? Just like Dianna stayed late until everyone’s gone and slip into your bedroom? SHAME YOU!!!
What’s the bank account?
Being a director of a hundred companies yet not afford to buy food for herself and the kids? Need other staff member to feed her?
What’s the expanding?
Sitting in front of the desk and bite her nails not doing anything, having difficulties to communicate with every single female in the world?
SHAME YOU, Shane!!!
SHAME YOU, Dianna!!!
Poor Robyn, histry repeats itself. partner went away with friend….
Who is it feeding your baby and share her clothing with you, Dianna?
May 24th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
What’s the reward?
Having SEX with you? Just like Dianna stayed late until everyone’s gone and slip into your bedroom? SHAME YOU!!!
What’s the bank account?
Being a director of a hundred companies yet not afford to buy food for herself and the kids?
What’s Expanding?
Sitting in front of the desk and bite her nails not doing anything, having difficulties to communicate with every single female in the world?
SHAME YOU, Shane!!!
SHAME YOU, Dianna!!!
Poor Robyn, histry repeats itself. partner went away with friend….
May 24th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Karma I think you called it Shane. Your arse is going to get nailed to the floor and then deported. Who is waiting for you in Oz shane. When jee, po and ab realise that you are going to drop them in it and run not only will you have them on your tail but quess which gang is waiting in the shadows for you shane. They have been told and are waiting for you
May 24th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Some of us work as well ? Am I gay to when gee I work late Too ? Wait there is More jose and I Did it too because she stayed back too? Wait there is more There was the four of us 2 nights in a row . Then was the week end That gee and I went away ? Wait there more what professional week end when all sleep to gether !! It is boring life you live !! May you a good coach Do you Know one? One that does not teach Discpline manners Respect integrity I her woods being charge tomorrow ? WHATs THE HEADLINE LIQUIDATOR CHARGE WITH UNLAWFUL ENTRY AND SECTIONS OF THE CRIMES Act1961 section 111
110 ….!
May 24th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
POLITICs Two ways to to PRvent truth comming out Discredit the person or to Kill them . So which are you going try on? The reporter Charge me and I stuck out my chest and he got a sore wrist o big man he was Then he tries to do hatch job on me in the paper. Life is a of attraction pigs hang with pigs trees hang with trees grass hangs with grass poor hang with poor middle hang middle class rich hang with rich wealthy hang with wealthy What are the there habits Poor waste Mc consume /hoard rich will do less for more wealthy will create and add value What is your habits o coward one
May 24th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
why don’t you get someone else to write your blog……..it’s like reading greek….man, you so can’t string two words together
May 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
What gang? that is not the way they work Clown
Name dropping is not good look Pengu Nother coward
May 24th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
What gang? that is not the way they work Clown
Name dropping is not good look Pengu Nother coward
May 24th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
I can’t talk for anyone else but personally I am happy free and rich WITHOUT your help Wenzel! You are broken arse, sad and pathetic!
I am relishing in your squirming, reacting OTT as usual and your up and coming prison term. I’m glad you have a reporter hot on your arse (well done David Fisher) watching your every move, I hear that TVNZ are taking great interest in you too. Lets not forget the NZ Police that is the Jackpot!
May 25th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Wenzel you claim you understand “how money works” and if people follow your methods they will be rich. The reality is you’ve not made anybody rich and never will. Anyone hanging around you for long enough will notice something – shrinking bank balance! What you do understand is how to seduce people into “investing” large amounts in your bullshit ideas. Those most under your spell still believe you’ll deliver. Wake up! When is the great master plan going to actually WORK? It just needs more time aye. Ha, heard tat one before, like a hundred times. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Your promise of “expansion” are pathetic – what people get is sacrifice and pain for having trusted you. You are a master at messing with people’s minds I will give you that one. How many people sold assets they’d worked hard for to invest in your “dreams”? Where is it now? How many people have been tricked into funding your lifestyle? Well it’s all catching up with you now.
You blame those around you for everything that goes wrong. If something you’re associated with fails – well always reflects on someone around you – never on YOU! The person under your spell learns to “try harder” and grovels to be in your favor again – sickening. You get in their heads and have them wondering how they can “improve” – what so they can be more like you!? Ha, what a joke. What is it you like to say – life’s a mirror – what a stupid simplistic statement.
Sure, with that thinking you deflect all the criticism. You even say that if someone criticizes you it’s because they’ve done something bad against you or they have a guilty conscience and all that crap you go on about. Bullshit! What so if I say Hitler was an evil murdering b***d it’s because I’ve done something “bad” to Hitler? Get real. But it’s a brilliant system for deflecting criticism I’ll hand you that. The truth is – if someone stands up to you, which take a lot of guts because you get a hold on people, it’s because they see you for what you are and not what you claim you are.
Hey, noticed something? People look up to you, hang on your every word – until they don’t. That’s because they woke up, escaped your clutches, got back there sense of identity. Then they never want to see you again – what a turnaround. And of course you explain it all away to your disciples as the person couldn’t “progress” anymore, hit a block in their enlightenment ha ha it’d be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
In all of this what gets me most angry is the children who never see their mothers. It’s disgusting. You’ve reduced mothers to not spending time with their kids – and what karma is that for you since you love going on about karma – kids waiting up all hours for the mother to come home – if she comes home at all. What a sick thing to do. And in the name of what? Your “dream” – showing “commitment” – crap. You are harming children with your sick mind games and that’s not easy to undo you know. It amazes me that you mums don’t wake up. You’re in a trance for god’s sake. Your kids need you. Get away from him before you do permanent damage, if you haven’t already.
You say people should write their opinions of you and use their name – yeah like you wouldn’t threaten them would you? Intimate them? Hint that well you know some pretty personal stuff about them that they wouldn’t like coming out – your usual nasty stuff. When someone is a big a reptile as you it makes sense to protect oneself.
So your murky past is finally catching up with you. About time. Wonder what your cronies from money and you have to say – bet they’re trying to disown you faster than quick sand.
Hey when’s the court case, what a show. Perhaps you can offer the judge some training and insights? Perhaps you can help him understand how money works (a bankrupt money coach ha) and health (health advice from someone obese – what fun). Well here’s something to cheer you up – at least you’ll have some new innocent prey in prison. Well hopefully they’ll have read the papers and the whole of NZ will never fall for a scumbag like you again.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Wenzel you claim you understand “how money works” and if people follow your methods they will be rich. The reality is you’ve not made anybody rich and never will. Anyone hanging around you for long enough will notice something – shrinking bank balance! What you do understand is how to seduce people into “investing” large amounts in your bullshit ideas. Those most under your spell still believe you’ll deliver. Wake up! When is the great master plan going to actually WORK? It just needs more time aye. Ha, heard tat one before, like a hundred times. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Your promise of “expansion” are pathetic – what people get is sacrifice and pain for having trusted you. You are a master at messing with people’s minds I will give you that one. How many people sold assets they’d worked hard for to invest in your “dreams”? Where is it now? How many people have been tricked into funding your lifestyle? Well it’s all catching up with you now.
You blame those around you for everything that goes wrong. If something you’re associated with fails – well always reflects on someone around you – never on YOU! The person under your spell learns to “try harder” and grovels to be in your favor again – sickening. You get in their heads and have them wondering how they can “improve” – what so they can be more like you!? Ha, what a joke. What is it you like to say – life’s a mirror – what a stupid simplistic statement.
Sure, with that thinking you deflect all the criticism. You even say that if someone criticizes you it’s because they’ve done something bad against you or they have a guilty conscience and all that crap you go on about. Bullshit! What so if I say Hitler was an evil murdering b***d it’s because I’ve done something “bad” to Hitler? Get real. But it’s a brilliant system for deflecting criticism I’ll hand you that. The truth is – if someone stands up to you, which take a lot of guts because you get a hold on people, it’s because they see you for what you are and not what you claim you are.
Hey, noticed something? People look up to you, hang on your every word – until they don’t. That’s because they woke up, escaped your clutches, got back there sense of identity. Then they never want to see you again – what a turnaround. And of course you explain it all away to your disciples as the person couldn’t “progress” anymore, hit a block in their enlightenment ha ha it’d be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
In all of this what gets me most angry is the children who never see their mothers. It’s disgusting. You’ve reduced mothers to not spending time with their kids – and what karma is that for you since you love going on about karma – kids waiting up all hours for the mother to come home – if she comes home at all. What a sick thing to do. And in the name of what? Your “dream” – showing “commitment” – crap. You are harming children with your sick mind games and that’s not easy to undo you know. It amazes me that you mums don’t wake up. You’re in a trance for god’s sake. Your kids need you. Get away from him before you do permanent damage, if you haven’t already.
You say people should write their opinions of you and use their name – yeah like you wouldn’t threaten them would you? Intimate them? Hint that well you know some pretty personal stuff about them that they wouldn’t like coming out – your usual nasty stuff. When someone is a big a reptile as you it makes sense to protect oneself.
So your murky past is finally catching up with you. About time. Wonder what your cronies from money and you have to say – bet they’re trying to disown you faster than quick sand.
Hey when’s the court case, what a show. Perhaps you can offer the judge some training and insights? Perhaps you can help him understand how money works (a bankrupt money coach ha) and health (health advice from someone obese – what fun). Well here’s something to cheer you up – at least you’ll have some new innocent prey in prison. Well hopefully they’ll have read the papers and the whole of NZ will never fall for a scumbag like you again.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Wenzel you claim you understand “how money works” and if people follow your methods they will be rich. The reality is you’ve not made anybody rich and never will. Anyone hanging around you for long enough will notice something – shrinking bank balance! What you do understand is how to seduce people into “investing” large amounts in your bullshit ideas. Those most under your spell still believe you’ll deliver. Wake up! When is the great master plan going to actually WORK? It just needs more time aye. Ha, heard tat one before, like a hundred times. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Your promise of “expansion” are pathetic – what people get is sacrifice and pain for having trusted you. You are a master at messing with people’s minds I will give you that one. How many people sold assets they’d worked hard for to invest in your “dreams”? Where is it now? How many people have been tricked into funding your lifestyle? Well it’s all catching up with you now.
You blame those around you for everything that goes wrong. If something you’re associated with fails – well always reflects on someone around you – never on YOU! The person under your spell learns to “try harder” and grovels to be in your favor again – sickening. You get in their heads and have them wondering how they can “improve” – what so they can be more like you!? Ha, what a joke. What is it you like to say – life’s a mirror – what a stupid simplistic statement.
Sure, with that thinking you deflect all the criticism. You even say that if someone criticizes you it’s because they’ve done something bad against you or they have a guilty conscience and all that crap you go on about. Bullshit! What so if I say Hitler was an evil murdering b***d it’s because I’ve done something “bad” to Hitler? Get real. But it’s a brilliant system for deflecting criticism I’ll hand you that. The truth is – if someone stands up to you, which take a lot of guts because you get a hold on people, it’s because they see you for what you are and not what you claim you are.
Hey, noticed something? People look up to you, hang on your every word – until they don’t. That’s because they woke up, escaped your clutches, got back there sense of identity. Then they never want to see you again – what a turnaround. And of course you explain it all away to your disciples as the person couldn’t “progress” anymore, hit a block in their enlightenment ha ha it’d be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
In all of this what gets me most angry is the children who never see their mothers. It’s disgusting. You’ve reduced mothers to not spending time with their kids – and what karma is that for you since you love going on about karma – kids waiting up all hours for the mother to come home – if she comes home at all. What a sick thing to do. And in the name of what? Your “dream” – showing “commitment” – crap. You are harming children with your sick mind games and that’s not easy to undo you know. It amazes me that you mums don’t wake up. You’re in a trance for god’s sake. Your kids need you. Get away from him before you do permanent damage, if you haven’t already.
You say people should write their opinions of you and use their name – yeah like you wouldn’t threaten them would you? Intimate them? Hint that well you know some pretty personal stuff about them that they wouldn’t like coming out – your usual nasty stuff. When someone is a big a reptile as you it makes sense to protect oneself.
So your murky past is finally catching up with you. About time. Wonder what your cronies from money and you have to say – bet they’re trying to disown you faster than quick sand.
Hey when’s the court case, what a show. Perhaps you can offer the judge some training and insights? Perhaps you can help him understand how money works (a bankrupt money coach ha) and health (health advice from someone obese – what fun). Well here’s something to cheer you up – at least you’ll have some new innocent prey in prison. Well hopefully they’ll have read the papers and the whole of NZ will never fall for a scumbag like you again.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Wenzel you claim you understand “how money works” and if people follow your methods they will be rich. The reality is you’ve not made anybody rich and never will. Anyone hanging around you for long enough will notice something – shrinking bank balance! What you do understand is how to seduce people into “investing” large amounts in your bullsh*t ideas. Those most under your spell still believe you’ll deliver. Wake up! When is the great master plan going to actually WORK? It just needs more time aye. Ha, heard tat one before, like a hundred times. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Your promise of “expansion” are pathetic – what people get is sacrifice and pain for having trusted you. You are a master at messing with people’s minds I will give you that one. How many people sold assets they’d worked hard for to invest in your “dreams”? Where is it now? How many people have been tricked into funding your lifestyle? Well it’s all catching up with you now.
You blame those around you for everything that goes wrong. If something you’re associated with fails – well always reflects on someone around you – never on YOU! The person under your spell learns to “try harder” and grovels to be in your favor again – sickening. You get in their heads and have them wondering how they can “improve” – what so they can be more like you!? Ha, what a joke. What is it you like to say – life’s a mirror – what a stupid simplistic statement.
Sure, with that thinking you deflect all the criticism. You even say that if someone criticizes you it’s because they’ve done something bad against you or they have a guilty conscience and all that crap you go on about. Bullshit! What so if I say Hitler was an evil murdering b***d it’s because I’ve done something “bad” to Hitler? Get real. But it’s a brilliant system for deflecting criticism I’ll hand you that. The truth is – if someone stands up to you, which take a lot of guts because you get a hold on people, it’s because they see you for what you are and not what you claim you are.
Hey, noticed something? People look up to you, hang on your every word – until they don’t. That’s because they woke up, escaped your clutches, got back there sense of identity. Then they never want to see you again – what a turnaround. And of course you explain it all away to your disciples as the person couldn’t “progress” anymore, hit a block in their enlightenment ha ha it’d be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
In all of this what gets me most angry is the children who never see their mothers. It’s disgusting. You’ve reduced mothers to not spending time with their kids – and what karma is that for you since you love going on about karma – kids waiting up all hours for the mother to come home – if she comes home at all. What a sick thing to do. And in the name of what? Your “dream” – showing “commitment” – crap. You are harming children with your sick mind games and that’s not easy to undo you know. It amazes me that you mums don’t wake up. You’re in a trance for god’s sake. Your kids need you. Get away from him before you do permanent damage, if you haven’t already.
You say people should write their opinions of you and use their name – yeah like you wouldn’t threaten them would you? Intimate them? Hint that well you know some pretty personal stuff about them that they wouldn’t like coming out – your usual nasty stuff. When someone is a big a reptile as you it makes sense to protect oneself.
So your murky past is finally catching up with you. About time. Wonder what your cronies from money and you have to say – bet they’re trying to disown you faster than quick sand.
Hey when’s the court case, what a show. Perhaps you can offer the judge some training and insights? Perhaps you can help him understand how money works (a bankrupt money coach ha) and health (health advice from someone obese – what fun). Well here’s something to cheer you up – at least you’ll have some new innocent prey in prison. Well hopefully they’ll have read the papers and the whole of NZ will never fall for a scumbag like you again.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Wenzel you claim you understand “how money works” and if people follow your methods they will be rich. The reality is you’ve not made anybody rich and never will. Anyone hanging around you for long enough will notice something – shrinking bank balance! What you do understand is how to seduce people into “investing” large amounts in your bullshit ideas. Those most under your spell still believe you’ll deliver. Wake up! When is the great master plan going to actually WORK? It just needs more time aye. Ha, heard tat one before, like a hundred times. It’s all smoke and mirrors. Your promise of “expansion” are pathetic – what people get is sacrifice and pain for having trusted you. You are a master at messing with people’s minds I will give you that one. How many people sold assets they’d worked hard for to invest in your “dreams”? Where is it now? How many people have been tricked into funding your lifestyle? Well it’s all catching up with you now.
You blame those around you for everything that goes wrong. If something you’re associated with fails – well always reflects on someone around you – never on YOU! The person under your spell learns to “try harder” and grovels to be in your favor again – sickening. You get in their heads and have them wondering how they can “improve” – what so they can be more like you!? Ha, what a joke. What is it you like to say – life’s a mirror – what a stupid simplistic statement.
Sure, with that thinking you deflect all the criticism. You even say that if someone criticizes you it’s because they’ve done something bad against you or they have a guilty conscience and all that crap you go on about. Bullshit! What so if I say Hitler was an evil murdering b***d it’s because I’ve done something “bad” to Hitler? Get real. But it’s a brilliant system for deflecting criticism I’ll hand you that. The truth is – if someone stands up to you, which take a lot of guts because you get a hold on people, it’s because they see you for what you are and not what you claim you are.
Hey, noticed something? People look up to you, hang on your every word – until they don’t. That’s because they woke up, escaped your clutches, got back there sense of identity. Then they never want to see you again – what a turnaround. And of course you explain it all away to your disciples as the person couldn’t “progress” anymore, hit a block in their enlightenment ha ha it’d be funny if it wasn’t so damn tragic.
In all of this what gets me most angry is the children who never see their mothers. It’s disgusting. You’ve reduced mothers to not spending time with their kids – and what karma is that for you since you love going on about karma – kids waiting up all hours for the mother to come home – if she comes home at all. What a sick thing to do. And in the name of what? Your “dream” – showing “commitment” – crap. You are harming children with your sick mind games and that’s not easy to undo you know. It amazes me that you mums don’t wake up. You’re in a trance for god’s sake. Your kids need you. Get away from him before you do permanent damage, if you haven’t already.
You say people should write their opinions of you and use their name – yeah like you wouldn’t threaten them would you? Intimate them? Hint that well you know some pretty personal stuff about them that they wouldn’t like coming out – your usual nasty stuff. When someone is a big a reptile as you it makes sense to protect oneself.
So your murky past is finally catching up with you. About time. Wonder what your cronies from money and you have to say – bet they’re trying to disown you faster than quick sand.
Hey when’s the court case, what a show. Perhaps you can offer the judge some training and insights? Perhaps you can help him understand how money works (a bankrupt money coach ha) and health (health advice from someone obese – what fun). Well here’s something to cheer you up – at least you’ll have some new innocent prey in prison. Well hopefully they’ll have read the papers and the whole of NZ will never fall for a scumbag like you again.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:50 am
gee.. thid guy seems like a real sh*thead
May 25th, 2007 at 7:52 am
gee.. this guy seems like a real sh*thead
May 25th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Case Boreham Associates Limited
15 Oakleigh Avenue
Takanini
Auckland
Ph: 09 974 2368
Cellphone: 0276 802 502
Email: robyn@cbapte.co.nz
Judith Collins
Member of Parliament
341 Great South Road
Papakura
16 April 2007
Dear Judith,
Thank you for your support and I appreciate your late call Friday evening and the opportunity to give you a brief overview of the situation I have found myself in. It has become a nightmare that I am struggling every day to overcome and set my resolve to continue to focus on the goal of proving my company is and has always been solvent.
I have attached a Record of Events, which gives a brief overview of the procedures thus far.
In summary, I have been training people under Government Contracts since 1990, mainly in the area of Teacher Aide skills an area which when I commenced was offered by only one other Provider in New Zealand, Massey University’s Extra-mural programme.
I pioneered a process of placing learners in the workplace three days a week to immerse them in the learning environment and achieved 90 to 100% achievement and employment outcome rates.
In 1993 Case Boreham Associates Limited (CBA) became Registered with NZQA and has maintained Registration ever since.
Since 2000 I have opened Branches and currently have eight, two in Auckland (New Lynn & Manurewa) and one in Hamilton, Tauranga, Rotorua, Whakatane, Hastings and Palmerston North.
Late 2005 I purchased four Units in Takanini to the benefit of the company by providing an asset base.
The vendor was Foundation Securities Limited (FLS). Sometime after the sale FSL claimed they had undersold these Units and required a further $25,000.00. Needless to say I denied this and NEVER signed any documentation. (See Affidavit of Robyn Marie Case sworn 26th October 2006)
Sometime in 2006 Foundation Securities claimed they served a Statutory Demand upon CBA which I never received. Failure to respond to a Statutory Demand within 10 working days means it automatically progresses to the High Court.
The first I knew of this was in November 2006 when I was summonsed to appear in the High Court to prove solvency and contest the application.
The case was heard on 16 December 2006 by Associate Judge Jeremy Doogue.
In late January Associate Judge Doogue made his decision. He totally ignored the fact that no documents had been signed by myself and stated the set of Accounts provided were too old (2005 Audited Accounts) therefore the company was insolvent.
On 8 February, Liquidators by the name of McDonald Vague appeared at CBA’s Head Office in Takanini to remove all company documents, at this stage I had received no correspondence from them nor was I present as I was visiting the Whakatane Branch.
The person representing McDonald Vague was Mr. Dennis John Wood and he had a team of four other people in attendance. CBA’s Head Office is a serviced office operated by Your Secretarial Services Limited which is owned and operated by Dianna Bongard.
Mr. Dennis Wood was told I was absent and that CBA only operated offices from this location, however he ignored this and removed documents, files many of which were not CBA’s and computer servers owned by Kiwi IT Services Limited. He had a computer expert with him who was advised that CBA’s files could be downloaded on to a disk, a process his Computer expert said would suffice, however Mr. Wood ignored this and removed the Servers in their entirety which affected 42 other companies.
The Police were called however they advised it was a civil matter and Mr. Wood was operating within his jurisdiction. I understand a complaint has been laid by Ms Bongard in relation to the Police conduct.
At this time we had 120 students enrolled throughout our 8 branches with $1.2 Million guaranteed through CBA’s contract with TEC for TOPs and EFTS funded students.
I have operated this company for 18 years and have never had any financial problems or any inability to pay my accounts.
I have not met with Mr. Wood and even through on the four occasions we have been in court over this matter he has maintained the company is grossly insolvent when for 18 years with similar student rations we have traded.
Mr. Wood has a personal agenda toward me and in every communication be it with Students, Tutors and others he has constantly defamed me.
In the ten weeks this has been unfolding he has failed to supply a statement of position of the company, has provided an Affidavit to the court of his company’s costs of $112,000.00, closed the courses and now NZQA has cancelled CBA’s registration.
NZQA have liaised solely with Mr. Wood as to the status of the court proceedings throughout this debacle and only contacted me in regard to advising they are canceling CBA’s registration.
They claim I can not appeal as I am no longer the owner of the company. The law clearly states that it is not obligatory for NZQA to cancel registration and the effect of this cancellation is to prejudge the court, cancel the TEC contract and the $100,00.00 I have spent thus far to retrieve CBA is for a company that can no longer operate it’s business.
Fairness and natural justice would have been for NZQA to maintain a neutral position until the outcome of the case is known.
I would not be fighting so hard if I did not believe with every cell in my body that CBA is solvent and can pay its debts. After 18 years I have an innate understanding of the income and expenditure of the company at all times throughout the year.
I have personally raised $350,000.00 to put into CBA, have had an independent accountant review out 2006 Accounts and had another Liquidator, Gerry Rae, Associates Limited, one of the most experienced Liquidators in New Zealand, review McDonald Vague’s practices in regard to the Liquidation proceedings and he is appalled. He is prepared to support us in removing McDonald Vague and reversing the Liquidation.
What I am asking of you is for some serious questions to be asked of NZQA’s behaviour in this matter. That they should preempt the Auckland High Court, remove CBA’s registration thereby terminating our contracts with TEC worth over $400, 000.00 per annum and our access to Student Loans and Allowances a further $600,000.00 has in effect thwarted our efforts in the court. In effect we now have nothing left to fight for.
Most of our students comprise mothers either on the Domestic Purposes Benefit, Maori or Pacific peoples looking to help and support children to succeed and wanting to improve themselves, and find work that fits around family needs and school hours.
The skills our students learn are how to manage and discipline children, the importance of education the opportunities a good education offers, an amazing role model and example to their children of commitment, ownership and responsibility to ongoing learning and focus on self improvement.
Careers CBA students have achieved are: School Principals, (Refer Email from Sharon Campbell, Principal Te Kura o Torere Primary School), School Teachers, School-based Councilors, Teacher Aides, School Librarians, Kaiawhina, Kaiarahi Reo, Support-people for the disabled, Early childhood Support Workers, School-based computing Assistants, University’s, Wananga and Polytechnic students and numerous jobs where just the improvement of their self esteem has made them believe in themselves and feel they can become contributing members of our society.
I continue to be a pioneer in new learning techniques using processes that work mainly with the learners beliefs and getting them to take ownership, accountability and responsibility for what they have created and thereby looking at what they can do to take control of their lives and their futures and create the world they want.
This has proved controversial however just as I had to fight to keep the learners in the schools three days each week which is now mainstream, in time these processes I now incorporate in the learning will also become mainstream.
The philosophy of CBA has extended to local ex-gang members in the Papakura area, who have spent many years in jails for their crimes. They comprise the leadership of these organizations and the most dangerous members. They are now operating their own businesses and have become members of the CBA family through other opportunities I offer. Prior to my involvement with them they were heading back to a life of ‘P’ manufacture and crime purely because society had branded them for life. Ex- police who knew these people in their past cannot believe the transformation and NZQA’s attitude is to challenge me, a ‘middle-class’ women and my associations and cast aspersions. (Refer attached Newspaper Article)
I truly am making a difference often where others fear to tread and for this – the support I get from NZQA is to cancel CBA’s Registration. In fact their whole management of this process leaves much to be desired. Most of the students wanted to stay on. I was prepared to continue funding them for free until this matter was resolved. However without consulting me or keeping me informed they terminated the courses. I am still paying the tutors for the 20 – 30 students who are continuing. They are getting free education at my expense. THAT’S MY CONMITTMENT TO THE STUDENTS. NZQA’s was to advise them to leave and in most of our locations there was no other alternative.
CBA is the BEST TEACHER AIDE TRAINING PROGRAMME IN NEW ZEALAND. Just ask the Schools in the Eastern Bay of Plenty who have been involved in training and employing them over the past 18 years. There is not a Teacher Aide in the whole Whakatane Region who has not been trained by CBA and ask them what the benefits to the children in these areas have been, because at the end of the day this is who I started this for and along the way I learned that if you change a parent you change a generation. (Refer the letters from children in response to the visit to their school by Abe)
Please feel free to contact me for further information or clarification. Once again thank you for your support and I look forward to successful outcome.
Yours faithfully,
Robyn Case
Director
May 25th, 2007 at 9:44 am
After reading the above, I really feel for you Robyn, that sounds good and all, but the topic is about SHANE!!!!!! If he was not with you, your business would be a success.
May 25th, 2007 at 9:53 am
WARNING WARNING WARNING
http://www.justicesucks.com
is a blog site set up by Shane Wenzel to promote Robyn Case. Be warned HE is in control of this site. It is a baited trap as he will see your email and IP addresses if you post comments to it and can track you down
May 25th, 2007 at 9:54 am
WARNING WARNING WARNING
http://www.justicesucks.com
is a blog site set up by Shane Wenzel to promote Robyn Case. Be warned HE is in control of this site. It is a baited trap as he will see your email and IP addresses if you post comments to it and can track you down
May 25th, 2007 at 9:57 am
WARNING WARNING WARNING
http://www.justicesucks.com
is a blog site set up by Shane Wenzel to promote Robyn Case. Be warned HE is in control of this site. It is a baited trap as he will see your email and IP addresses if you post comments to it and can track you down
May 25th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Just to promote truth and JUSTICE I wish I could control it However Iam not trained in I.T. But thanks for the compliments . Robyn is a powerhouse W.O.M.A. N with Drive
May 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
So Case & Wenzel since Novemeber 2006 YOU KNEW THAT CBA WAS IN THREAT OF LIQUIDATION? WHAT THE HELL GAVE YOU THE RIGHT TO BRING IN NEW CONTRACTORS IN JAN 2007?? WITHOUT BEING UPFRONT AND HONEST (A FAVORITE WORD OF YOURS WENZEL) WITH THEM SO THEY COULD MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE OF WEATHER OR NOT TO WORK FOR YOU RAHTER THAN BASING IT ON THE CROCK OF SHIT YOU FEED OUT WENZEL???? hEY AND WENZEL hOW CAN YOU CLAIM TO DISTANCE yourself FROM RUNNING cba YOU are the person that Interviews, YOU are the person that offers jobs and YOU are the person that runs the Businesses day to day affairs!!! You are scumbags your ship was sinking and you brought in unsuspecting contractors to try and keep it afloat – You are BOTH an absolute disgrace to the NZ Tertiary Education System. You should never be allowed to do ANY Business in NZ again!! Its a laugh that you say in the letter (above) we ‘currently’ have its dated the 16 Aril 2007?? CBA has not been current since 8th Feb 2007 – Who are you trying to kid???? Just get it through your head WOMAN Cba is no more – it dosen’t exist anymore you are not going to suck anymore tax payers money out of TEC for your own pocket, The gravy train has left the station -ITS OVER!!!!! just go and crawl back under your rock with the Fat man and your side kicks Dianna Bongard and Jose Barnes. Oh and the other funny thing is ha ha ha!!! you posted that letter to make some kind of point – god know what?? that your clutching at straws maybe? but what you have done is give FULL amunission to the contractors brought in Jan 2007 to sue your arse as you freely admit (in writing) that your knew of the impending possible Liquidation in 2006 and NEVER disclossed that information to new CREDITORS (Contractors) ha ha ha ha ha!!!! oh stop it please my sides hurt!!
May 25th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
CASE – Went and looked at your blog he he he!! Do you REALLY believe you are in the same league as Arthur Allen Thomas or David Bain??? You think that Lawyers, Liquidators and NZ police are in a conspiracy against YOU? Don’t you think you are overstating YOUR importance just a little? By this time next year people will neither know about or care about where YOU are or what YOU are doing! Your a wash up, a burnt out sad old sow – ITS OVER LADY just let go!!!!! oh noticed you have had lots of postings on there – NOT!!
May 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
wenzel you are a bigger arsehole than i first thought you were. someone should take you out dude why dont you go back to australia and do us all a favour. you look like an ugly little fat obnoxious prick in the herald and you write like a half wit. how cud you front any business your an embarrasment to look at and read you must be a pain to listen to. at least you look half decent robyn why would you want this fat ugly little sod fronting your business you must be mad.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Only place your expanding WEASEL is around your middle
May 25th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Now Robyn dear, go and have a little cup of tea & a quiet reflection on just how important you really are. Yahoo…..the sueing thing has got my ears & eyes buzzing. Note to me…..ring Lawyer Monday.
Goodness me, you are a tad deluded. I have just read your vicious blog & you really rate yourself. Why?? BABE- NO-ONE OTHER THAN US KNOW OR CARE. You are a nutbar!!The only people who know you are the people you hurt. And do not even attempt to deny this. There are many people on this site telling you that YOU HAVE DONE WRONG BY THEM. And nothing you say will make it better. You have hurt people and you do not have that right. Dennis Wood didn’t hurt me. YOU DID! Robyn- you hurt me and my family. You affected my life. Own it. You are dealing with intelligent people with so much more integrity than you will ever have.
Robyn, the Teacher Aide program is amazing & would work however only if someone else owned it. (maybe this may happen seeing as you don’t now & I believe it is up for sale) I’ll give you $2-50 for it as you have ruined your own name & reputation in Education. I am emailing this blog to all principals so they can get a feel of what you are all about………my word, they will think you are a fruit loop. Whoops, they are right.
CBA + Shane Wenzel….absolutely screwing with the Ozone layer. GO AWAY
May 25th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Well well well
Has the food been cut off wenzel. No longer will the state fund your dreams. How does it go wenzel. Oh thats right like this
honk honk honk honk
feed me feed me feed me
I hear you plead
Too late wenzel the seal hunters are coming for you
May 25th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Hey wenzel you sound just like our type, fat and slow
the boys are waiting in the big house for you. Lets work some of that weight off for you. Play chase round the showers with penitrating and probing questions at each shower head. Wenzel do you prefer to work out with or with out soap
May 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Show me the proof
Show me the the PROOF
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
May 26th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Is the proof not in the 18 or so cases of fraud you are facing Shane? You can’t MAKE people on here shut up. You can’t send your heavies around to intimidate. I’d suggest YOU shut up & face what is coming your way.Persoanally I can’t wait. How does it feel Weasle?
May 26th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Awwww Mr WEASEL are you getting all hot under the collar and sweaty *puke*
You will get all the proof you want when your charged and convicted! I am sure their are many of us here willing and able to stand up against you in a court and give evidence sworn on oath that:
1 You were Running CBA and had control over that and all other business running out of Oakleigh Ave, Takanini, Auckland
2 You profited from all the above business, drove around like king shit shouting the orders.
3 That you ran ALL brainwashing seminars everyday and even tried to tell people how they would sit, think and speak!
4 That in no way were you exclusively a coach mentor or otherwise – You were in effect the Manager/Director what ever you want to call it and merely had other peoples name down on paper but no way did anyone do anything without your say so.
5 You claim to be a millionairre yourself who is retired and just doing this to help others -never diclosing that you are a bankrupt living of illegally obtained money – FALSE REPRESENTATION
May 26th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Bloody hell……..you can’t even write “show me the proof” without screwing up.
Oh well, story of your life.
Heehee, I can’t wait till they see your fat hairy arse in prison. THEY WILL PUT UP ALRIGHT.
The sweat may put them off tho. They may just slide right off you.
Ever thought of going to the doctor about that.
May 27th, 2007 at 6:27 am
facinating blog site wenzel. All very BELOW THE LINE from you but then you are. Always some one elses issue never yours. You discust me
You ask “Show me the proof”. It would seem to me that there is a very large group that will be dooing just that at
papakura court: 18 charges brought by the serious fraud office
manukau court: you and the NZ Police for fraud
Auckland High Court: The death of CBA and your involvement in it
Any one that has not already done so mearly has to call the court to find out how they can add them selves to the list of those surplying PROOF or call
Katherine Rich, Member of Parliament. 021 341918
Dennis Wood of McDonald Vague 09 306 3354
or
David Fisher DDI 09 3739345 reporter Herald on Sunday. David is very happy to take anonomous calls
I also hear that TVNZ have taken an interest. Fair Go probably but the current affairs people will be getting interested as well
May 28th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Mr Wenzel looks like what you have given out is coming back. What you have sown is indeed what you will now harvest. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy I say. Robyn Case shold go down with you. I understand that she is hiding out at MPML at 26 Raurenga Ave in Royal Oak. Dianna will get what she deserves also, I understand that her parents are very concerned about the welfare of her two lovely children and may be seeing her in the family court seeking custody, I would support such an application to, Dianna you are a fool but sadly just as vicious as Case and wensel. Josie like wise, one day you will see just how you have been taken in. Jee oh Jee I applaud you for the changes you have made and want to make, stay away from this cancerous individual in the end he will drop you in it all and attempt to flee. A little difficult I understand as the Police have his passport. Get out while you still can as this nasty little man will use anyone he has to escape the justice that is coming to him. Your site wensel of “justicesucks”, justice only sucks you silly little man when you are on the receiving end. It is you that will be held ACCOUNTABLE for your abuse, lies and theft, you that will have to take OWNERSHIP for the above and the RESPOSIBILITY for your feathering your own nest by destroying others will be metered out by the Justice system. Use you time wisely, you will have many years to see that much of what you taught was good. I problem was wensel, is that you abused the knowledge for you own gain. The universe now wants to teach you this
May 28th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
when is the fat little wezzel fraudsta going to court? im sure all your open ended questions are going to go down well inside wezzel
May 30th, 2007 at 11:30 am
I came across a poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller about the failure of German intellectuals to act when the Nazi movement attacked groups, one by one. It made me think about this time, this place – and the lesson of history.
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me
May 30th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
What a crock of S**T Wenzel the trouble with YOU and CASE is that you place yourselves with too high an importance. Your a no-one Wenzel a fat, ugly little no-one who has shafted and conned so many people that we all want to see Justice done and you locked up. CASE can at least lay claim to the fact that she DID have a good course with great content and it could have carried on being a success had her path not crossed with yours. Now she is nothing but a washed up has been and you are nothing but a jumped up little fraudster who thinks he has made a place for himself in history. Don’t you see you silly fat little man, once we have made enough noise and spoken out about YOU enough to get you locked away for your crimes we will all go back to our content lives happy in knowing that we have prevented you from conning anyone else and you will become yesterdays news, a screwed up newpaper wrapping the chips or lining the bin.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Hey but he has got it almost right this time isn’t it ironic but that poem is almost describing old Weasels problem – that he has ripped of, conned and lied to so many people who had he treated them right may have been his friend or colleague and now he has nobody to speak up in defence of him because he has wronged so many
May 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Oh do you think that WENZEL is finally seeing the error of his ways then? – well done WENZEL a big thumbs up, now the next step is to find and apologise to everyone you have ripped off and pay all the money back that you have take K?
May 30th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I came across a poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller about the failure of German intellectuals to act when the Nazi movement attacked groups, one by one. It made me think about this time, this place – and the lesson of history.
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me
Lest we forget.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I came across a poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller about the failure of German intellectuals to act when the Nazi movement attacked groups, one by one. It made me think about this time, this place – and the lesson of history.
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me
Lest we forget.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
your one screwed up little cookie shane!!!!!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
tap tap
tap tap
Here it comes wenzel, chasing you all over the road
May 31st, 2007 at 7:07 pm
I am another person that you, Robyn and Jose used and abused. Threats against my relationship, my family and me when I tried to leave your brainwashing CULT. I wont survive when I leave, well I have and I am soooooo much stronger and HAPPIER now, I have my life back (no more being on call 24/7 and having 2 hour telecomferences 3 times a week) I have a GREAT new job in Management with a reputable compny who does care, and life is FANTASTIC!!!! I hope you are closed down, and Dianna is forced to look after/care for her own children, Shane, that you are deported and Jose and Robyn, you are true disgraces to the teaching profession. Go to HELL all of you!
June 1st, 2007 at 1:14 am
You know, I knew you fellas were shysters. You try to hook staff members homes into your business. You guys are filth. But then, I guess it’s all about perspective. Well, that’s mine.
Go to jail. Never know Shane. You might be someones bitch on the inside.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:16 am
You know, I knew you fellas were shysters. You try to hook staff members homes into your business. You guys are filth. But then, I guess it’s all about perspective. Well, that’s mine.
Go to jail. Never know Shane. You might be someones bitch on the inside.
June 1st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
David Fisher reports in the May 20 edition of the NZ Herold that purported “business coach” Shane Wenzel faces Serious Fraud Office charges of defrauding people in many different instances of over $1,200,000(NZ). To top it off Fisher reports that Shane has been accused of trying to intimidate several NZ politicians through threats to prevent them from probing into his affairs deeper. Reading about this fellow Shane makes me conclude that he is a real con man who has been using the label “business coach” as a tool to gain trust and respect from his targeted victims. But, when I read the lengthy article about Shane, it becomes readily apparent that he is not a “business coach” and most likely never did act in the capacity of a “business coach.”
Yet, Fisher insisted on headlining his story about this apparent bully con man with the title “business coach.” I appreciate that there are all sorts of people who call themselves life coaches, business coaches, executive coaches and sleep coaches who claim to be real coaches, but who are in reality doing something else. We estimated that conservatively between 40% to over 55% of all people who call themselves a life coach in one form or another are not conducting life coaching type services or processes. I am not judging what they are doing, nor am I saying what they are doing is good or bad (except in Shane’s case, I am saying what he did and does is not business coaching and it is bad) I am saying that too many people take on the title of life coach in one form or another, whether a business coach, executive coach or needle coach and they do not coach. Having Fisher broadcast Shane Wenzel as a “business coach” only further confuses the general public about true coaching. I imagine that if his victims truly understood what a real business coach did and did not do, they would not have been so easily hoodwinked by this con artist.
We in the coaching community must continue to try to educate the general public about what a true life coach and a true business coach really does, so more Shane Wenzel’s do not take advantage of more unsuspecting victims. I would also encourage David Fisher to report the truth that Shane was not acting as a “business coach” but was only masquerading as one. Maybe if Fisher and the rest of the media took the time to find out what true business coaches did, then Fisher and others in the media could help others avoid being duped by the likes of Shane Wenzel. But, I suspect that I am asking for more than I could expect from Fisher, and the rest of the media. To consider correcting a misconception in a previously written story that they label as old news is probably way out of the question. Doing so will only increase integrity and clear up the truth, but will probably not sell one more paper.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
MY GOD!!!! I have just glanced at justicesucks.com, what a load of crap you sprout Robyn and hopefully very few suckers (cause that what we were) will believe the shit you sprout. You are NOT a victim of the Justice System and hopefully justice will be served and you all will go down and can never hurt anyone ever again. WHAT A DISGRACE you all are, real Shysters.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
MY GOD!!!! I have just been on http://www.justicesucks.com and what a huge load of crap that is. Robyn, you are a victim, of Shane’s lies, get out and save yourself. Justice will prevail and you will be done!!! That poem is a load of crock and you are a bigger sucker for believing in it. As for Gee, he is lovely but he is misled by you all too. Get ou gee before you end up inside again, dont associate with these SHYSTERS!! Dont get tarred with same brush, you have kids to think about.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
MY GOD!!!! I have just been on http://www.justicesucks.com and what a huge load of crap that is. Robyn, you are a victim, of Shane’s lies, get out and save yourself. Justice will prevail and you will be done!!! That poem is a load of crock and you are a bigger sucker for believing in it. As for Gee, he is lovely but he is misled by you all too. Get ou gee before you end up inside again, dont associate with these SHYSTERS!! Dont get tarred with same brush, you have kids to think about.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
MY GOD!!!! I have just been on http://www.justicesucks.com and what a huge load of crap that is. Robyn, you are a victim, of Shane’s lies, get out and save yourself. Justice will prevail and you will be done!!! That poem is a load of crock and you are a bigger sucker for believing in it. As for Gee, he is lovely but he is misled by you all too. Get ou gee before you end up inside again, dont associate with these SHYSTERS!! Dont get tarred with same brush, you have kids to think about.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:31 pm
MY GOD!!!! I have just been on http://www.justicesucks.com and what a huge load of crap that is. Robyn, you are a victim, of Shane’s lies, get out and save yourself. Justice will prevail and you will be done!!! That poem is a load of crock and you are a bigger sucker for believing in it. As for Gee, he is lovely but he is misled by you all too. Get ou gee before you end up inside again, dont associate with these SHYSTERS!! Dont get tarred with same brush, you have kids to think about.
June 3rd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Tania A was Jailed and facing more charges
Next is you Chris
Then Jail and deport Sue
Andrea history of FRAUDE does hubby Know??
Barry Chargers to be filed 110 and 111 !
PI Discovers more about the finger pointers Stay tune as all is revealed
LIFE IS A MIRROR, WHEN YOU POINT ONE FINGER – THERE IS THREE POINTING BACK @ YOU
MP,s CANT read contracts and misinform the parliment and public. Liquidator Returns funds that were owed to CBA $200K Lifts his fees to $200k plus, invites A nother liquidator to put false invoices into CBA’S LIQUIDATION
WAIT THERES MORE STAY TUNE
June 4th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
The old blogger – Great comments you made I agree it is a shame that con teams like Shane WENZEL, Robyn CASE, Dianna BONGARD and Josie BARNES do put a shadow of suspicion over the many genuine Business, life and various field coaches out there that do a great job! That stinks but at least the law has caught up with them now and WENZEL will be in jail soon where he belongs. And I see WENZEL is once again trying to take the attention off himself – don’t you get it fat man this blogg is about YOU and YOUR cons we are not interested in the shit you make up about other people to reflect the attention off yourself – YOU are the reason this has been put together and YOU are the one up in court for Fraud and criminal activities so go crawl under your stone until sentancing!
June 5th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Hey WOULD BE EDUCATION MINISTER OF THE NATIONAL PARTY CANT READ CONTRACTS
Govt owes Robyn case CBA PTE Future $200 K What is your comment NOW Miss Rich
June 5th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Hey WOULD BE EDUCATION MINISTER OF THE NATIONAL PARTY CANT READ CONTRACTS
Govt owes Robyn case CBA PTE Future $200 K What is your comment NOW Miss Rich
June 6th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Oh dear Shane – I always knew you wanted to be famous but what a method you have chosen. I always knew you were slimy but reading the above postings have truly confirmed it for me.
Do you have any scruples? I think not. You pick on the vulnerable and then like the python you are squeeze everything until there is nothing left. I have never laughed so much at some of the so called perceptions you have perceived. Oh another thing- it really doesn’t look good when one is thrown out of the court room for shouting and behaving like a spoiled child. Mind you , you like to toss your toys out of the cot on a regular basis. Sme of the above replies from you prove this. Instead of telling people to look at the mirror , it would be a good idea to do that yourself – not a pretty sight is it.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Well, there we go again. VERY BELOW THE LINE. Disappointing! This site is about you Wensel and what you have done along with the fools that blindly followed you with out asking any questions from those they destroy. What other people have or have not done has no relevance to you and your actions. The Judge will point that out to you should you try that one in court. What this is about is the damage you have done to people in your lust to build your little empire and control every one in it. You have no family that wants to know you, this is why, you treated them the same. No love….no life. You can’t buy family
June 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Good grief, I am truly atonished at the gaul of some people. The lengths they go to, to rip people off. I often wonder what goes on in their heads- not a lot by the looks of it. Contempt of court?? , refusing to answer questions. Robyn, if you are so intent on clearing your name why the aggressive behaviour? Are you scared of that little worm? Surely not. What gives you and that little insect the idea that you are both above the law?As for Josie Barnes , well!!! I met her once and I’m not surprised she has been hoodwinked by the Weasel. (Funny how everyone calls him that.)Poor woman, has nothing else going for her. Amazing to read all the vitriolic comments- what does it say about you Shame(oops thats not your name is it)talk about being a control freak – I wonder , what happenend to you as a child? You know, the cycle of abuse goes around and around – need I say more? Sad one jack, thats all I want to say.
June 6th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Where is the training Wensel. Complete failure from you in showing it. You demonstration shows that you are a failure as a business couch. Not only do you never look in the mirror yourself but you fail to practice what you preach. Hypocrite. Your postings show you for the coward that you really are. The frightened little boy inside the “mighty Shane Wenzel” is going to be exposed for the nation to see. What will your daddy have to say about that. You fool, what idiot puts his head up when the bombs and bullets are flying. All you do is add fuel to the fire and generate more interest. How many cameras will you have to wrestle next time in court. Keep going this way and we will see you on the TV One news at your next appearance. There is no cavalry out there for you, only more of the above. By you foolish actions you have made yourself a household name. Keep this up and the Australian press will get interested. Now there is a thought, why are you hiding in NZ Shane Wenzel?
June 7th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
TAX FACTS
http://www.shanewenzel.com all will be revealed
awaken from the trueman show
June 7th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
TAX FACTS
http://www.shanewenzel.com all will be revealed
awaken from the trueman show
June 8th, 2007 at 7:54 am
What is social contract mean to the Govt?
What is the OATH mean to the Govt lawyers Judges?
OR is this The TRUEMAN SHOW ? You have your Script play by it !!! BE GOOD PAY YOUR TAX WE WILL WASTE IT AND YOU DIE !!
ps bread more P.E.T.S or S.L.A.V.E.S
June 8th, 2007 at 8:36 am
People are very aware that government does what you do to, ripping people off. This little commentary, some 40 pages long now Wensel is about what you have done to people. No one is interested in what you have to say.
Your DEMONSTRATION is very clear. Suck in, suck out, suck dry and dispose of any one that will stop to listen to you
The message here is very clear. From the number of responses above and the new ones that get added you have done a very good job of destroying people. This is what this site is about
No longer is anyone interested in the lies and deceit that come from your mouth and your henchmen
They want to see you stopped, locked up and then deported
Stay above the line, the issue is you and what you have done
June 8th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Gee, Shane what a crock of shit you spout. Its interesting to read your socalled reponses- attack,attack!!Thats all you can do – when things don’t go your way, bring out the guns!! In response to the above comment from you Pengu, there have been people that the worm did try to seduce with his bollocks in the past but didn’t get a look in. As for the school with a heart, what a joke!! School of destruction more like.
How sad to see that nobody gives a toss about you, everyone wants to see you thrown to the lions. Aren’t you just a tweenie weenie worried? I would be. But I guess no brain, no pain huh?
June 8th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
It would appear that Shane Charles Wensel also likes to call him self Christopher Charles Wensel
Well well well. All the finger pointing does have its down side doesn’t it Wensel. Karma at work and it is working on you. Shane or Christopher, Wensel which one is correct, or are they both aliases.
Is one for here and one for Oz?
You naughty little boy, wait till your father hears about this, and he will as I understand that the NZ Police at chatting dirrectly with the Oz Police and that the NZ IRD has also joined in. You have been a naughty, naughty little boy haven’t you
And like all naughty little boys, they think that they will never be found out
June 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
WAIT there is more Google for shane wenzel
and builder in another country
I could be peter wenzel too ?
Just a allegations Fisher SHOW ME THE PROOF !!
SIGN YOUR NAME LETS TAKE YOU TO COURT AND SEE IF YOUR FACTS ARE MADE OF STRAW ?
AND CAN YOU BACK it up with money ?
Or just more allegations Cheap cheap talk ?
June 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
WAIT there is more Google for shane wenzel
and builder in another country
I could be peter wenzel too ?
Just a allegations Fisher SHOW ME THE PROOF !!
SIGN YOUR NAME LETS TAKE YOU TO COURT AND SEE IF YOUR FACTS ARE MADE OF STRAW ?
AND CAN YOU BACK it up with money ?
Or just more allegations Cheap cheap talk ?
June 8th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
WAIT there is more Google for shane wenzel
and builder in another country
I could be peter wenzel too ?
Just a allegations Fisher SHOW ME THE PROOF !!
SIGN YOUR NAME LETS TAKE YOU TO COURT AND SEE IF YOUR FACTS ARE MADE OF STRAW ?
AND CAN YOU BACK it up with money ?
Or just more allegations Cheap cheap talk ?
June 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Whos F.I.N.E now Weasley boy? It is right, you are attacking the ones that know you and what you do. Who’s pointing the finger? What do you see in the mirror Shane? What in your past are you hiding? Where’s ownership, accountability and responsibility for what you’ve done huh?
June 8th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
gidday Shane me old mate well shane is what you prefer to be called now aye. Why dont you come back over the ditch mate is it because the cops will nab you for past indiscretions, fraud and brushes with the them too close for comfort mate?When I was told by a bloke we both knew well to take a jack at this site I thought stone the crows no way? but here you are mate larger than ever aye. Remember me yet mate, think back hard many years ago some dodgy dealings and rip offs mate just before you scurried off to NZ when the heat got too much? im your old friend or worst nightmare? all catching up with you now mate your crooked past. you just never did know when to shut up did you mate, now we know where you are we are looking forward to catching up mate – have a yarn about the old days over a cold one and sort out some stuff you left unfinished.
see you soon mate
June 9th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
You have signed documents as Christopher Charles Wensel. This is written proof that you are:
a fraudster
a lier
a thief
a destroyer of all that is good
a leach on society
You are a creator aren’t you Shane/Christopher?
So go and rot in the cess pool you have now created for yourself and the fools that feed off you. Any day now you will turn on them as all cowards and little boys do that are caught out. You are to be shortly cornered, then your lackeys will see you as the rest of world does
You’ve been a naughty naughty boy (Shane/Christoper) Charles Wensel
Only God can save you, best you fess up fast, because every Man and Woman and their dogs are after you Shane/Christopher.
It is no longer if, but when you go down in a screaming heap and try to take all around you with you. 117 responses here, all saying “ you naughty naughty boy, just wait till the JUDGE GETS BACK AND HE WILL DEAL WITH YOU. And you thought that your Dad was bad……………………………
An ugly ugly sight Wensel. You and your creation
June 12th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Big brother is watching you. Alot of people seem to know you and your cronies very well. AS for being naughty, we all know that naughty boys need to be punished severly. What do you suggest Shane. What do you think when you read all these blogs – don’t you feel alittle lost or as usual you block it out. You will have your day in court and you feel be picking up the straw mate , no one else. As for money , who is paying for your lawyer – you? or are you bludging there as well. The sooner you are exterminated from our society the better – slug slam is very effective- slow oozing mess.
June 12th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Here’s to shane weasel and his ALL his blind followers…Where’s my $500 bucks that the District Court ordered you to pay.. you cheap skate and where are all those false papers you’re suppose to hand in to the tribunal court at the beginning of this year you bloody crook you had ten days to produce them and still you’re playing the fool…friggin australian twat piss off back to your own country so the aborigines can feed you to the crocodiles.
!!! ONCE A CON ALWAYS A CON…especially an AUTRALIAN CON!!!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Here’s to shane weasel and his ALL his blind followers…Where’s my $500 bucks that the District Court ordered you to pay.. you cheap skate and where are all those false papers you’re suppose to hand in to the tribunal court at the beginning of this year you bloody crook you had ten days to produce them and still you’re playing the fool…friggin australian twat piss off back to your own country so the aborigines can feed you to the crocodiles.
!!! ONCE A CON ALWAYS A CON…especially an AUTRALIAN CON!!!
June 12th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Here’s to shane weasel and his ALL his BLIND followers…Where’s my $500 bucks that the District Court ordered you to pay.. you cheap skate and where are all those false papers you’re suppose to hand in to the tribunal court at the beginning of this year you bloody crook you had ten days to produce them and still you’re playing the fool…friggin aussie con piss off back to your own country so the aborigines can feed you to the crocodiles.
!!! ONCE A CON ALWAYS A CON…especially an AUTRALIAN CON!!!
June 12th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Here’s to shane weasel and ALL his blind followers…Where’s my $500 bucks that the District Court ordered you to pay.. you cheap skate and where are all those false papers you’re suppose to hand in to the tribunal court at the beginning of this year you bloody crook you had ten days to produce them and still you’re playing the fool…friggin aussie con piss off back to your own country so the aborigines can feed you to the crocodiles.
!!! ONCE A CON ALWAYS A CON…especially an AUSTRALIAN CON!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 7:36 am
gidday me old mate im surprised you havent guessed who i am yet? thought i would av heard back from you by now you have replied to so many others what a bummer. Couple of us are eager to catch up and trying to make arrangements. by the way there is a matter of some cash you owe me mate hoping I can pick that up too? hope your not going to make up more excuses not to pay me its taking so bloody long to track ya down mate.
June 13th, 2007 at 7:39 am
gidday me old mate im surprised you havent guessed who i am yet? thought i would av heard back from you by now you have replied to so many others what a bummer. Couple of us are eager to catch up and trying to make arrangements. by the way there is a matter of some cash you owe me mate hoping I can pick that up too? hope your not going to make up more excuses not to pay me its taking so bloody long to track ya down mate.
June 13th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Hello to Blast from the past, I see your good friends with Shane Wenzel, would you be happy to tell us everything about this sad fella, just to see whether it matches up with all the bollocks he has mentioned. So his name in Australia is Christopher right???
Well hes making a name for himself in NZ.
* Liar
*Cheat
*Scumbag
*Liar
*Cheat
*Scumbag
What was Shane Wenzel like in Australia?
Did he have alot of friends?
And his family, he seldomly talks about his family, but he talks and criticises everyone else’s family and forces innocent ladies to leave their husbands, just what Dianna Bongard did, and now shes sleeping with him.
Oh and I think Shane is getting scared now that Blast from the Past is here. Is alot more truth going to come out aye Shane or should I say Christopher!!!!!
June 15th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Robyn did create an amazing course and a lot of people had great success after it. I agree it was a real shame that she handed it over to a con man.
I have empathy and sympathy for those who have been caught by Shane or even just had to listen to his noise. It is all just a game, only people don’t know that when they go into it. I managed to play it and get out fairly unscathed.
Robyn admitted to me a few years ago she wanted out but she had ‘burnt all her bridges’, I bet she wished she did now.
June 15th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Robyn did create an amazing course and a lot of people had great success after it. I agree it was a real shame that she handed it over to a con man.
I have empathy and sympathy for those who have been caught by Shane or even just had to listen to his noise. It is all just a game, only people don’t know that when they go into it. I managed to play it and get out fairly unscathed.
Robyn admitted to me a few years ago she wanted out but she had ‘burnt all her bridges’, I bet she wished she did now.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:43 am
I am surprised and apalled to see my name and a letter I constructed posted by Shane Wenzel. I wrote the letter early in my association with CBA, the letter was drafted when Shane was acting in a managerial role over me and the letter was drafted at Shane’s request, I was committed to my professional role and enjoyed this role away from the ‘teachings’ of Shane. My teaching setup was reasonably autonomous and my students were successful. Only on one occassion were any of my classes visited by Shane.
After leaving CBA (which I did meeting all the conditions of my contract), Shane referred to me as a Judas. This just adds to my apallment that he would then pull out the letter that I constructed. I certainly have no involvement with Robyn, Shane or Josie now and have been proactive in trying stop all their unprofessional practices.
In the end the strong ones got away!
Louise Lark
June 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling that the
word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a system
falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3556093&thesection…
hesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=
Bashings, lies by police claimed
22.03.2004
By BRIDGET CARTER
Some police officers make violent and racial attacks, set dogs on
surrendering prisoners, falsify evidence and lie in court, say long-serving
former police staff.
The claims were made last night on the TV3 current affairs programme 20/20
by four former police officers.
They painted a picture of police violence and brutality during the 1990s.
Three of the former officers are now lawyers and include former Senior
Sergeant Mike Meyrick, and Tony Grieg and Alex Hope, both former sergeants.
The fourth man has been dubbed “Constable A” and his identity is being kept
secret.
Mr Grieg said beatings that were “quite frightening” were dished out to
alleged offenders who offered no resistance. “They were usually hard punches
to the body and ribs. People were badly marked … black eyes, thick lips
and missing teeth,” he said.
The four officers described seeing dogs set on people who had surrendered.
Constable A described seeing a dog chew a person’s flesh.
They said regular racial attacks were made on Maori.
Police who had beaten someone told courts that their injuries were caused
because the defendant had resisted arrest.
Officers frequently used dangerous choke holds when arresting people.
The claims come at the same time a commission of inquiry is underway to
determine whether former Rotorua police CIB chief John Dewar inadequately
investigated complaints by Louise Nicholas.
Ms Nicholas said that she was pack raped and violated with a police baton by
Auckland police commander Clint Rickards and former colleagues Brad Shipton
and Bob Schollum at Rotorua during the 1980s.
Mr Grieg said of all the areas where he worked, at Rotorua he saw the most
violence. In some cases:
* Mr Meyrick said he saw a burglar, bitten badly by a dog, then taken by an
officer in a headlock who rammed his head into a concrete wall, causing
serious injuries.
* Mr Grieg said Maori were called “niggers”.
* Constable A told how a prisoner was beaten so badly that blood was coming
from his ears.
* Mr Grieg described how a Rotorua sergeant climbed from his desk to beat a
prisoner in the cell.
The officers said when they tried to speak out they were alienated and that
officers who did not share the same attitudes and culture as the rest of the
force were unlikely to be promoted.
Mr Meyrick told the Herald last night that he knew the same sorts of things
were still going on and being covered up in the police force.
He had been making these accusations for years about the police, he said.
He had taken cases to the Police Complaints Authority, but it was “a waste
of breath”.
An authority was needed where police complaints could be heard and “not just
whitewashed”.
He said the culture of the police force had to change.
A spokesman for the police, Jon Neilson, said no comment would be made until
it was known exactly what the claims were.
Police Association president Greg O’Connor said it was certainly not the
police force he knew.
“Clearly there is a personal experience these people have had.
“I don’t believe the New Zealand Police is anything like the way these
people paint it,” he said.
No doubt there was violence when people were dealing with violence. It was a
violent job.
“I think there is definitely a culture in some police areas, which reflect
the culture of the place.
“If they take a more physical approach to policing, it is probably because
it is a more violent town.”
Every police officer was starting to doubt himself or herself.
Reply Reply to author Forward
Roger Dewhurst View profile
More options Mar 22 2004, 8:01 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Roger Dewhurst”
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:00:51 +1200
Local: Mon, Mar 22 2004 8:00 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“nash_the_slash” wrote in message
news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling that
the
> word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a system
> falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out of
it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
R
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 22 2004, 9:23 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:18:21 +1200
Local: Mon, Mar 22 2004 9:18 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling that
> the
> > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
system
> > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
> I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
> happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out of
> it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> R
You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests that if
a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed without
further investigation or delay.
I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the police
complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the entire
force.
I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten more
that are malicious.
Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were handled
by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let every
one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely mischievous
and petty nature.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 22 2004, 10:11 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:11:15 +1200
Local: Mon, Mar 22 2004 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling
that
> > the
> > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
> system
> > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out
of
> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > R
> You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests that
if
> a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
> judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed without
> further investigation or delay.
> I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the police
> complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the entire
> force.
> I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten more
> that are malicious.
> Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
handled
> by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let
every
> one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
mischievous
> and petty nature.
There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it be
properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
You do realise that people can also be charged for making false complaints,
do you?
If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t get out
of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more honest.
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 7:49 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:44:12 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“E. Scrooge” wrote in message
news:1079950281.54561@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “henryboss” wrote in message
> news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling
> that
> > > the
> > > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
> > system
> > > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
> > > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
Nothing
> > > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
out
> of
> > > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > R
> > You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests
that
> if
> > a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> > actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
> > judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed without
> > further investigation or delay.
> > I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the police
> > complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the
entire
> > force.
> > I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> > complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten
more
> > that are malicious.
> > Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
> handled
> > by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let
> every
> > one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
> mischievous
> > and petty nature.
> There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
> If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it be
> properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
> You do realise that people can also be charged for making false
complaints,
> do you?
> If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t get
out
> of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more honest.
> E. Scrooge
Ignoring your obvious bias against the police in general, why are you of the
opinion that they should be treated differently to any other members of the
public.
The law states very clearly that those accused are to be deemed innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not add as you seem to infer,
with the exception of police officers , who must be seen to be guilty until
proved innocent.
As for your inference that all complaints made are valid, well that’s about
as muddled as the rest of your diatribe.
Reply Reply to author Forward
Roger Dewhurst View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 11:17 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Roger Dewhurst”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 11:16 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out
of
> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > R
> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
committed. Do you see the difference?
R
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 11:24 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:24:39 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 11:24 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3nfvr$avi$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> news:1079950281.54561@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > “henryboss” wrote in message
> > news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > > “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > > news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very
telling
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
> > > system
> > > > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area
?
> > > > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> Nothing
> > > > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
> out
> > of
> > > > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > > R
> > > You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests
> that
> > if
> > > a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> > > actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
> > > judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed
without
> > > further investigation or delay.
> > > I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the
police
> > > complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the
> entire
> > > force.
> > > I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> > > complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten
> more
> > > that are malicious.
> > > Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
> > handled
> > > by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let
> > every
> > > one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
> > mischievous
> > > and petty nature.
> > There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
> > If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it be
> > properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
> > You do realise that people can also be charged for making false
> complaints,
> > do you?
> > If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t get
> out
> > of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more
honest.
> > E. Scrooge
> Ignoring your obvious bias against the police in general, why are you of
the
> opinion that they should be treated differently to any other members of
the
> public.
> The law states very clearly that those accused are to be deemed innocent
> until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not add as you seem to
infer,
> with the exception of police officers , who must be seen to be guilty
until
> proved innocent.
> As for your inference that all complaints made are valid, well that’s
about
> as muddled as the rest of your diatribe.
You’re more confused than ever, sport.
If you’re going to ask a question then finish it off with a question mark.
What you’re claiming there was said and wasn’t even suggested at all.
“If the complaint is proven to be a valid one”.
I don’t see what is so hard about it for you to understand that, but you
sure got fucked up over it anyway. For you to claim that I said that all
complaints are valid ones, is completely stupid nonsense. The FACT that I
said that people can be charged for making false complaints obviously never
got through to you.
Still, if you want to make a fool out of yourself I really don’t mind one
little bit. Only as long as you keep choosing to supply the material
yourself in order to do it.
LOL
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 12:03 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:58:04 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 11:58 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“E. Scrooge” wrote in message
news:1079997858.553247@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “henryboss” wrote in message
> news:c3nfvr$avi$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> > news:1079950281.54561@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > “henryboss” wrote in message
> > > news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > > > “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > > > news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > > > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > > > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > > > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very
> telling
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been
a
> > > > system
> > > > > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty
area
> ?
> > > > > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> > Nothing
> > > > > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk
me
> > out
> > > of
> > > > > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > > > R
> > > > You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests
> > that
> > > if
> > > > a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> > > > actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of
the
> > > > judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed
> without
> > > > further investigation or delay.
> > > > I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the
> police
> > > > complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the
> > entire
> > > > force.
> > > > I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> > > > complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten
> > more
> > > > that are malicious.
> > > > Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
> > > handled
> > > > by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to
let
> > > every
> > > > one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
> > > mischievous
> > > > and petty nature.
> > > There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
> > > If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it
be
> > > properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
> > > You do realise that people can also be charged for making false
> > complaints,
> > > do you?
> > > If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t
get
> > out
> > > of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more
> honest.
> > > E. Scrooge
> > Ignoring your obvious bias against the police in general, why are you of
> the
> > opinion that they should be treated differently to any other members of
> the
> > public.
> > The law states very clearly that those accused are to be deemed innocent
> > until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not add as you seem to
> infer,
> > with the exception of police officers , who must be seen to be guilty
> until
> > proved innocent.
> > As for your inference that all complaints made are valid, well that’s
> about
> > as muddled as the rest of your diatribe.
> You’re more confused than ever, sport.
> If you’re going to ask a question then finish it off with a question mark.
> What you’re claiming there was said and wasn’t even suggested at all.
> “If the complaint is proven to be a valid one”.
> I don’t see what is so hard about it for you to understand that, but you
> sure got fucked up over it anyway. For you to claim that I said that all
> complaints are valid ones, is completely stupid nonsense. The FACT that I
> said that people can be charged for making false complaints obviously
never
> got through to you.
> Still, if you want to make a fool out of yourself I really don’t mind one
> little bit. Only as long as you keep choosing to supply the material
> yourself in order to do it.
> LOL
> E. Scrooge
Ok Scrooge, anyone who disagrees with your particular hobby horse you label
as a fool.
A fool Scrooge is someone with such tunnel vision and narrow minded
attitudes that they label an entire entity as evil and corrupt because of
the actions of a tiny minority.
If one carried your way of thinking into other professions a doctor struck
of for misconduct would mean all the medical profession are suspect, as
would be teachers, lawyers accountants etc, you must learn to distinguish
the difference between the actions of the individual as against the actions
of an organization.
I appreciate you are bitter about some previous contact with a problem or
problems you may have had, and use this issue as a personal vendetta against
the dept in general, but somewhere you need to grow up and become a little
more mature in your attitude.
As for the smug assertion you made relating to people being charged for
making a false complaint, yes indeed, but how do you address those with an
imagined grievance.
Present company the exception of course.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 1:27 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:27:54 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3nurq$j01$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> > You’re more confused than ever, sport.
> > If you’re going to ask a question then finish it off with a question
mark.
> > What you’re claiming there was said and wasn’t even suggested at all.
> > “If the complaint is proven to be a valid one”.
> > I don’t see what is so hard about it for you to understand that, but you
> > sure got fucked up over it anyway. For you to claim that I said that
all
> > complaints are valid ones, is completely stupid nonsense. The FACT that
I
> > said that people can be charged for making false complaints obviously
> never
> > got through to you.
> > Still, if you want to make a fool out of yourself I really don’t mind
one
> > little bit. Only as long as you keep choosing to supply the material
> > yourself in order to do it.
> > LOL
> > E. Scrooge
> Ok Scrooge, anyone who disagrees with your particular hobby horse you
label
> as a fool.
> A fool Scrooge is someone with such tunnel vision and narrow minded
> attitudes that they label an entire entity as evil and corrupt because of
> the actions of a tiny minority.
> If one carried your way of thinking into other professions a doctor struck
> of for misconduct would mean all the medical profession are suspect, as
> would be teachers, lawyers accountants etc, you must learn to distinguish
> the difference between the actions of the individual as against the
actions
> of an organization.
> I appreciate you are bitter about some previous contact with a problem or
> problems you may have had, and use this issue as a personal vendetta
against
> the dept in general, but somewhere you need to grow up and become a little
> more mature in your attitude.
> As for the smug assertion you made relating to people being charged for
> making a false complaint, yes indeed, but how do you address those with an
> imagined grievance.
> Present company the exception of course.
Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples posts
is a fool – just like you are in fact.
Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long.
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
Brian View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 3:39 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: Brian
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:39:02 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wrote:
>”henryboss” wrote in message
>news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
>> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
>> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
>> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
>> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
>> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
>> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out
>of
>> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
>> > R
>> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
>No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
>commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
>committed. Do you see the difference?
Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 3:47 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:42:26 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 3:42 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“Brian” wrote in message
news:ubvu50l2ie1a5cgv12mkv262cebji130f4@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
> wrote:
> >”henryboss” wrote in message
> >news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> >> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> >> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> >> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> >> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> >> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
Nothing
> >> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
out
> >of
> >> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> >> > R
> >> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
> >No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
> >commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
> >committed. Do you see the difference?
> Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one you
hold.
You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing and
all knowing.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 4:57 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:57:03 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3oc0u$r8a$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “Brian” wrote in message
> news:ubvu50l2ie1a5cgv12mkv262cebji130f4@4ax.com…
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
> > wrote:
> > >”henryboss” wrote in message
> > >news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > >> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > >> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > >> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > >> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > >> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> Nothing
> > >> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
> out
> > >of
> > >> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > >> > R
> > >> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
> > >No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
> > >commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
> > >committed. Do you see the difference?
> > Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
> You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one you
> hold.
> You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing and
> all knowing.
It doesn’t come easy, but there just happens to be a few of us around,
sport.
Now what else can we help you with?
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 7:09 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:04:18 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 7:04 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“E. Scrooge” wrote in message
news:1080017829.496359@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “henryboss” wrote in message
> news:c3oc0u$r8a$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > “Brian” wrote in message
> > news:ubvu50l2ie1a5cgv12mkv262cebji130f4@4ax.com…
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
> > > wrote:
> > > >”henryboss” wrote in message
> > > >news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > > >> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > > >> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > >> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > >> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > >> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> > Nothing
> > > >> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk
me
> > out
> > > >of
> > > >> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > >> > R
> > > >> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
> > > >No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
> > > >commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
> > > >committed. Do you see the difference?
> > > Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
> > You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one you
> > hold.
> > You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing
and
> > all knowing.
> It doesn’t come easy, but there just happens to be a few of us around,
> sport.
> Now what else can we help you with?
> E. Scrooge
> Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 7:22 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:22:41 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3onr1$3o4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> news:1080017829.496359@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one
you
> > > hold.
> > > You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing
> and
> > > all knowing.
> > It doesn’t come easy, but there just happens to be a few of us around,
> > sport.
> > Now what else can we help you with?
> > E. Scrooge
> > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
> untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
> Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
Any more good laughs, or that your best shot?
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
Joe View profile> Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples posts > is a fool – just like you are in fact. > Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long. > E. Scrooge fuk sake ducky … u deliberately screw what i post [ re your pathetic and insulting " all drugs are good and cool" drivel ] and then you type the above? youre a demented fool scrooge take a step back and look at what you actually say ……… i note you didnt show wherei said all drugs are good and cool thus youre a liar and a gutless little wimp who cannot apologise when wrong
More options Mar 24 2004, 7:58 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Joe”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:57:54 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 7:57 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples
posts
> is a fool – just like you are in fact.
> Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long.
> E. Scrooge
fuk sake ducky … u deliberately screw what i post [ re your pathetic and
insulting " all drugs are good and cool" drivel ] and then you type the
above?
youre a demented fool scrooge
take a step back and look at what you actually say ………
i note you didnt show wherei said all drugs are good and cool thus youre a
liar and a gutless little wimp who cannot apologise when wrong
Reply Reply to author Forward
Joe View profile> > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow, > untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt. > Sadly it would appear that they were correct. scrooge is a dipstick … he tried to say that i said all drugs are good and cool and when i asked him to show us all where i had said this [ i never did ] he just resorted to more ducky drivelling note that to date the liar and fool has not yet had the guts to apologise for ” screwing my posts and words with lies”
More options Mar 24 2004, 8:00 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Joe”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:00:33 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 8:00 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
> untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
> Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
scrooge is a dipstick … he tried to say that i said all drugs are good and
cool and when i asked him to show us all where i had said this [ i never
did ] he just resorted to more ducky drivelling
note that to date the liar and fool has not yet had the guts to apologise
for ” screwing my posts and words with lies”
Reply Reply to author Forward
Joe View profile> > > E. Scrooge > > > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow, > > untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt. > > Sadly it would appear that they were correct. > Any more good laughs, or that your best shot? > E. Scrooge certainly good enough for me … others .. not only I .. see the liar wimp for what he is a ducky in drivel street
More options Mar 24 2004, 8:01 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Joe”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:01:12 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 8:01 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> > > E. Scrooge
> > > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
> > untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
> > Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
> Any more good laughs, or that your best shot?
> E. Scrooge
certainly good enough for me … others .. not only I .. see the liar wimp
for what he is
a ducky in drivel street
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 24 2004, 10:03 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:03:38 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 10:03 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
“Joe” wrote in message news:4060ac52@news.orcon.net.nz…
> > Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples
> posts
> > is a fool – just like you are in fact.
> > Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long.
> > E. Scrooge
> fuk sake ducky … u deliberately screw what i post [ re your pathetic and
> insulting " all drugs are good and cool" drivel ] and then you type the
> above?
> youre a demented fool scrooge
> take a step back and look at what you actually say ………
> i note you didnt show wherei said all drugs are good and cool thus youre a
> liar and a gutless little wimp who cannot apologise when wrong
You’re an idiot. And what’s more you should be sorry for being an idiot.
No hurry though, you just apologise in your own little time.
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
June 17th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling that the
word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a system
falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3556093&thesection…
hesubsection=general&thesecondsubsection=
Bashings, lies by police claimed
22.03.2004
By BRIDGET CARTER
Some police officers make violent and racial attacks, set dogs on
surrendering prisoners, falsify evidence and lie in court, say long-serving
former police staff.
The claims were made last night on the TV3 current affairs programme 20/20
by four former police officers.
They painted a picture of police violence and brutality during the 1990s.
Three of the former officers are now lawyers and include former Senior
Sergeant Mike Meyrick, and Tony Grieg and Alex Hope, both former sergeants.
The fourth man has been dubbed “Constable A” and his identity is being kept
secret.
Mr Grieg said beatings that were “quite frightening” were dished out to
alleged offenders who offered no resistance. “They were usually hard punches
to the body and ribs. People were badly marked … black eyes, thick lips
and missing teeth,” he said.
The four officers described seeing dogs set on people who had surrendered.
Constable A described seeing a dog chew a person’s flesh.
They said regular racial attacks were made on Maori.
Police who had beaten someone told courts that their injuries were caused
because the defendant had resisted arrest.
Officers frequently used dangerous choke holds when arresting people.
The claims come at the same time a commission of inquiry is underway to
determine whether former Rotorua police CIB chief John Dewar inadequately
investigated complaints by Louise Nicholas.
Ms Nicholas said that she was pack raped and violated with a police baton by
Auckland police commander Clint Rickards and former colleagues Brad Shipton
and Bob Schollum at Rotorua during the 1980s.
Mr Grieg said of all the areas where he worked, at Rotorua he saw the most
violence. In some cases:
* Mr Meyrick said he saw a burglar, bitten badly by a dog, then taken by an
officer in a headlock who rammed his head into a concrete wall, causing
serious injuries.
* Mr Grieg said Maori were called “niggers”.
* Constable A told how a prisoner was beaten so badly that blood was coming
from his ears.
* Mr Grieg described how a Rotorua sergeant climbed from his desk to beat a
prisoner in the cell.
The officers said when they tried to speak out they were alienated and that
officers who did not share the same attitudes and culture as the rest of the
force were unlikely to be promoted.
Mr Meyrick told the Herald last night that he knew the same sorts of things
were still going on and being covered up in the police force.
He had been making these accusations for years about the police, he said.
He had taken cases to the Police Complaints Authority, but it was “a waste
of breath”.
An authority was needed where police complaints could be heard and “not just
whitewashed”.
He said the culture of the police force had to change.
A spokesman for the police, Jon Neilson, said no comment would be made until
it was known exactly what the claims were.
Police Association president Greg O’Connor said it was certainly not the
police force he knew.
“Clearly there is a personal experience these people have had.
“I don’t believe the New Zealand Police is anything like the way these
people paint it,” he said.
No doubt there was violence when people were dealing with violence. It was a
violent job.
“I think there is definitely a culture in some police areas, which reflect
the culture of the place.
“If they take a more physical approach to policing, it is probably because
it is a more violent town.”
Every police officer was starting to doubt himself or herself.
Reply Reply to author Forward
Roger Dewhurst View profile
More options Mar 22 2004, 8:01 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Roger Dewhurst”
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:00:51 +1200
Local: Mon, Mar 22 2004 8:00 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“nash_the_slash” wrote in message
news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling that
the
> word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a system
> falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out of
it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
R
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 22 2004, 9:23 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 09:18:21 +1200
Local: Mon, Mar 22 2004 9:18 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling that
> the
> > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
system
> > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
> I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
> happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out of
> it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> R
You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests that if
a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed without
further investigation or delay.
I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the police
complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the entire
force.
I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten more
that are malicious.
Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were handled
by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let every
one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely mischievous
and petty nature.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 22 2004, 10:11 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 22:11:15 +1200
Local: Mon, Mar 22 2004 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling
that
> > the
> > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
> system
> > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out
of
> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > R
> You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests that
if
> a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
> judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed without
> further investigation or delay.
> I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the police
> complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the entire
> force.
> I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten more
> that are malicious.
> Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
handled
> by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let
every
> one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
mischievous
> and petty nature.
There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it be
properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
You do realise that people can also be charged for making false complaints,
do you?
If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t get out
of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more honest.
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 7:49 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 07:44:12 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“E. Scrooge” wrote in message
news:1079950281.54561@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “henryboss” wrote in message
> news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very telling
> that
> > > the
> > > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
> > system
> > > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area ?
> > > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
Nothing
> > > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
out
> of
> > > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > R
> > You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests
that
> if
> > a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> > actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
> > judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed without
> > further investigation or delay.
> > I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the police
> > complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the
entire
> > force.
> > I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> > complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten
more
> > that are malicious.
> > Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
> handled
> > by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let
> every
> > one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
> mischievous
> > and petty nature.
> There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
> If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it be
> properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
> You do realise that people can also be charged for making false
complaints,
> do you?
> If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t get
out
> of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more honest.
> E. Scrooge
Ignoring your obvious bias against the police in general, why are you of the
opinion that they should be treated differently to any other members of the
public.
The law states very clearly that those accused are to be deemed innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not add as you seem to infer,
with the exception of police officers , who must be seen to be guilty until
proved innocent.
As for your inference that all complaints made are valid, well that’s about
as muddled as the rest of your diatribe.
Reply Reply to author Forward
Roger Dewhurst View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 11:17 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Roger Dewhurst”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 11:16 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out
of
> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > R
> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
committed. Do you see the difference?
R
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 11:24 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:24:39 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 11:24 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3nfvr$avi$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> news:1079950281.54561@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > “henryboss” wrote in message
> > news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > > “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > > news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very
telling
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been a
> > > system
> > > > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty area
?
> > > > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> Nothing
> > > > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
> out
> > of
> > > > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > > R
> > > You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests
> that
> > if
> > > a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> > > actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of the
> > > judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed
without
> > > further investigation or delay.
> > > I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the
police
> > > complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the
> entire
> > > force.
> > > I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> > > complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten
> more
> > > that are malicious.
> > > Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
> > handled
> > > by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to let
> > every
> > > one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
> > mischievous
> > > and petty nature.
> > There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
> > If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it be
> > properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
> > You do realise that people can also be charged for making false
> complaints,
> > do you?
> > If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t get
> out
> > of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more
honest.
> > E. Scrooge
> Ignoring your obvious bias against the police in general, why are you of
the
> opinion that they should be treated differently to any other members of
the
> public.
> The law states very clearly that those accused are to be deemed innocent
> until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not add as you seem to
infer,
> with the exception of police officers , who must be seen to be guilty
until
> proved innocent.
> As for your inference that all complaints made are valid, well that’s
about
> as muddled as the rest of your diatribe.
You’re more confused than ever, sport.
If you’re going to ask a question then finish it off with a question mark.
What you’re claiming there was said and wasn’t even suggested at all.
“If the complaint is proven to be a valid one”.
I don’t see what is so hard about it for you to understand that, but you
sure got fucked up over it anyway. For you to claim that I said that all
complaints are valid ones, is completely stupid nonsense. The FACT that I
said that people can be charged for making false complaints obviously never
got through to you.
Still, if you want to make a fool out of yourself I really don’t mind one
little bit. Only as long as you keep choosing to supply the material
yourself in order to do it.
LOL
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 12:03 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:58:04 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 11:58 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“E. Scrooge” wrote in message
news:1079997858.553247@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “henryboss” wrote in message
> news:c3nfvr$avi$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> > news:1079950281.54561@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > “henryboss” wrote in message
> > > news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > > > “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > > > news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > > > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > > > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > > > > Even the police are being turned on by there own now. Very
> telling
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > word Rotorua keeps popping up in the allegations. Has there been
a
> > > > system
> > > > > > falure in the discipline and management of the bay of plenty
area
> ?
> > > > > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> > Nothing
> > > > > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk
me
> > out
> > > of
> > > > > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > > > R
> > > > You mean alleged perjury don’t you, or are you another that suggests
> > that
> > > if
> > > > a member of the public complains, then the complaint must always be
> > > > actionable, and indeed one that would stand up if put in front of
the
> > > > judiciary, so that the officer complained about can be dismissed
> without
> > > > further investigation or delay.
> > > > I wonder how long it would take the criminals who already use the
> police
> > > > complaints authority to their own ends, to be able to decimate the
> > entire
> > > > force.
> > > > I don’t suggest for one moment that you may not have considered your
> > > > complaint to be valid, but for every one that is, there would be ten
> > more
> > > > that are malicious.
> > > > Because of this it would possibly be a good thing if complaints were
> > > handled
> > > > by an outside agency, on the proviso that all were made public, to
let
> > > every
> > > > one see and appreciate the level of complaints made of a purely
> > > mischievous
> > > > and petty nature.
> > > There you go again off on a “police can do no wrong” campaign again.
> > > If the complaint is provern to be a valid one. Then why shouldn’t it
be
> > > properly looked into instead just being swept under the carpet?
> > > You do realise that people can also be charged for making false
> > complaints,
> > > do you?
> > > If any complaints are handled properly the number of them shouldn’t
get
> > out
> > > of hand at all. And just might make a few people to be a bit more
> honest.
> > > E. Scrooge
> > Ignoring your obvious bias against the police in general, why are you of
> the
> > opinion that they should be treated differently to any other members of
> the
> > public.
> > The law states very clearly that those accused are to be deemed innocent
> > until proven guilty in a court of law. It does not add as you seem to
> infer,
> > with the exception of police officers , who must be seen to be guilty
> until
> > proved innocent.
> > As for your inference that all complaints made are valid, well that’s
> about
> > as muddled as the rest of your diatribe.
> You’re more confused than ever, sport.
> If you’re going to ask a question then finish it off with a question mark.
> What you’re claiming there was said and wasn’t even suggested at all.
> “If the complaint is proven to be a valid one”.
> I don’t see what is so hard about it for you to understand that, but you
> sure got fucked up over it anyway. For you to claim that I said that all
> complaints are valid ones, is completely stupid nonsense. The FACT that I
> said that people can be charged for making false complaints obviously
never
> got through to you.
> Still, if you want to make a fool out of yourself I really don’t mind one
> little bit. Only as long as you keep choosing to supply the material
> yourself in order to do it.
> LOL
> E. Scrooge
Ok Scrooge, anyone who disagrees with your particular hobby horse you label
as a fool.
A fool Scrooge is someone with such tunnel vision and narrow minded
attitudes that they label an entire entity as evil and corrupt because of
the actions of a tiny minority.
If one carried your way of thinking into other professions a doctor struck
of for misconduct would mean all the medical profession are suspect, as
would be teachers, lawyers accountants etc, you must learn to distinguish
the difference between the actions of the individual as against the actions
of an organization.
I appreciate you are bitter about some previous contact with a problem or
problems you may have had, and use this issue as a personal vendetta against
the dept in general, but somewhere you need to grow up and become a little
more mature in your attitude.
As for the smug assertion you made relating to people being charged for
making a false complaint, yes indeed, but how do you address those with an
imagined grievance.
Present company the exception of course.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 1:27 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 13:27:54 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3nurq$j01$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> > You’re more confused than ever, sport.
> > If you’re going to ask a question then finish it off with a question
mark.
> > What you’re claiming there was said and wasn’t even suggested at all.
> > “If the complaint is proven to be a valid one”.
> > I don’t see what is so hard about it for you to understand that, but you
> > sure got fucked up over it anyway. For you to claim that I said that
all
> > complaints are valid ones, is completely stupid nonsense. The FACT that
I
> > said that people can be charged for making false complaints obviously
> never
> > got through to you.
> > Still, if you want to make a fool out of yourself I really don’t mind
one
> > little bit. Only as long as you keep choosing to supply the material
> > yourself in order to do it.
> > LOL
> > E. Scrooge
> Ok Scrooge, anyone who disagrees with your particular hobby horse you
label
> as a fool.
> A fool Scrooge is someone with such tunnel vision and narrow minded
> attitudes that they label an entire entity as evil and corrupt because of
> the actions of a tiny minority.
> If one carried your way of thinking into other professions a doctor struck
> of for misconduct would mean all the medical profession are suspect, as
> would be teachers, lawyers accountants etc, you must learn to distinguish
> the difference between the actions of the individual as against the
actions
> of an organization.
> I appreciate you are bitter about some previous contact with a problem or
> problems you may have had, and use this issue as a personal vendetta
against
> the dept in general, but somewhere you need to grow up and become a little
> more mature in your attitude.
> As for the smug assertion you made relating to people being charged for
> making a false complaint, yes indeed, but how do you address those with an
> imagined grievance.
> Present company the exception of course.
Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples posts
is a fool – just like you are in fact.
Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long.
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
Brian View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 3:39 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: Brian
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:39:02 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wrote:
>”henryboss” wrote in message
>news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
>> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
>> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
>> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
>> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
>> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA. Nothing
>> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me out
>of
>> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
>> > R
>> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
>No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
>commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
>committed. Do you see the difference?
Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 3:47 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 15:42:26 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 3:42 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“Brian” wrote in message
news:ubvu50l2ie1a5cgv12mkv262cebji130f4@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
> wrote:
> >”henryboss” wrote in message
> >news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> >> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> >> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> >> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> >> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> >> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
Nothing
> >> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
out
> >of
> >> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> >> > R
> >> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
> >No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
> >commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
> >committed. Do you see the difference?
> Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one you
hold.
You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing and
all knowing.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 4:57 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:57:03 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3oc0u$r8a$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “Brian” wrote in message
> news:ubvu50l2ie1a5cgv12mkv262cebji130f4@4ax.com…
> > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
> > wrote:
> > >”henryboss” wrote in message
> > >news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > >> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > >> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > >> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > >> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > >> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> Nothing
> > >> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk me
> out
> > >of
> > >> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > >> > R
> > >> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
> > >No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
> > >commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
> > >committed. Do you see the difference?
> > Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
> You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one you
> hold.
> You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing and
> all knowing.
It doesn’t come easy, but there just happens to be a few of us around,
sport.
Now what else can we help you with?
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
henryboss View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 7:09 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “henryboss”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:04:18 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 7:04 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“E. Scrooge” wrote in message
news:1080017829.496359@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “henryboss” wrote in message
> news:c3oc0u$r8a$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > “Brian” wrote in message
> > news:ubvu50l2ie1a5cgv12mkv262cebji130f4@4ax.com…
> > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 11:16:55 +1200, “Roger Dewhurst”
> > > wrote:
> > > >”henryboss” wrote in message
> > > >news:c3l14l$no0$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
> > > >> “Roger Dewhurst” wrote in message
> > > >> news:c3kqrm$5sh$1@news.wave.co.nz…
> > > >> > “nash_the_slash” wrote in message
> > > >> > news:1079891974.407550@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > >> > I reported a case of perjury by a Rotorua policeman to the PCA.
> > Nothing
> > > >> > happened other than another policeman turning up to try and talk
me
> > out
> > > >of
> > > >> > it. I did not even get a letter of acknowledgement.
> > > >> > R
> > > >> You mean alleged perjury don’t you,
> > > >No. I complained that perjury had been committed. Another person
> > > >commenting on that would say that I had alleged that perjury had been
> > > >committed. Do you see the difference?
> > > Based on the rest of his analysis, I suspect not.
> > You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one you
> > hold.
> > You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing
and
> > all knowing.
> It doesn’t come easy, but there just happens to be a few of us around,
> sport.
> Now what else can we help you with?
> E. Scrooge
> Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 23 2004, 7:22 pm
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:22:41 +1200
Local: Tues, Mar 23 2004 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
“henryboss” wrote in message
news:c3onr1$3o4$1@lust.ihug.co.nz…
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> “E. Scrooge” wrote in message
> news:1080017829.496359@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net…
> > > You mean no one else is allowed a differing point of view to the one
you
> > > hold.
> > > You must be an incredibly wealthy and successful man, being all seeing
> and
> > > all knowing.
> > It doesn’t come easy, but there just happens to be a few of us around,
> > sport.
> > Now what else can we help you with?
> > E. Scrooge
> > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
> untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
> Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
Any more good laughs, or that your best shot?
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
Joe View profile> Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples posts > is a fool – just like you are in fact. > Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long. > E. Scrooge fuk sake ducky … u deliberately screw what i post [ re your pathetic and insulting " all drugs are good and cool" drivel ] and then you type the above? youre a demented fool scrooge take a step back and look at what you actually say ……… i note you didnt show wherei said all drugs are good and cool thus youre a liar and a gutless little wimp who cannot apologise when wrong
More options Mar 24 2004, 7:58 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Joe”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 07:57:54 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 7:57 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples
posts
> is a fool – just like you are in fact.
> Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long.
> E. Scrooge
fuk sake ducky … u deliberately screw what i post [ re your pathetic and
insulting " all drugs are good and cool" drivel ] and then you type the
above?
youre a demented fool scrooge
take a step back and look at what you actually say ………
i note you didnt show wherei said all drugs are good and cool thus youre a
liar and a gutless little wimp who cannot apologise when wrong
Reply Reply to author Forward
Joe View profile> > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow, > untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt. > Sadly it would appear that they were correct. scrooge is a dipstick … he tried to say that i said all drugs are good and cool and when i asked him to show us all where i had said this [ i never did ] he just resorted to more ducky drivelling note that to date the liar and fool has not yet had the guts to apologise for ” screwing my posts and words with lies”
More options Mar 24 2004, 8:00 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Joe”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:00:33 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 8:00 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
> untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
> Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
scrooge is a dipstick … he tried to say that i said all drugs are good and
cool and when i asked him to show us all where i had said this [ i never
did ] he just resorted to more ducky drivelling
note that to date the liar and fool has not yet had the guts to apologise
for ” screwing my posts and words with lies”
Reply Reply to author Forward
Joe View profile> > > E. Scrooge > > > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow, > > untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt. > > Sadly it would appear that they were correct. > Any more good laughs, or that your best shot? > E. Scrooge certainly good enough for me … others .. not only I .. see the liar wimp for what he is a ducky in drivel street
More options Mar 24 2004, 8:01 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “Joe”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:01:12 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 8:01 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
> > > E. Scrooge
> > > Well Scrooge I have seen other posters suggest you are a little slow,
> > untill today I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
> > Sadly it would appear that they were correct.
> Any more good laughs, or that your best shot?
> E. Scrooge
certainly good enough for me … others .. not only I .. see the liar wimp
for what he is
a ducky in drivel street
Reply Reply to author Forward
E. Scrooge View profile
More options Mar 24 2004, 10:03 am
Newsgroups: nz.general
From: “E. Scrooge”
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:03:38 +1200
Local: Wed, Mar 24 2004 10:03 am
Subject: Re: Ex Police Officers admit to having seen wrong doing
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
“Joe” wrote in message news:4060ac52@news.orcon.net.nz…
> > Anyone that chooses to completely cock up the meaning of other peoples
> posts
> > is a fool – just like you are in fact.
> > Your pile of dribble was starting to get a bit long.
> > E. Scrooge
> fuk sake ducky … u deliberately screw what i post [ re your pathetic and
> insulting " all drugs are good and cool" drivel ] and then you type the
> above?
> youre a demented fool scrooge
> take a step back and look at what you actually say ………
> i note you didnt show wherei said all drugs are good and cool thus youre a
> liar and a gutless little wimp who cannot apologise when wrong
You’re an idiot. And what’s more you should be sorry for being an idiot.
No hurry though, you just apologise in your own little time.
E. Scrooge
Reply Reply to author Forward
June 18th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Can someone enlighten me on what the above crap is all about? Is this Shane doing his usual thing? I also read your blog, Louise and I’m not surprised he’s dragged this out to post. He certainly is the talk of the town- unfortunately all bad news. Robyn, you should have got out when you had the chance but now you will pay for your sins. He will up and leave you as he has done with all the others – speak up and disown him – you have the power to put him away for good, you will be punished as well, practice what you have always preached!! Shane you are a sad sad little person who has absolutley no creditability- piss off , no one will miss you.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
June 18, 2007
New Zealand Is BROKE – It’s OFFICIAL!
New Zealand is insolvent, financially destitute, broke, however you want to say it… we as a nation are up to our eyeballs in local and overseas debt!
No, this is not just another “Shane Wenzel conspiracy theory”… New Zealand is absolutely and utterly ‘down the proverbial gurgler!’
Just how much in-debt are we?
Well, since you’re keen to know, New Zealand’s total debt has now reached the princely sum of $263 billion! (*give or take a couple of bucks*).
Let’s look at the breakdown…
Currency in circulation:
New Zealand currently has approximately $3.5 billion in circulation. $2.9 billion of this is rolling around in our pockets, purses and wallets. The remaining $615 million can be found in banks.
Ok, so we have total overseas debt of $263 billion which is ever so slightly offset by monetary assets of $3.5 billion.
Wow! That cuts our national debt from $263 billion down to a more manageable $258.5 billion… NOT!
Evidence of Government Fraud:
Yes, a rather sensationalist statement to make, I agree. But get this, YOU DOUBTERS…
Transaction balances in New Zealand cheque accounts has reached a few dollars shy of $21 billion! EFTPOS accounts for another $13.6 billion!
Yet we’ve only got $3.5 billion to play with???
I was never in Einstein’s league at school, but even so… I smell the stench of Government fraud at work, here – in more ways than one!
Think about it…
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
Better still, imagine the New Zealand is a limited liability company and that Government are the directors. Then pretend you’ve secretly got hold of some very revealing company documents that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that…
New Zealand’s (company) trading capital = $3.5 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) creditors are owed $263 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) financial position = INSOLVENT!
New Zealand’s (company) trading status = still earning from exports, fees, charges and tax.
Ummm… call me a party pooper with a grudge, but…
If a “company” is trading as an insolvent, doesn’t that make the directors of that company party to fraud?
If the amount of the alleged fraud is $500,000 or greater, doesn’t that warrant Serious Fraud Office investigation?
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
June 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
June 15, 2007
New Zealand Bill of Rights = Bill of Wrongs!
What a pathetic waste of parchment paper the so-called New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is! Everywhere I look I see glaring examples of the Bill of Rights being breached… and no-one gives a damn!
Lets look at an example of what I mean:
Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion -
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference.
Seems fair enough at first glance. But where in the above clause does it say… “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief …EXCEPT CHILDREN???”
You see, we live in a society where many dozens of primary schools in this country of ours STILL practice a covert form of “religion in schools”. No, it’s not part of the curriculum as such – that was banned years ago. However, as long as the Board of Trustees agrees, ‘outsiders’ can be brought into the school as ‘invited guests’ for an hour or two each week to teach Christian beliefs and / or biblical history to these young, impressionable children.
I know of one example on the north shore of Auckland – Belmont Primary – where a non-staff member attends once a week and teaches ‘Bible” to all who want to listen.
“What’s the problem with that?” I hear you ask.
Kids are kids, for God’s sake! (no pun intended)… they like to hang with their friends and if their friends go, well, they go along too! The chap who teaches “Bible” to these kids at Belmont Primary does NOT teach the concept and / or history of religions (i.e. all religions) which, if he did, would be fine. He sticks to pure, blinkered (but often cleverly disguised) Christian doctrine from start to finish. The kids get to have fun i.e. they draw things and listen to stories etc.,… and so of course they’re going to like it!!!
They innocently accept every word this impressionable man says as being FACTUAL WITHOUT QUESTION!
Peer pressure-wise, many kids who would not normally go along to such a thing, feel compelled to… and that is not right.
Apart from the brain-washing aspects of it (given that small children cannot possibly be expected to form clear and well-rounded opinions and belief-systems for themselves), any form of religious instruction in public schools is a blatant breach of the Bill of Rights!
Why?
Because these kids DON’T have freedom of thought like the Bill of Rights claims they do – they have the thoughts, beliefs and religious fanatacisms of grown adults in positions of power rammed down their tiny throats each and every time they feel compelled to go!
I am not going to walk away from this topic. Tomorrow I will post another example of the New Zealand Bill of Rights being breached. In the meantime, share your thoughts about the above example by way of posting comments to this blog.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
June 9, 2007
Slot-Machine Addicts and the “Evil Paradox of Power”
PART TWO – Our Scripted Lives
I read a very disturbing article in the San Diego Union-Tribune today (“yes, I DO surf the web sometimes”); a true-life story about one woman’s losing battle with poker-machine addiction. She lost everything – and I mean EVERYTHING! But do you know the saddest part? She was 70-years old at the time!
Before going any further, especially since the topic of this article is so eerily relevant, please click here to read Dorothy’s pitiful story. The rest of my article won’t make a whole lot of sense unless you do.
Ok, so who’s really to blame here?
If you said “Dorothy”, well, you’d be right of course… but there’s something else happening here too. Something far bigger and far more sinister than this frail, 70-year old widow could ever have imagined.
Read on, it gets better – or uglier – depending on which way you look at it.
In America today, more than 6% of the population are regular gamblers of some kind – betting on everything from horses, baseball and lotteries through to slot-machines, roulette, poker… and even who’s going to win the next Presidential election!
Scarier still, just over 1.5% of the US population (from 15 years of age and up) are deemed to be suffering from one form or another of gambling addiction! Put another way, that amounts to roughly the population of New Zealand being in need of ongoing treatment for gambling addiction!
Gambling – the fastest growing addiction in the US…
Americans are all too familiar with their country’s major addictions: narcotics, alcohol, and tobacco. Society has spent hundreds of millions of dollars warning about these substances, and to be fair, the educational campaigns have had a marked effect.
Today, however, by far the fastest growing addiction in the U.S. is gambling. There are millions of adult pathological gamblers in America and, even more frightening as I alluded to above, millions of teenagers are also addicted!
And just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…
…now State governments have become chronic gambling “addicts as well!”
Individuals are definitely not alone in their addiction. State governments have become hopelessly hooked on the mega revenues derived from casinos, slot machines, keno, sports betting and lotto. Thus, instead of warning citizens, many governments are exploiting them! They ignore the appalling social costs brought about by state-authorized gambling because they need the cash to balance their budgets–at least, that’s THEIR story and they’re sticking to it!.
Twenty years ago, gambling casinos were prohibited in every state except Nevada. Just 13 states had lotteries. There was no such thing as an Indian casino. Altogether, Americans wagered about $17,000,000,000 (seventeen billion) on legal gambling
More than eight hundred and fifty billion dollars will be gambled by Americans this year!
Between 1976 – 1988, casinos were legalized in Atlantic City and the number of state lotteries more than doubled. Since 1988, 19 states legalized casinos and 10 legalized video poker or slot machines at racetracks and bars. All told, Americans will wager more than $852,000,000,000 (eight hundred and fifty two billion) on legal gambling this year–a 5,000% increase since 1976!!!
Seventeen billion of that staggering total will be from the pockets of chronically addicted gamblers!
Can you even begin to imagine the social carnage that will result from such a mind-numbing “loss” by the gambling addicts in society today?
How can a responsible, caring, “socially moralistic” government allow this to happen?
Too damn easy, actually! The net tax take from all the myriad of State and Federal taxes that apply to every level of gambling in the US makes it “FISCALLY INSANE” to ever outlaw it!
And now for that “evil paradox of power” I promised you in the Title…
In fact, let’s get all “Kiwi-ish” about it…
With regard to problem gambling in New Zealand today, don’t you find it even a little bit weird that on the one hand, we have the Ministry Of Health ‘tripping over itself’ to provide services for problem gamblers… while on the other hand, we have several other government and quasi-government departments ‘writing the script’ (so to speak) to ensure that problem (addicted) gamblers remain an integral part of our gambling community – and therefore a vital component of the gambling tax grab?
The Lotteries Commission, Department of Internal Affairs, Gambling Commission and Inland Revenue “take from us” (in one way or another) with open arms… while the Ministry of Health, Problem Gambling Foundation and Oasis “give” (or create the “illusion” of “giving”) with just as much bravado!
So, here’s the thing…
If – as we know it is – “gambling” (in particular, poker or slot-machine gambling) is so self-destructive on so many levels – both individually and as a nation – WHY THE HELL DO WE PERMIT ITS EXISTANCE AT ALL???
Surely, you find it morally, spiritually, ethically and logically reprehensible for a government – especially our own one – to perpetuate the “myth of compassion” for our addicted gambling population while they – the government – keep the addiction “live and well” by never trying TOO hard to cure it?
This is the stuff that “Yes Prime Minister” once featured on good old UK TV!
Those selfish, greed driven bastards in Wellington (and, dare I say it, in most other parts of the western world) spend most of their waking hours trying to dream up new and improved ways to obliterate us financially.
What’s with a government that provides all the support systems, tools, legislation and environment for the enjoyment of gambling by the confused masses… when at exactly the same time , it is providing support systems for the tens of thousands in New Zealand who, by definition, are flocking to those government-supported “gambling environs” only to become unwitting victims of the very (gambling-oriented) policies put out there by the goverment in the first place?
My God, what chance did poor little Dorothy have – I mean, REALLY!
How do YOU feel about all this? Why do you think the government persists in this sinister, paradoxical manner? Please share your thoughts and opinions by clicking on “Comment” below this post.
June 18th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
How dare you use the term “we NZer’s”!! in your above bullshit. Where do you get off – yo are an Aussie git and will always be. You talk about taking advantage of ordinary Kiwis- my word you ahve a cheek, youre damn right, we don’t need to like you – you got that one boyo.
You can’t even be original – that is not your writing , just taken from someone else like everything else you have forced down peoples throats. You can’t put two words together on paper so stop the plagarism. For gods sake man, grow up and do us all a favour, fly yourself into space and don’t come back. You know the sad thing is, no one will miss you at all. How pathetic is that.
June 18th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Christopher,
What a sad pathetic attempt to take the spot light of you and your cronies and crooks. You silly sad pathetic little man
Haunted by your past and you Father.
You perverse sick individual. You have the gall and foolishness to challenge God. You have no idea what is in the bible and what constitutes faith in God. You are currently so far removed from Him you stand on the right hand side of Satin himself
Repent, repent repent you sinner and seek forgiveness from God, then man. Restore what you have thieved and put right what you have destroyed
The fiery pit awaits Christopher Charles Wenzel as you know it does. You may run from the law but there is no escaping God
June 19th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
WENZEL – Shane, Christopher or whatever the hell your name is? if you are so off put by NZ, its people, its government, its judicary system, eduction system etc; there is an easy solution – Piss Off! too scared to go back to Aussie though aren’t you? so many people over there waiting to string you up! well thats ok keep sitting here in what you think is ‘safe’ NZ – from the sound of some of the above posts you won’t have long to wait until Aussie comes to you.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Alas, We too were fooled by Jabba the Hutt to the tune of $40,000.We have been contacted by the Serious Fraud Office and have signed an agreement under the Official Secrets Act. So, all we can say here is that ALL the complaints posted here are true in our experience of Jabba and his cronies.
We will be in court to see him meet his end and relish the thought of him baring his fat arse to the “boys” inside.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:25 am
June 18, 2007
New Zealand Is BROKE – It’s OFFICIAL!
New Zealand is insolvent, financially destitute, broke, however you want to say it… we as a nation are up to our eyeballs in local and overseas debt!
No, this is not just another “Shane Wenzel conspiracy theory”… New Zealand is absolutely and utterly ‘down the proverbial gurgler!’
Just how much in-debt are we?
Well, since you’re keen to know, New Zealand’s total debt has now reached the princely sum of $263 billion! (*give or take a couple of bucks*).
Let’s look at the breakdown…
Currency in circulation:
New Zealand currently has approximately $3.5 billion in circulation. $2.9 billion of this is rolling around in our pockets, purses and wallets. The remaining $615 million can be found in banks.
Ok, so we have total overseas debt of $263 billion which is ever so slightly offset by monetary assets of $3.5 billion.
Wow! That cuts our national debt from $263 billion down to a more manageable $258.5 billion… NOT!
Evidence of Government Fraud:
Yes, a rather sensationalist statement to make, I agree. But get this, YOU DOUBTERS…
Transaction balances in New Zealand cheque accounts has reached a few dollars shy of $21 billion! EFTPOS accounts for another $13.6 billion!
Yet we’ve only got $3.5 billion to play with???
I was never in Einstein’s league at school, but even so… I smell the stench of Government fraud at work, here – in more ways than one!
Think about it…
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
Better still, imagine the New Zealand is a limited liability company and that Government are the directors. Then pretend you’ve secretly got hold of some very revealing company documents that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that…
New Zealand’s (company) trading capital = $3.5 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) creditors are owed $263 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) financial position = INSOLVENT!
New Zealand’s (company) trading status = still earning from exports, fees, charges and tax.
Ummm… call me a party pooper with a grudge, but…
If a “company” is trading as an insolvent, doesn’t that make the directors of that company party to fraud?
If the amount of the alleged fraud is $500,000 or greater, doesn’t that warrant Serious Fraud Office investigation?
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
June 20th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I say again WENZEL – Piss off back to Aussie no one wants you here except a few sad people like Robyn, Jose and Dianna. But hey did you know that Robyn had wanted out but was in so deep with you she didn’t know how to escape? hard to swallow oh great fraud isn’t it but I know because she shared her concerns with me so weather you believe that or not is neither here nor there because I know its true. I guess you cant go to Aussie as your passport has been taken away, come on now whats your 5 solutions? Maybe Robyn will make for the door while your locked up, God she could turn evidence on you thats a frightening thought for you an informant from within but needs must. Better start tightening those thumb screws, applying psychological pressure or you could find your closest cronies becoming your worst enemies? Survival is what it comes down to, they will have only 2 choices really go down with you or turn on you and then salvage what life they can back while you rot in jail. Oh you will never know, like your claim to fame you have taught them well, they are excellent con artists, scammers and liars the time could come when the pupils turn on thier teacher using the skills taught to them – watch your back?
anon you are not alone quite a few of us will give evidence.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Can someone please tell me when this little arsehole will appear in court? I and a few of my friends who were so unlucky to have met this insect( didn’t fool us though)and are desperate to see him squirm and go down big time. He does need a cheering party.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
well Christopher,
Seems to me that over 130 people have CALLED IT and all you can do BEDS. Pathetic. You have given up so now all you can do is post nonsensical rubbish on this blog in an effort to hide what people have said about you. The information is of course not yours, stollen from elsewhere with no acknoledgement, how very you.
With your team, they will eventually turn on you, you coward. You will eventually drop them in it one by one. They are the directors and they will carry the can.
The line of people queuing up to give evidence just grows and grows.
Jee is next, they are looking for your you Jee. papes are waiting for you Jee. Get out man, you have a wonderful partner and lovely children, why are you wanting to swap that for bars, or is that the idea, Christopher knows where he is going and he wants you to Keep his ring in one piece in there, is that it Jee and he has sold you a crock to get you to do it. He is going to loose it all, there will be nothing Jee,nothing, get out man.
I have heard that after several little sessions with the “boys” it is never the same Christopher and many are then incontinent for life. How just………literally shitting your pants for the rest of your life just like you did at home……..you naughty little boy, just wait till the judge gets to you, then the boys will get to you then the reception committee in Oz will have a turn. They have been given contacts and will wait their turn for your deportation there. No one will know when you fart any more Christopher. It will be so damaged they will simply escape with out a noise at all.
Nasty word that…Karma……..gets you every time. Its those three fingers that you always forgot about Christopher isn’t it boyo. The ones that are always pointing to YOU
June 20th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Interesting “called”. I have it on very good inside information that when THE FAT BASTARD was confronted by the cops a few years ago after intimidating some older people and threatening to burn their house down he literally pissed his pants during the interrogation! I would love to be a fly on the wall inside the jail but who would really want to watch a fat prick like him getting f***ed up the arse and pissing his pants at the same time? I also know that re the Kiosaki thing that he may have attended one of his courses once. To think that he claimed to have taught him is more of an indication of how deluded he really is. And the fact that he is watching this blog and replying also indicates that he knows he is under seige. His whole so called “theories” come from his past associations with “disfellowed” Scientologists. This is where he has gained most of his so called information. He has also plagiaried information from a genuine program that used to run here called Money & You. This was first brought to NZ by Kiosaki in the 80′s. He did one course I think and then just used and abused the info to his own warped ends. He is a complete and utter fraud. Thousands of people went through that program in the hope that they could run it themselves. I think about five only made it. He was’nt one of them! He wouldn’t have been able to put up with he scrutiny that was required of those five. Hence, he decided to go alone and bastardise some fantastic info and use it to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of anyone who came across his path. The Scientologists have a methodology to deal with what they call “black PR” .. if someone attacks you then you hit back with whatever you can to discredit them. So look back at previous entries and you will see vieled threats about “does your husband know?” etc. It is a very obvious game if you know this little c***t’s background. Also, if he is deported back to Australia the good news is that there are a lot of the “boys” waiting to meet him at the airport. Keep up the good work all of you. There is a time for every season under heaven!
June 21st, 2007 at 1:26 am
A question to the owner of this blog. Can you somwehow delete the bullshit posts. eg. all that police bullshit so we can get on with this fascinating story of the FAT MAN’s demise?
It is obviously an attempt to discourage people from following the whole sad sorry story.
Ohh .. and I have much much more to come about these f****er’s
And Robyn Case may appear the innocent here but let me tell you this …. she sleeps with the FAT BASTARD … and her husband and the FATHER of her children knows this and ALLOWS this to occur … and she ALLOWS the FAT BASTARD to control HER children! She is f****ed in the head thanks to Jabba The Hutt. If only she had a mind of her own. Gone now for all eternity. Bad luck Robyn… shame about your children… how could you have done that? As you know there are allegations of peodophile activities about the FAT BASTARD in Australia and you knew about these at least three years ago!
June 21st, 2007 at 9:27 am
Anon – thats really interesting (allegations of peodophillia) I had wondered about that when I watched the way he controlled and bullied any children within the organisation? he seems to get a warped satisfaction out of inflicting cruelty on to children a sure sign of the possibility of being a peodophile. the most shocking thing is that the parents of these children just stand back and let it happen?
June 21st, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Dianna, this is why your daughter hates him
Jee some one said you where going to let him take your daughter to Oz………what did he do there Jee.
Is this why he has children sitting on his knee all the time
Is this why you are celibate Shane/Christopher, you prefer defenceless children instead?????
You are unbelievable. Never mind your ring Wensel you are dead when you get inside. That is assuming that you reach there and no one gets you before
June 21st, 2007 at 6:44 pm
June 18, 2007
New Zealand Is BROKE – It’s OFFICIAL!
New Zealand is insolvent, financially destitute, broke, however you want to say it… we as a nation are up to our eyeballs in local and overseas debt!
No, this is not just another “Shane Wenzel conspiracy theory”… New Zealand is absolutely and utterly ‘down the proverbial gurgler!’
Just how much in-debt are we?
Well, since you’re keen to know, New Zealand’s total debt has now reached the princely sum of $263 billion! (*give or take a couple of bucks*).
Let’s look at the breakdown…
Currency in circulation:
New Zealand currently has approximately $3.5 billion in circulation. $2.9 billion of this is rolling around in our pockets, purses and wallets. The remaining $615 million can be found in banks.
Ok, so we have total overseas debt of $263 billion which is ever so slightly offset by monetary assets of $3.5 billion.
Wow! That cuts our national debt from $263 billion down to a more manageable $258.5 billion… NOT!
Evidence of Government Fraud:
Yes, a rather sensationalist statement to make, I agree. But get this, YOU DOUBTERS…
Transaction balances in New Zealand cheque accounts has reached a few dollars shy of $21 billion! EFTPOS accounts for another $13.6 billion!
Yet we’ve only got $3.5 billion to play with???
I was never in Einstein’s league at school, but even so… I smell the stench of Government fraud at work, here – in more ways than one!
Think about it…
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
Better still, imagine the New Zealand is a limited liability company and that Government are the directors. Then pretend you’ve secretly got hold of some very revealing company documents that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that…
New Zealand’s (company) trading capital = $3.5 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) creditors are owed $263 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) financial position = INSOLVENT!
New Zealand’s (company) trading status = still earning from exports, fees, charges and tax.
Ummm… call me a party pooper with a grudge, but…
If a “company” is trading as an insolvent, doesn’t that make the directors of that company party to fraud?
If the amount of the alleged fraud is $500,000 or greater, doesn’t that warrant Serious Fraud Office investigation?
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
June 21st, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I say again WENZEL – Piss off back to Aussie no one wants you here except a few sad people like Robyn, Jose and Dianna. But hey did you know that Robyn had wanted out but was in so deep with you she didn’t know how to escape? hard to swallow oh great fraud isn’t it but I know because she shared her concerns with me so weather you believe that or not is neither here nor there because I know its true. I guess you cant go to Aussie as your passport has been taken away, come on now whats your 5 solutions? Maybe Robyn will make for the door while your locked up, God she could turn evidence on you thats a frightening thought for you an informant from within but needs must. Better start tightening those thumb screws, applying psychological pressure or you could find your closest cronies becoming your worst enemies? Survival is what it comes down to, they will have only 2 choices really go down with you or turn on you and then salvage what life they can back while you rot in jail. Oh you will never know, like your claim to fame you have taught them well, they are excellent con artists, scammers and liars the time could come when the pupils turn on thier teacher using the skills taught to them – watch your back?
anon you are not alone quite a few of us will give evidence.
Posted by Contractor | June 20, 2007 10:03 AM
Posted on June 20, 2007 10:03
yippee:
Can someone please tell me when this little arsehole will appear in court? I and a few of my friends who were so unlucky to have met this insect( didn’t fool us though)and are desperate to see him squirm and go down big time. He does need a cheering party.
Posted by yippee | June 20, 2007 12:57 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 12:57
called:
well Christopher,
Seems to me that over 130 people have CALLED IT and all you can do BEDS. Pathetic. You have given up so now all you can do is post nonsensical rubbish on this blog in an effort to hide what people have said about you. The information is of course not yours, stollen from elsewhere with no acknoledgement, how very you.
With your team, they will eventually turn on you, you coward. You will eventually drop them in it one by one. They are the directors and they will carry the can.
The line of people queuing up to give evidence just grows and grows.
Jee is next, they are looking for your you Jee. papes are waiting for you Jee. Get out man, you have a wonderful partner and lovely children, why are you wanting to swap that for bars, or is that the idea, Christopher knows where he is going and he wants you to Keep his ring in one piece in there, is that it Jee and he has sold you a crock to get you to do it. He is going to loose it all, there will be nothing Jee,nothing, get out man.
I have heard that after several little sessions with the “boys” it is never the same Christopher and many are then incontinent for life. How just………literally shitting your pants for the rest of your life just like you did at home……..you naughty little boy, just wait till the judge gets to you, then the boys will get to you then the reception committee in Oz will have a turn. They have been given contacts and will wait their turn for your deportation there. No one will know when you fart any more Christopher. It will be so damaged they will simply escape with out a noise at all.
Nasty word that…Karma……..gets you every time. Its those three fingers that you always forgot about Christopher isn’t it boyo. The ones that are always pointing to YOU
Posted by called | June 20, 2007 4:46 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 16:46
anon:
Interesting “called”. I have it on very good inside information that when THE FAT BASTARD was confronted by the cops a few years ago after intimidating some older people and threatening to burn their house down he literally pissed his pants during the interrogation! I would love to be a fly on the wall inside the jail but who would really want to watch a fat prick like him getting f***ed up the arse and pissing his pants at the same time? I also know that re the Kiosaki thing that he may have attended one of his courses once. To think that he claimed to have taught him is more of an indication of how deluded he really is. And the fact that he is watching this blog and replying also indicates that he knows he is under seige. His whole so called “theories” come from his past associations with “disfellowed” Scientologists. This is where he has gained most of his so called information. He has also plagiaried information from a genuine program that used to run here called Money & You. This was first brought to NZ by Kiosaki in the 80′s. He did one course I think and then just used and abused the info to his own warped ends. He is a complete and utter fraud. Thousands of people went through that program in the hope that they could run it themselves. I think about five only made it. He was’nt one of them! He wouldn’t have been able to put up with he scrutiny that was required of those five. Hence, he decided to go alone and bastardise some fantastic info and use it to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of anyone who came across his path. The Scientologists have a methodology to deal with what they call “black PR” .. if someone attacks you then you hit back with whatever you can to discredit them. So look back at previous entries and you will see vieled threats about “does your husband know?” etc. It is a very obvious game if you know this little c***t’s background. Also, if he is deported back to Australia the good news is that there are a lot of the “boys” waiting to meet him at the airport. Keep up the good work all of you. There is a time for every season under heaven!
Posted by anon | June 20, 2007 11:14 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 23:14
anon:
A question to the owner of this blog. Can you somwehow delete the bullshit posts. eg. all that police bullshit so we can get on with this fascinating story of the FAT MAN’s demise?
It is obviously an attempt to discourage people from following the whole sad sorry story.
Ohh .. and I have much much more to come about these f****er’s
And Robyn Case may appear the innocent here but let me tell you this …. she sleeps with the FAT BASTARD … and her husband and the FATHER of her children knows this and ALLOWS this to occur … and she ALLOWS the FAT BASTARD to control HER children! She is f****ed in the head thanks to Jabba The Hutt. If only she had a mind of her own. Gone now for all eternity. Bad luck Robyn… shame about your children… how could you have done that? As you know there are allegations of peodophile activities about the FAT BASTARD in Australia and you knew about these at least three years ago!
Posted by anon | June 21, 2007 1:26 AM
Posted on June 21, 2007 01:26
contractor:
Anon – thats really interesting (allegations of peodophillia) I had wondered about that when I watched the way he controlled and bullied any children within the organisation? he seems to get a warped satisfaction out of inflicting cruelty on to children a sure sign of the possibility of being a peodophile. the most shocking thing is that the parents of these children just stand back and let it happen?
Posted by contractor | June 21, 2007 9:27 AM
Posted on June 21, 2007 09:27
Observer:
Dianna, this is why your daughter hates him
Jee some one said you where going to let him take your daughter to Oz………what did he do there Jee.
Is this why he has children sitting on his knee all the time
Is this why you are celibate Shane/Christopher, you prefer defenceless children instead?????
You are unbelievable. Never mind your ring Wensel you are dead when you get inside. That is assuming that you reach there and no one gets you before
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 am
Ask the FAT BASTARD about him and his dodgy lawyer who are both about to appear on fraud charges next month! The FAT MAN sucked in another wanker who went along with his dodgy GST rip off scams and now finds himself in the dock alongside Jabba the Hutt. They will look like bookends up there. Two short fat men sweating profusely and picking their noses. And then there is the peodophile stuff yet to come out. And we all know what happens to those pricks once they are inside! Even the meanest of the mean make sure they get ANYONE who messes with kids.Hey Shane … how did all this happen? Is it all just a big conspiracy? Or do you think you might have to take just a smidgen of responsibility here? Just a little bit? Go on .. accept that you have had something to do with this f***k up.Just a little bit? No … I didn’t think so. You are just a por misunderstood genius who has deluded himself into believing his own bullshit to the point that you don’t know what is real anymore. Hey .. here’s an idea! You could always plead insanity! Everyone would agree and you wouldn’t have to go in with the big boys … just the other nutters like like you … you know .. the Napoleons, Jesus Christ and the rest of them walking around in their pajamas! LMAO.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm
June 22, 2007
2,500 Complaints Against New Zealand Police!
If you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The New Zealand Police Complaints Authority (PCA) had received a staggering 2,500 complaints lodged as of May 2001.
“So, what relevance is 6 year-old information?”, you may ask.
That’s easy…
SIX YEARS LATER THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE JUST ‘KEEP ON KEEPING ON!’
Rape, sexual assault, pepper spray assault, downloading of internet porn, viewing of beastiality videos,jail cell assaults, theft, burglary, possession of drugs; the list keeps growing!
Why do we tolerate it?
Why, six years after Phil Goff launched an enquiry into complaints against NZ Police are the crimes and allegations of crimescontinuing to mount?
Why is it that the very members of parliament we entrust with ‘managing the country and the people within it’ are utterly inconsequential when it comes to effecting change where change is so badly needed i.e. in a corrupt Police force?
How is it that the Police can ‘get away with’ such an extraordinary – and obvious – record of “protecting their own officers from criminal investigation and / or convictions when charges ARE brought against them?”
Why are we so quick to complain against the Police and yet equally as quick to accept the inevitable whitewashes that take place following an investigation?
If you’ve got a complaint of your own against the NZ Police, then click on this link right here and follow the instructions. Once you’ve done that, ponder the following suggested theme for the next well-known brand (of beer) billboard commercial…
NZ Police are the most law-abiding
cops in the world.
Yeah right.
Tu tru
http://www.shanewenzel.com
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
say again WENZEL – Piss off back to Aussie no one wants you here except a few sad people like Robyn, Jose and Dianna. But hey did you know that Robyn had wanted out but was in so deep with you she didn’t know how to escape? hard to swallow oh great fraud isn’t it but I know because she shared her concerns with me so weather you believe that or not is neither here nor there because I know its true. I guess you cant go to Aussie as your passport has been taken away, come on now whats your 5 solutions? Maybe Robyn will make for the door while your locked up, God she could turn evidence on you thats a frightening thought for you an informant from within but needs must. Better start tightening those thumb screws, applying psychological pressure or you could find your closest cronies becoming your worst enemies? Survival is what it comes down to, they will have only 2 choices really go down with you or turn on you and then salvage what life they can back while you rot in jail. Oh you will never know, like your claim to fame you have taught them well, they are excellent con artists, scammers and liars the time could come when the pupils turn on thier teacher using the skills taught to them – watch your back?
anon you are not alone quite a few of us will give evidence.
Posted by Contractor | June 20, 2007 10:03 AM
Posted on June 20, 2007 10:03
yippee:
Can someone please tell me when this little arsehole will appear in court? I and a few of my friends who were so unlucky to have met this insect( didn’t fool us though)and are desperate to see him squirm and go down big time. He does need a cheering party.
Posted by yippee | June 20, 2007 12:57 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 12:57
called:
well Christopher,
Seems to me that over 130 people have CALLED IT and all you can do BEDS. Pathetic. You have given up so now all you can do is post nonsensical rubbish on this blog in an effort to hide what people have said about you. The information is of course not yours, stollen from elsewhere with no acknoledgement, how very you.
With your team, they will eventually turn on you, you coward. You will eventually drop them in it one by one. They are the directors and they will carry the can.
The line of people queuing up to give evidence just grows and grows.
Jee is next, they are looking for your you Jee. papes are waiting for you Jee. Get out man, you have a wonderful partner and lovely children, why are you wanting to swap that for bars, or is that the idea, Christopher knows where he is going and he wants you to Keep his ring in one piece in there, is that it Jee and he has sold you a crock to get you to do it. He is going to loose it all, there will be nothing Jee,nothing, get out man.
I have heard that after several little sessions with the “boys” it is never the same Christopher and many are then incontinent for life. How just………literally shitting your pants for the rest of your life just like you did at home……..you naughty little boy, just wait till the judge gets to you, then the boys will get to you then the reception committee in Oz will have a turn. They have been given contacts and will wait their turn for your deportation there. No one will know when you fart any more Christopher. It will be so damaged they will simply escape with out a noise at all.
Nasty word that…Karma……..gets you every time. Its those three fingers that you always forgot about Christopher isn’t it boyo. The ones that are always pointing to YOU
Posted by called | June 20, 2007 4:46 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 16:46
anon:
Interesting “called”. I have it on very good inside information that when THE FAT BASTARD was confronted by the cops a few years ago after intimidating some older people and threatening to burn their house down he literally pissed his pants during the interrogation! I would love to be a fly on the wall inside the jail but who would really want to watch a fat prick like him getting f***ed up the arse and pissing his pants at the same time? I also know that re the Kiosaki thing that he may have attended one of his courses once. To think that he claimed to have taught him is more of an indication of how deluded he really is. And the fact that he is watching this blog and replying also indicates that he knows he is under seige. His whole so called “theories” come from his past associations with “disfellowed” Scientologists. This is where he has gained most of his so called information. He has also plagiaried information from a genuine program that used to run here called Money & You. This was first brought to NZ by Kiosaki in the 80′s. He did one course I think and then just used and abused the info to his own warped ends. He is a complete and utter fraud. Thousands of people went through that program in the hope that they could run it themselves. I think about five only made it. He was’nt one of them! He wouldn’t have been able to put up with he scrutiny that was required of those five. Hence, he decided to go alone and bastardise some fantastic info and use it to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of anyone who came across his path. The Scientologists have a methodology to deal with what they call “black PR” .. if someone attacks you then you hit back with whatever you can to discredit them. So look back at previous entries and you will see vieled threats about “does your husband know?” etc. It is a very obvious game if you know this little c***t’s background. Also, if he is deported back to Australia the good news is that there are a lot of the “boys” waiting to meet him at the airport. Keep up the good work all of you. There is a time for every season under heaven!
Posted by anon | June 20, 2007 11:14 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 23:14
anon:
A question to the owner of this blog. Can you somwehow delete the bullshit posts. eg. all that police bullshit so we can get on with this fascinating story of the FAT MAN’s demise?
It is obviously an attempt to discourage people from following the whole sad sorry story.
Ohh .. and I have much much more to come about these f****er’s
And Robyn Case may appear the innocent here but let me tell you this …. she sleeps with the FAT BASTARD … and her husband and the FATHER of her children knows this and ALLOWS this to occur … and she ALLOWS the FAT BASTARD to control HER children! She is f****ed in the head thanks to Jabba The Hutt. If only she had a mind of her own. Gone now for all eternity. Bad luck Robyn… shame about your children… how could you have done that? As you know there are allegations of peodophile activities about the FAT BASTARD in Australia and you knew about these at least three years ago!
Posted by anon | June 21, 2007 1:26 AM
Posted on June 21, 2007 01:26
contractor:
Anon – thats really interesting (allegations of peodophillia) I had wondered about that when I watched the way he controlled and bullied any children within the organisation? he seems to get a warped satisfaction out of inflicting cruelty on to children a sure sign of the possibility of being a peodophile. the most shocking thing is that the parents of these children just stand back and let it happen?
Posted by contractor | June 21, 2007 9:27 AM
Posted on June 21, 2007 09:27
Observer:
Dianna, this is why your daughter hates him
Jee some one said you where going to let him take your daughter to Oz………what did he do there Jee.
Is this why he has children sitting on his knee all the time
Is this why you are celibate Shane/Christopher, you prefer defenceless children instead?????
You are unbelievable. Never mind your ring Wensel you are dead when you get inside. That is assuming that you reach there and no one gets you before
Posted by playitagiansam | June 21, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on June 21, 2007 20:16
anon:
Ask the FAT BASTARD about him and his dodgy lawyer who are both about to appear on fraud charges next month! The FAT MAN sucked in another wanker who went along with his dodgy GST rip off scams and now finds himself in the dock alongside Jabba the Hutt. They will look like bookends up there. Two short fat men sweating profusely and picking their noses. And then there is the peodophile stuff yet to come out. And we all know what happens to those pricks once they are inside! Even the meanest of the mean make sure they get ANYONE who messes with kids.Hey Shane … how did all this happen? Is it all just a big conspiracy? Or do you think you might have to take just a smidgen of responsibility here? Just a little bit? Go on .. accept that you have had something to do with this f***k up.Just a little bit? No … I didn’t think so. You are just a por misunderstood genius who has deluded himself into believing his own bullshit to the point that you don’t know what is real anymore. Hey .. here’s an idea! You could always plead insanity! Everyone would agree and you wouldn’t have to go in with the big boys … just the other nutters like like you … you know .. the Napoleons, Jesus Christ and the rest of them walking around in their pajamas! LMAO.
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
It all makes sense now, Christopher. Just why your family hates you along with evey one else it seems. Not only did you rip them off you you where fiddliing with their children as well
What a brillient scheme buying KAPAI the book Christopher. Surrounded by children, you can pick and choose your favourite ones, tell me which do you like best, boys or girls. What age is best Christopher? younger the better I guess then they are easier pray for you. No wonder Marlana hates you. There you go I have answered my own question, you like girls. Hey Jee how are your daughters, talked to them lately, any sudden changes in them recently. Mind you, you get on well with Robyns son too so perhaps you are AC DC afer all Christopher no need to be fussy, sex is sex is it not. Just a word you used until we learnt the truth behind it all eh Wensel. Some one should write to he publishers and tell them just who owns Kapai and just who he is
No wonder you like Jackson he likes children too
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Shane, you certainly have some enemies, thats not a good thing, especially as those enemies feel so much animosity towards you. Although I have never met you, I can’t help wondering if you a a genius as Robyn says, or wether you are a con man as the posters here say. You certainly are in trouble with 19 cases of fraud to answer, in the high court! Wow. Perhaps you are just misguided, as most people know, the only way to change a system is from the inside, not fighting it.
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Shane, you certainly have some enemies, thats not a good thing, especially as those enemies feel so much animosity towards you. Although I have never met you, I can’t help wondering if you a a genius as Robyn says, or wether you are a con man as the posters here say. You certainly are in trouble with 19 cases of fraud to answer, in the high court! Wow. Perhaps you are just misguided, as most people know, the only way to change a system is from the inside, not fighting it.
June 28th, 2007 at 2:56 am
Here you go all you good people.
Manakau District Court 23rd July 2007
Serious Fraud Office vs Shane Wenzel & Edward Doherty his shonky solicitor ….
Let’s see you get out of this one asshole!
June 28th, 2007 at 3:03 am
Here you go all you good people.
Manakau District Court 23rd July 2007
Serious Fraud Office vs Shane Wenzel & Edward Doherty his shonky solicitor ….
Let’s see you get out of this one asshole!
June 28th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Robyn Case
Banned from being a dirrector for three years
You naughty girl Robyn. Why do you listen to that idiot. Your greed has doomed you
June 28th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Robyn Case
Banned from being a dirrector for three years
You naughty girl Robyn. Why do you listen to that idiot. Your greed has doomed you
June 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
June 27, 2007
“His Brains Fried For 13 Minutes!” – The Fiery Execution Of Jesse Tafero
When I first heard about the terrifying, inhumane, ‘botched’ execution (by electric chair) of Jessie Tafero, I almost wept! No-one deserved to die that way, no matter what he’d done.
Jessie Tafero had spent 14 years on death row for shooting two Florida policemen to death back in 1976. His last desperate appeal finally ran out in early 1990… and in the true spirit of American justice, he was put to death courtesy of “Old Sparky” on May 4 of that year.
The life and death of Jesse Tafero is just one of countless hundreds of stories about convicted murderers going to their deaths at the hands of the American justice system. Hundreds more await their fate even as I type this blog post.
So, without meaning to belittle the man, what was so special about Jesse Tafero?
For starters… Jesse’s final terrifying, blood-boiling, head-smoking, brain-frying moments in that Florida State electric chair were stretched out for thirteen and a half agonizing minutes. That’s how long it took for Jesse Tafero’s heart to finally stop beating.
Worse still… the electrocution – normally resulting in a ‘near instant’ death – went terribly, terribly wrong that fateful Spring morning. The executioner had to stop and then restart the massive 2,200 volt surge of lethal electric current into Jesse’s body a total of three times!
But much, much worse than the horror you’re feeling now as you read this gruesome true story, came the most awful, unforgiveable revelation of all…
Jesse Tafero was INNOCENT!!!
He, along with his wife – Sonia “Sunny” Jacobs – had been framed for double-murder and sentenced to death by one of the most evil and corrupt justice systems on earth!
In an ironic twist, even though Jesse died in vain – the unwitting fall-guy for the real killer, Walter rhodes – his poignant life and tragic demise ‘lives on’ through the crusades for justice spear-headed by Sunny.
The Jesse Tafero and Sunny Jacobs story epitimizes the darkest depths that the American justice system has stooped to. Sunny herself was sentenced to die for the same crime Jesse was framed for. The only difference being that after five years in absolute isolation on Florida’s death row, her sentence was commuted to life.
A decade later, two years after her beloved husband ‘thrashed and strained and convulsed and burned’ to death in that horrifically ‘botched’ execution, Sunny was finally released.
No matter how busy you are right now; no matter how important it is for you to STOP reading and log off; no matter how early or late it is; no matter whether you condone or oppose the death sentence; no matter who you are or where you live…
… take the time to click on the link below and watch and listen to Sunny Jacobs as she tells HER and JESSE’S incredible story of injustice, courtesy of TV1:
http://xrl.us/SunnyJacobsVideo
If this story touches you in the way it touched me, share your thoughts and feelings in a comment (See “Comments” link below)
June 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
DILLIGAF Shane, stop changing the subject you fat asshole. You ARE NOT innocent and neither are Robyn, Jose or Dianna. Justice WILL be served and we will all be there to laugh and jeer at you when it happens. You are a con man and I am ashamed to have been sucked in by you
July 1st, 2007 at 10:46 am
woods just been seved with papers
Next ,who wants to test there allegations (fact or fiction )and back it up with some money if they loose or are your allegations like your name fiction The
July 1st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
Miss RICH WONT ANSWER QUESTIONS ???
SHE CANT READ CONTRACTS ???
IS she NOT trying to decieve the the PUBLIC of the facts?
June 18, 2007
New Zealand Is BROKE – It’s OFFICIAL!
New Zealand is insolvent, financially destitute, broke, however you want to say it… we as a nation are up to our eyeballs in local and overseas debt!
No, this is not just another “Shane Wenzel conspiracy theory”… New Zealand is absolutely and utterly ‘down the proverbial gurgler!’ Don’t believe me? Hey, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand just published the proof!
Just how much in-debt are we?
Well, since you’re keen to know, New Zealand’s total debt has now reached the princely sum of $263 billion! (*give or take a couple of bucks*).
Let’s look at the breakdown…
Currency in circulation:
New Zealand currently has approximately $3.5 billion in circulation. $2.9 billion of this is rolling around in our pockets, purses and wallets. The remaining $615 million can be found in banks.
Ok, so we have total overseas debt of $263 billion which is ever so slightly offset by monetary assets of $3.5 billion.
Wow! That cuts our national debt from $263 billion down to a more manageable $258.5 billion… NOT!
Evidence of Government Fraud:
Yes, a rather sensationalist statement to make, I agree. But get this, YOU DOUBTERS…
Transaction balances in New Zealand cheque accounts has reached a few dollars shy of $21 billion! EFTPOS accounts for another $13.6 billion!
Yet we’ve only got $3.5 billion to play with???
I was never in Einstein’s league at school, but even so… I smell the stench of Government fraud at work, here – in more ways than one!
Think about it…
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
Better still, imagine the New Zealand is a limited liability company and that Government are the directors. Then pretend you’ve secretly got hold of some very revealing company documents that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that…
New Zealand’s (company) trading capital = $3.5 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) creditors are owed $263 billion.
New Zealand’s (company) financial position = INSOLVENT!
New Zealand’s (company) trading status = still earning from exports, fees, charges and tax.
Ummm… call me a party pooper with a grudge, but…
If a company is still trading when it is deemed to be insolvent, doesn’t that make the directors of that company party to fraud?
If the amount of the alleged fraud is $500,000 or greater, doesn’t that warrant Serious Fraud Office investigation?
If we only have $3.5 billion in currency circulation and yet we honour EFTPOS transactions and cheque account balances totalling $21 billion, doesn’t that make suggest that EITHER the Government is INVENTING money on an as required basis, OR there is some other far more sinister factor at work here?
Where is Government accountability in all of this?
WE New Zealanders gave these politicians the mandate to govern our country. But we didn’t ask them to commit fraud in the process!
So, what is the solution?
We rise up as a nation and put the Government on a PLEASE EXPLAIN notice???
That’s just another way of saying “let’s have a snap election”… and what’s that going to do? Huh?
Transfer the “fraud” from one party’s responsibilty to another’s???
Look, you don’t have to like me. In fact, many of you reading this would rather I didn’t exist at all… but how about having a go at the REAL CULPRIT here! How about ASKING WHY our successive Governments have sunk our country into an abyss of financial poverty.
Ask them… how dare they lay charges of “trading as an insolvent” against hard-working New Zealanders in home-grown companies that just happen to fall on hard times during their quest for longevity, when all along, the purveyors of our nation’s laws are horrendously insolvent themselves!!!
July 1st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Why don’t you just blame the jews? The Nazis did. Great fear tactics-NOT. It doesn’t matter what is going on economically Wensel. This site is about YOUR accountibility. Stop wasting space on here.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
say again WENZEL – Piss off back to Aussie no one wants you here except a few sad people like Robyn, Jose and Dianna. But hey did you know that Robyn had wanted out but was in so deep with you she didn’t know how to escape? hard to swallow oh great fraud isn’t it but I know because she shared her concerns with me so weather you believe that or not is neither here nor there because I know its true. I guess you cant go to Aussie as your passport has been taken away, come on now whats your 5 solutions? Maybe Robyn will make for the door while your locked up, God she could turn evidence on you thats a frightening thought for you an informant from within but needs must. Better start tightening those thumb screws, applying psychological pressure or you could find your closest cronies becoming your worst enemies? Survival is what it comes down to, they will have only 2 choices really go down with you or turn on you and then salvage what life they can back while you rot in jail. Oh you will never know, like your claim to fame you have taught them well, they are excellent con artists, scammers and liars the time could come when the pupils turn on thier teacher using the skills taught to them – watch your back?
anon you are not alone quite a few of us will give evidence.
Posted by Contractor | June 20, 2007 10:03 AM
Posted on June 20, 2007 10:03
yippee:
Can someone please tell me when this little arsehole will appear in court? I and a few of my friends who were so unlucky to have met this insect( didn’t fool us though)and are desperate to see him squirm and go down big time. He does need a cheering party.
Posted by yippee | June 20, 2007 12:57 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 12:57
called:
well Christopher,
Seems to me that over 130 people have CALLED IT and all you can do BEDS. Pathetic. You have given up so now all you can do is post nonsensical rubbish on this blog in an effort to hide what people have said about you. The information is of course not yours, stollen from elsewhere with no acknoledgement, how very you.
With your team, they will eventually turn on you, you coward. You will eventually drop them in it one by one. They are the directors and they will carry the can.
The line of people queuing up to give evidence just grows and grows.
Jee is next, they are looking for your you Jee. papes are waiting for you Jee. Get out man, you have a wonderful partner and lovely children, why are you wanting to swap that for bars, or is that the idea, Christopher knows where he is going and he wants you to Keep his ring in one piece in there, is that it Jee and he has sold you a crock to get you to do it. He is going to loose it all, there will be nothing Jee,nothing, get out man.
I have heard that after several little sessions with the “boys” it is never the same Christopher and many are then incontinent for life. How just………literally shitting your pants for the rest of your life just like you did at home……..you naughty little boy, just wait till the judge gets to you, then the boys will get to you then the reception committee in Oz will have a turn. They have been given contacts and will wait their turn for your deportation there. No one will know when you fart any more Christopher. It will be so damaged they will simply escape with out a noise at all.
Nasty word that…Karma……..gets you every time. Its those three fingers that you always forgot about Christopher isn’t it boyo. The ones that are always pointing to YOU
Posted by called | June 20, 2007 4:46 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 16:46
anon:
Interesting “called”. I have it on very good inside information that when THE FAT BASTARD was confronted by the cops a few years ago after intimidating some older people and threatening to burn their house down he literally pissed his pants during the interrogation! I would love to be a fly on the wall inside the jail but who would really want to watch a fat prick like him getting f***ed up the arse and pissing his pants at the same time? I also know that re the Kiosaki thing that he may have attended one of his courses once. To think that he claimed to have taught him is more of an indication of how deluded he really is. And the fact that he is watching this blog and replying also indicates that he knows he is under seige. His whole so called “theories” come from his past associations with “disfellowed” Scientologists. This is where he has gained most of his so called information. He has also plagiaried information from a genuine program that used to run here called Money & You. This was first brought to NZ by Kiosaki in the 80′s. He did one course I think and then just used and abused the info to his own warped ends. He is a complete and utter fraud. Thousands of people went through that program in the hope that they could run it themselves. I think about five only made it. He was’nt one of them! He wouldn’t have been able to put up with he scrutiny that was required of those five. Hence, he decided to go alone and bastardise some fantastic info and use it to his own advantage and to the disadvantage of anyone who came across his path. The Scientologists have a methodology to deal with what they call “black PR” .. if someone attacks you then you hit back with whatever you can to discredit them. So look back at previous entries and you will see vieled threats about “does your husband know?” etc. It is a very obvious game if you know this little c***t’s background. Also, if he is deported back to Australia the good news is that there are a lot of the “boys” waiting to meet him at the airport. Keep up the good work all of you. There is a time for every season under heaven!
Posted by anon | June 20, 2007 11:14 PM
Posted on June 20, 2007 23:14
anon:
A question to the owner of this blog. Can you somwehow delete the bullshit posts. eg. all that police bullshit so we can get on with this fascinating story of the FAT MAN’s demise?
It is obviously an attempt to discourage people from following the whole sad sorry story.
Ohh .. and I have much much more to come about these f****er’s
And Robyn Case may appear the innocent here but let me tell you this …. she sleeps with the FAT BASTARD … and her husband and the FATHER of her children knows this and ALLOWS this to occur … and she ALLOWS the FAT BASTARD to control HER children! She is f****ed in the head thanks to Jabba The Hutt. If only she had a mind of her own. Gone now for all eternity. Bad luck Robyn… shame about your children… how could you have done that? As you know there are allegations of peodophile activities about the FAT BASTARD in Australia and you knew about these at least three years ago!
Posted by anon | June 21, 2007 1:26 AM
Posted on June 21, 2007 01:26
contractor:
Anon – thats really interesting (allegations of peodophillia) I had wondered about that when I watched the way he controlled and bullied any children within the organisation? he seems to get a warped satisfaction out of inflicting cruelty on to children a sure sign of the possibility of being a peodophile. the most shocking thing is that the parents of these children just stand back and let it happen?
Posted by contractor | June 21, 2007 9:27 AM
Posted on June 21, 2007 09:27
Observer:
Dianna, this is why your daughter hates him
Jee some one said you where going to let him take your daughter to Oz………what did he do there Jee.
Is this why he has children sitting on his knee all the time
Is this why you are celibate Shane/Christopher, you prefer defenceless children instead?????
You are unbelievable. Never mind your ring Wensel you are dead when you get inside. That is assuming that you reach there and no one gets you before
Posted by playitagiansam | June 21, 2007 8:16 PM
Posted on June 21, 2007 20:16
anon:
Ask the FAT BASTARD about him and his dodgy lawyer who are both about to appear on fraud charges next month! The FAT MAN sucked in another wanker who went along with his dodgy GST rip off scams and now finds himself in the dock alongside Jabba the Hutt. They will look like bookends up there. Two short fat men sweating profusely and picking their noses. And then there is the peodophile stuff yet to come out. And we all know what happens to those pricks once they are inside! Even the meanest of the mean make sure they get ANYONE who messes with kids.Hey Shane … how did all this happen? Is it all just a big conspiracy? Or do you think you might have to take just a smidgen of responsibility here? Just a little bit? Go on .. accept that you have had something to do with this f***k up.Just a little bit? No … I didn’t think so. You are just a por misunderstood genius who has deluded himself into believing his own bullshit to the point that you don’t know what is real anymore. Hey .. here’s an idea! You could always plead insanity! Everyone would agree and you wouldn’t have to go in with the big boys … just the other nutters like like you … you know .. the Napoleons, Jesus Christ and the rest of them walking around in their pajamas! LMAO.
Posted by play it again sam | June 22, 2007 3:48 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 15:48
The Finger:
It all makes sense now, Christopher. Just why your family hates you along with evey one else it seems. Not only did you rip them off you you where fiddliing with their children as well
What a brillient scheme buying KAPAI the book Christopher. Surrounded by children, you can pick and choose your favourite ones, tell me which do you like best, boys or girls. What age is best Christopher? younger the better I guess then they are easier pray for you. No wonder Marlana hates you. There you go I have answered my own question, you like girls. Hey Jee how are your daughters, talked to them lately, any sudden changes in them recently. Mind you, you get on well with Robyns son too so perhaps you are AC DC afer all Christopher no need to be fussy, sex is sex is it not. Just a word you used until we learnt the truth behind it all eh Wensel. Some one should write to he publishers and tell them just who owns Kapai and just who he is
No wonder you like Jackson he likes children too
Posted by The Finger | June 22, 2007 4:02 PM
Posted on June 22, 2007 16:02
Interested Observer:
Shane, you certainly have some enemies, thats not a good thing, especially as those enemies feel so much animosity towards you. Although I have never met you, I can’t help wondering if you a a genius as Robyn says, or wether you are a con man as the posters here say. You certainly are in trouble with 19 cases of fraud to answer, in the high court! Wow. Perhaps you are just misguided, as most people know, the only way to change a system is from the inside, not fighting it.
Posted by Interested Observer | June 23, 2007 10:28 AM
Posted on June 23, 2007 10:28
Interested Observer:
Shane, you certainly have some enemies, thats not a good thing, especially as those enemies feel so much animosity towards you. Although I have never met you, I can’t help wondering if you a a genius as Robyn says, or wether you are a con man as the posters here say. You certainly are in trouble with 19 cases of fraud to answer, in the high court! Wow. Perhaps you are just misguided, as most people know, the only way to change a system is from the inside, not fighting it.
Posted by Interested Observer | June 23, 2007 10:32 AM
Posted on June 23, 2007 10:32
anon:
Here you go all you good people.
Manakau District Court 23rd July 2007
Serious Fraud Office vs Shane Wenzel & Edward Doherty his shonky solicitor ….
Let’s see you get out of this one asshole!
Posted by anon | June 28, 2007 2:56 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 02:56
anon:
Here you go all you good people.
Manakau District Court 23rd July 2007
Serious Fraud Office vs Shane Wenzel & Edward Doherty his shonky solicitor ….
Let’s see you get out of this one asshole!
Posted by anon | June 28, 2007 3:03 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 03:03
The fingers:
Robyn Case
Banned from being a dirrector for three years
You naughty girl Robyn. Why do you listen to that idiot. Your greed has doomed you
Posted by The fingers | June 28, 2007 8:26 AM
Posted on June 28, 2007 08:26
The fingers:
Robyn Case
Banned from being a dirrector for three years
You naughty girl Robyn. Why do you listen to that idiot. Your greed has doomed you
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
Thanks three fingers and anon for posting this info – will be following this very closely to ensure that WENZEL is locked up as he should be. So happy to hear that the powers to be have finally banned that Bitch Robyn Case from being a Director all be it for a mere 3 yrs (lifetimne would have been better) at least it will prevent her from pulling in anymore victims in the meantime – although knowing that slimy cow like I do i would imagine she will lasoo in some poor unsuspecting person and convince then to be ‘Director’ of a company while she still holds the purse and pulls the strings – much like that WENZEL has done for years. anymore updates from anyone on these con artisits would be much appreciated.
July 3rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Coach wins at court yesterday
as he files more court procedings againist crown enteries ?!!!! stay tuned updates will be posted 90% success to date !!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Crawl back under your stone fat man – filing ‘more court proceedings’ does not = A Win! just shows you live up to that old saying ‘there is no fool like an old fool’ – enjoy your freedom while it lasts
July 4th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
wenzel
No response to CHILD SEX ALLIGATIONS
Why not. Your silence on this matter confirms it. With the information I have from parties in Oz you are in for a very interesting time here and if you survive that, you won’t survive your return to Oz and the reception committee waiting for you there
Karma strikes again eh Christopher/Shane Wenzel
The Mac Truck has you in its lights and like the coward you are, you are fixed in the beams waiting for the splat
We all look forward to feeding the mess to the dogs
July 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
MIRROR MIRROR
is it, snow whites fault??
A witch that can not see the truth in her ways
this your story study it and see if you can learn its meaning
Is that NOT why 4 wives have left you??
You have no long term relationship with your kids??
And you ran back to aussie hiding??
Put your allegations up to the test and we take it to court and see if the allegation will stand up for all to see??
No guess NOT !!!
Go http://www.shanewenzel.com and educate yourself!!!
July 7th, 2007 at 7:44 am
and where is your wife and kids Wenzel????? all you can do is point the finger at others rather than face your own demons. so what if others you have known have made mistakes in the past? have they learned from them? are they still living their lives negatively or have they changed their way? it is true no one in this world is perfect the difference is between those of us that make mistakes learn by them and move on never to make the same mistake again – compared to someone like you who lives their whole life cheating, lying, conning and avoiding the consequences – your a sociopath who has no conscience but even YOU have to face your punishment for all your wrong doing eventually – your time has come to face up to it and take it like a man although all you know is blaming others and detracting the attention elsewhere when the guilt light is shining on you – nowhere to run this time Wenzel your cornered go quietly or die fighting? the choice is yours…….
July 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Your so full of hot air Shane your story
You can have no contact with your Daughter – why?
Your wife left you – Why?
You ran to NZ hiding – Why?
You know the answer to all the above
Not in such a good posituion to point your finger afterall are you?
July 10th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
MIRROR MIRROR
There still NO name ?
WHO ARE YOU ??
Your words are empty, why ? because you wont meet me at the court before a judge to show substance to your alegations.
Let the public see you for who you really are.!!!
July 16th, 2007 at 9:33 am
July 15, 2007
“Freedom of speech” earns Vince Siemer 6 weeks jail!
The controversial, outspoken, but ever entertaining Vince Siemer, once the proud owner of Paragon Oil, has just earned himself six weeks in the slammer. Sadly, he paid the supreme price for daring to stand up to Vector chairman Michael Stiassny, the man he (Vince) believes wrongfully destroyed his company in his capacity as a receiver.
In a fiery High Court appearance on (appropriately enough) “Friday the Thirteenth”, Vince Siemer copped a six week prison sentence for defying a 2005 court order to stop spreading defamatory material about Michael Stiassny.
Apparently the defamation was committed in postings to two web sites, the distribution of stickers drawing attention to these two sites, and letters to two newspapers.
But how’s THIS for twisted justice???
In one breath, Judge Judith Potter granted Vice a 24-hour adjournment to prepare submissions for his case – and then ordered that he be held in custody – effectively denying him any reasonable possibility of being able to prepare any such submissions!
Another disgraceful act by a High Court judge ??? SURELY NOT!!!
To outbursts of raucous laughter from his supporters in the Public Gallery, Vince Siemer accused Justice Potter of running a “Kangaroo Court”; accused Mr Stiassny of perjury and claimed that his rights had been denied while in custody at Auckland Central Remand.
Sure, Vince Siemer broke the law when openly defying a 2-year old court order. But hey, c’mon………. s-i-x w-e-e-k-s in jail???
Whatever happened to freedom of speech???
This is exactly the sort of thing that has me convinced “we New Zealanders” need a constitution – just like they do in the States!
Oh, and Justice Judith Potter… You should be ashamed of yourself for denying Vince Siemer any reasonable chance of preparing his case effectively and fairly – regardless of your personal dislike of the man.
After hearing about Vince Siemer’s plight on Friday, and then reliving (in my mind) the eery similarities between the way HE has been treated by the justice system and the way “I” have been treated, I honestly applaud Vince’s stand against what he believes has been “judicial tyranny”.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:41 am
FOR T HE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE
NO Baby sitting
NO MORE DECEPITION
Shane has called in the International Complaints Services to help with Public servants that are out of control
Today 45 letters release calling for the actions to be explained.
they range in various domains of the public service .
Press release soon
July 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
wensel, this site is about you
Your corruption
your sexual abuse of your own child. or was there more?
You ripping off the public and the state
No one is interested in how you see the world, just the view that world wants you to have, squares and lots of them and more importantly Looooooots of time to count them all
Interestingly you have refuted none of the allegations logged here against you. The reason for that is that you are guilty of them all
As we know Christopher/Shane Charles Wenzel the courts do not always get it write, one of the resonds for this is that there a deceitful people like you that will say anything or manufacture any document you need to prove or disprove your view point. We all look forward to you next appearance on the 23 July and I believe that there is another court after you as well. Rumour also states the Interpol are looking into you too
How does that one go about glass houses and stones? The boys have been informed about you and your daughter and are already arranging a little party with you when you arrive
The tree fingers again wensel, they get you every time
Never mind the BEDS, just answer the questions
July 16th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Total Except what you say upon you showing the facts
Is it not the truth that you cant give your name?
Is it not the truth that you fail in your understanding and teachings?
Is it not your allagations not of fact ?
Is it not your intention to great arguement where non exsists?
Is it not your intention to cloud the issues with decepitions and lies
Are not one 56 people that have PVT proscutions againist them?
July 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Try answering the questions you silly little man
You would not have gotten away this with your father
You have my name. Pengu.
Not my allegations, these have come from numerous others and will be added to at court
I am asking you to confirm of deny the accusations, they are not alligations
There is no need to hide to hide behind the court for much longer as you will be facing your accusers face to face
yes or no wenzel, your refusal to answer simple questions mearly confirms your GUILT
see you when they eventually send you back here
Looking forward to that….mate!
July 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Is it NOT true that you are Hiding behind false names?
Is it not true true that you make allegation with out substances?
Is it not true that you are fishing because that you have no facts?
Is it not true you wish to create arguement where arguement does not exsist?
July 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
You already know who I am…mate
Again no real answers….mate
Just your usual BS designed to distract from the questions that you do not what to have to answer in public
be seeing you a little later…mate
July 18th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
HOW DO WE TALK TO THE CROWN
Tertiairy Educate HA
Ms. C RICH Natioal part Cant read a contracts
MR Peter Barker Registrar of companies office cant see the facts and act inthe best interest of the benificeries
and the AO
LET DO A TEST for there responses ?
From: David Harte [mailto:david.harte@insolvency.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 6:31 p.m.
To: shane wenzel
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Dear Mr Wenzel
Thank you for your below email.
Unfortunately I must again repeat that your latest email appears to make no sense either legally or factually. It is entirely unclear what you are seeking and therefore I can provide no other response. Once again I would advise you to seek independent legal advice to assist you in clarifying your opinions and communication if indeed you are requesting me for something specific.
Regards
________________________________________
From: shane wenzel [mailto:shane@sci.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 6:13 p.m.
To: David Harte
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Dear DAVID,
I conditionally accept your offer as presented in your latest email below referenced, in that I have to make you understand or teach you the law or simple Queen’s English, upon proof of claim that :
1. You have not studied law at University for at least four years? and
2. You do not have the ability to use a good English Dictionary to help you understand the simple words I wrote, and
3. You are not simply trying to create a controversy where none exists including your failure to consider all the facts and only produce incomplete records to tribunal and data integrity boards then reliant upon your misinformation all contrary to your oath of office
Are we not all equal before and under the law by which you are attending to this matter if so, then by Your failure to accept, attend complete all requests and stipulations presented to you is not my responsibility, if for reasons best known to You alone that you cannot add a complete list as directed by your superiors or legal advice or better still a good English dictionary to assist you where you fail to comprehend basic grammar and as soon as you do I am more than happy to sign it when you complete your entrusted appointment.
I am not here to argue or enter controversy with anyone in your jurisdiction.
Your failure to have all stipulated agreements presented to me before the end of this week shall be taken as your own responsibility for disobeying court directions and you will be held accountable/ responsible for your own personal actions.
Sincerely yours
Shane-Charles: (Wenzology)
http://www.shanewenzel.com
Regards
Shane-Charles: (Wenzel)capitis diminutio minima,
:
All Rights Powers Privileges Benefits, Duties, Liabilities Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
E shane@sci.co.nz
w http://www.sci.biz.pn
International Complaints Services
________________________________________
From: David Harte [mailto:david.harte@insolvency.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 4:04 p.m.
To: shane wenzel
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Dear Mr Wenzel.
Thank you for your below email.
Again I repeat that your email appears to make no sense either legally or factually.
Once again I would advise you to seek independent legal advice to assist you in clarifying your opinions.
Regards
________________________________________
From: shane wenzel [mailto:shane@sci.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 4:02 p.m.
To: David Harte
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Certificate of mailing date: . [Wednesday, 18 July 2007].
DAVID HARTE(or nominee), Shane-Charles: (Wenzel). ,
trading as: Enforcement Officer; in the care of 15 Oakleigh Avenue,
Office of the National Enforcement Unit, Takanini, South Auckland,
Ministry of Economic Development, Auckland New Zealand.
Level 18
ASB Centre
135 Albert Street
Auckland. our ref: 000635
New Zealand.
Wednesday, 18 July 2007.
Dear DAVID,
DAVID, thank you for your prompt reply to me by Email.
I acknowledge receipt of same on Monday, 17 July 2007 8:04 a.m. and I trust this reply is still within the customary time frame for reply between honourable people.
Before I can proceed any further with this letter, I must first address an issue very important to my heart and as I know it was not your intent to offend, none was in this instance taken, however I find it an offensive heathen pagan title of black nobility to be addressed anything other than my proper name and I note that you did not undersign your letter to me either as to you being any non-commissioned common stock holder of subordinate rank. I therefore trust that I can rely on this sincerely presented request that in future you refrain from addressing me as : “Mr. Wenzel” or any other typographical manifestation, mutation or crown security interest other than my proper address in its natural form.
The title you offered me, therefore is surrendered to you for cause, without dishonour upon my part. Without any disrespect intended to you/r position, may I elucidate :
Notwithstanding your offer extended to me, possibly being an honourific within your society, I am aware that it extends only to certain parties, this title is not an absolute, as confirmed both by; natural reasoning, and several high court justices previously acknowledging same to Undersigned.
Learned Queens Counsel advises that these so called titles/honourifics of “Mr./Mrs./Ms. et al., are acknowledged as :
“Deficient in status/capacity/standing” towards any wo/man under the Creator; furthermore
Not being names, are merely subordinated titles of non-commissioned office holders; as such
Carry an as yet undisclosed to the Undersigned; to certain undisclosed civil and legal disability; furthermore
Removes otherwise unalienable rights of the “people of the land” which, I waive such privilege/benefits or representation, except reserving all my rights thereto.
Accordingly Victoria, once you can provide me with material fact, or evidence to the contrary, from you/r office under your own unlimited liability, assuring me that such titles carry no disability; legal, civil or otherwise, only then can I earnestly accept you call me anything that you choose ~ you could then even call me “Charlie Brown” or “Mickey Mouse” and afterwards even buy me a beer to which I would in kind return the favour.
Hence, until I receive such assurance from you I can and will not, freely consent to the use of any honourifics against myself. I trust that as an honourable man should any non-response within 72 hours will be taken as your acceptance of my sincere notice to you and that you shall in future address me in the proper manner as above conveyed.
I respond to you without vex, malice ill-will or dishonour in order to properly understand the language of your office and the court.
As it is proclaimed by parliament and I am sure you will agree that we are all equal before and under the law and by due process of law applied in similar matters any non response shall and would in the absence of any evidence to the contrary being produced be stipulated as complete for the honourable acceptance by silence that my claim is true, correct, complete and not misleading. I require a response from you as to why I continue to be damaged and who is to be held accountable for such extraordinary delays should NEVILE HARIS(or nominee)acting as a REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES of NEW ZEALAND acting as an administrator/adjudicator for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth-the-Second, who only by the Grace of God is Queen in Right of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, as well as the Head of the Commonwealth, and most importantly Defender of the Faith; the laws that she authorises and assents to) either not adjudicate in accord with principles of The Law or otherwise only appear to be able to administrate on matters of legal fiction rather than adjudicate on fact.
Undersigned fully accepts presiding all judges judicial oath(s), and with all due respect afforded, accordingly requires judicial notice of the oath to be taken, without failure of consideration of this letter.
Sincerely yours,
……………………………………………………..
Shane-Charles: (Wenzel) .capitis diminutio minima,
All Rights Reserved and only in his capacity as.
beneficiary only of the Original Jurisdiction.
NOTICE: ANY FURTHER CONTRACTING PRESENTMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS i.e. ENVELOPE, BILLS OF LADING, VESSEL DOCUMENT, MANIFEST PROCLAMATIONS (or otherwise) NOT ADDRESSED AS ABOVE WILL BE RETURNED TO SENDER; UNOPENED, MARKED WITH THE FOLLOWING: REFUSED FOR CAUSE — WITHOUT-DISHONOUR. DO NOT USE HONOURIFICS ; INITIALS or UNNECESSARY MUTATION / CAPITALISATION Thank you.
Regards
Shane Charles (Wenzel)capitis diminutio minima,
: Shane-Charles:(Wenzel)
All Rights Powers Privileges Benefits, Duties, Liabilities Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
E shane@sci.co.nz
w http://www.ics.biz.pn
International Complaints Services
—–Original Message—–
From: David Harte [mailto:david.harte@insolvency.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 10:09 a.m.
To: shane wenzel
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Dear Mr Wenzel.
Thank you for your below email.
Again you email appears to make no sense either legally or factually.
Once again I would advise you to seek independent legal advice to assist
you in clarifying your opinions.
Regards
—–Original Message—–
From: shane wenzel [mailto:shane@sci.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 18 July 2007 8:44
To: David Harte
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
It would appear that you need to seek legal advice MY NANE IS NOT MR
Nor is SHANE CHARLES WENZEL That was bankrupted remember. Is it not your
intention to keeping trading in the CROWN created fiction? Is it not
your intention to trade in Freud? Is it not your intention to honour
your oath to the Queen? Is it not your intention up hold the rules set
out by the Queen and God? Is it not TRUE that under law we are equal?
Ref http://www.shanewenzel.com section the govt is broke
Regards
Shane Charles (Wenzel)capitis diminutio minima,
: Shane-Charles:(Wenzel)
All Rights Powers Privileges Benefits, Duties, Liabilities Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
E shane@sci.co.nz
w http://www.sci.biz.pn
International Complaints Services
—–Original Message—–
From: David Harte [mailto:david.harte@insolvency.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2007 7:25 p.m.
To: shane@sci.co.nz; david.harte@insolvency.govt.nz
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Dear Mr Wenzel
Thank you for the below email. I regret to advise you again that it
appears to make no sense. You may wish to consult independent legal
advice if you believe you have some salient issue you wish to
communicate to me.
Regards
—–Original Message—–
From: “shane wenzel”
Sent: 17/07/07 6:58:26 p.m.
To: “‘David Harte’”
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Certificate of mailing date: .
[Tuesday, 17 July 2007].
DAVID HARTE(or nominee),
Shane-Charles: Wenzel. ,
trading as: Judicial Conduct Commissioner;
in the care of 15 Oakleigh Avenue,
Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner,
Takanini, South Auckland,
Level 6 Greencock House,
New Zealand.
39 The Terrace, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007.
Dear DAVID HARTE(or nominee),
Ian, thank you for your prompt reply to me by letter.
I acknowledge receipt of same on 1st of June 2007 and trust this reply
is within the customary time frame for reply between honourable
gentlemen.
Before I can proceed any further with this letter, I must first address
an issue very important to my heart and as I know it was not your intent
to offend, none was in this instance taken, however I find it an
offensive heathen pagan title of black nobility to be addressed anything
other than my proper name and I note that you did not undersign your
letter to me as any non-commissioned common stock holder of subordinate
rank. I therefore trust that I can rely on this sincerely presented
request that in future you refrain from addressing me as : “Mr. Wenzel”
or any other typographical manifestation, mutation or crown security
interest other than my proper address in it’s natural form.
The title you offered me, therefore is surrendered to you for cause,
without dishonour upon my part. Without any disrespect intended to
you/r position, may I elucidate :
Notwithstanding your offer to me possibly being an honourific within
your society, I am aware that it extends only to certain parties, this
title is not an absolute, as confirmed both by; natural reasoning, and
several high court justices previously acknowledging same to
Undersigned.
Learned Queens Counsel advises that these so called titles/honourifics
of “Mr./Mrs./Ms. et al., are acknowledged as :
“Deficient in status/capacity/standing” towards any wo/man under the
Creator; furthermore
Not being names, merely subordinated titles of non-commissioned office
holders; and as such
Carry an as yet undisclosed to the Undersigned bonded; to certain
undisclosed civil and legal disability; furthermore
Removes otherwise unalienable rights of the “people of the land”, which
I without privilege or benefit, reserve all my rights thereto.
Accordingly Ian, once you can provide me with material fact, or
evidence to the contrary, from you/r office under your own unlimited
liability, assuring me that such titles carry no disability; legal,
civil or otherwise, I can then earnestly accept you call me anything
that you choose ~ you could then even call me “Charlie Brown” or “Mickey
Mouse” and afterwards even buy me a beer to which I would in kind return
the favour.
Therefore until I receive such I can and will not, freely consent to the
use of any honourifics against myself. I trust that as an honourable
man should any non-response within 72 hours will be taken as your
acceptance of my sincere notice to you and that you shall in future
address me in the proper manner as above conveyed.
As for the matter regarding the less than honourable actions of the man
acting as District Court of New Zealand..
Yes the proceedings are still in train in train … in that I am
awaiting an overdue judgement, which now has taken more than 72 hours to
have been reached, I therefore ask of you, to whom do I send the account
for damages suffered due to this extraordinary delay and therefore
denial of due process and proper justice to people of the land known as
New Zealand not necessarily “in NEW ZEALAND”?
I respond to you without vex, malice ill-will or dishonour in order to
properly understand the language of your office and the court.
As it is proclaimed by parliament and I am sure you will agree that we
are all equal before and under the law and by due process of law applied
in similar matters any non response shall and would in the absence of
any evidence to the contrary being produced be stipulated as complete
for the honourable acceptance by silence that my claim is true, correct,
complete
and not misleading. I require a response from you as to why I continue
to
be damaged and who is to be held accountable for such extraordinary
delays should Mark Cooper acting as a High Court of New Zealand queens
judge/justice (under Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth-the-Second, who by the
Grace of God is Queen in Right of Great Britain, Northern Ireland,
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, as
well as the Head of the Commonwealth, and most importantly Defender of
the Faith; laws that she authorises and assents to) either not
adjudicate in accord with principles of the law or otherwise only appear
to be able to administrate on matters of legal fiction rather than fact.
Undersigned fully accepts presiding all judges judicial oath(s), and
with all due respect afforded, accordingly requires judicial notice of
the oath to be taken, without failure of consideration of this letter.
As for employing legal advice…. Undersigned would happily use the
service of any lawyer or legal officer of the crown and accept his
waived right of representation to any lawyer who is prepared to sign a
statement that they are first and foremost acting in the best (not
second, third or fourth ) interests of the Undersigned.
Sincerely yours,
Shane-Charles:( Wenzel) .capitis diminutio minima,
All Rights Powers Privileges Benefits, Duties, Liabilities Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
NOTICE: ANY FURTHER CONTRACTING PRESENTMENTS OR INSTRUMENTS i.e.
ENVELOPE, BILLS OF LADING, VESSEL DOCUMENT, MANIFEST PROCLAMATIONS (or
otherwise) NOT ADDRESSED AS ABOVE WILL BE RETURNED TO SENDER; UNOPENED,
MARKED WITH THE
FOLLOWING: REFUSED FOR CAUSE — WITHOUT-DISHONOUR. DO NOT USE
HONOURIFICS ; INITIALS or UNNECESSARY MUTATION / CAPITALISATION Thank
you.
Regards
Shane-Charles: (Wenzel)capitis diminutio minima,
:
All Rights Powers Privileges Benefits, Duties, Liabilities Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
E shane@sci.co.nz
w http://www.sci.biz.pn
International Complaints Services
_____
From: David Harte [mailto:david.harte@insolvency.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2007 9:50 a.m.
To: shane wenzel
Subject: RE: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
Dear Mr Wenzel
Thank you for the below email.
I regret to inform you that it does not appear to make any sense or
correspond at all with the New Zealand Insolvency Act 1967. You appear
to have confused various possible Australian matters (a different legal
jurisdiction) along with a misunderstanding of various “legal
principles”. It is completely unclear what you are seeking. I suggest
you seek independent legal advice on whatever matter may be concerning
you to enable you to get clarification of this matter.
Regards.
_____
From: shane wenzel [mailto:shane@sci.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 July 2007 12:27
To: Cindy Seaman
Cc: David Harte; Ross van der Schyff
Subject: bankruptcy overseer/watchdog
To whom it may concern,
It has come to my attention that some of my fellow country men from
Australia have also been bankrupted. It was discovered during this
process, that certain crown officers were acting in a malfeasant and
deceptive manner. When this came to the attention of the Australian
bankruptcy watch dog Insolvencies Trustee Services of Australia (“ITSA”)
the following came to light :
The moment the bankruptcy/sequestration order is declared at court a
bill is created and sent to the alleged bankrupt i.e. the bankruptcy
order. and a fully bonded instrument is provided to a undisclosed
overseer. Presumably the official assignee bankruptcy trustee.
ITSA within Australia have trustees that are overseeing / overlooking
the assignee does the right thing by the bankrupt and the bankrupt does
the right thing by the assignee. The matter we are concerned about is
that there is that bonded instrument in lieu of the bill you appear to
have given me in deception and accordingly within the principles of
equity, seeing that this is allegedly my bankruptcy proceedings, I
require to be provided the location and a certified copy of such bonded
instrument. We are aware that the bonded instrument is provided to and
held by the bankruptcy trustee and is also placed under high security
within ITSA.
As you the registrar being the drawer of the bill presented to myself it
goes without saying that you must be aware of where the remaining
documentation is sent to, if you do not still in fact have it in your
possession.
If you do not within seven(7) days (including return mailing) of receipt
of this demand for information, statutorily obliged to be given by you
when requested/required, you like your fellow Australian administrators
will be held personally accountable for failing to produce or re-create
a remedy or producing an order upon which no remedy or relief can be
granted thereby creating a situation of involuntary servitude and or
peonage…
* Is it not true that you and other crown officers are acting as
debt
collectors?
* Is it not true that the government is it self NOT insolvent?
* Therefore is NOT true that being aware of this you have no
excuse
available to or excusable therefore where if you did not provide a
remedy when requested that you now would be personably liable under
several sections but not limited to s240 of the 1961 New Zealand Crimes
Act 1961?
As time is of the essence I entreat you govern yourself accordingly to
ensure that all parties remain in honour of your foresworn oaths of
office
and I look forward to a response as your failure to assist may lead to
the
loss of immunity and the offer of non-prosecutor for any unintentional
mistaken errors that may have occurred thus far shall no longer be
available to you.
Sincerely
………………
Shane-Charles: (Wenzel)capitis diminutio minima,
All Rights Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the original jurisdiction.
shane@sci.co.nz
http://www.sci.biz.pn
International Complaints Services
It has come to my attention after seeking wise counsel that I have only
been presented a bill regarding my position of bankruptcy common sense
logic natural reason dictate that were ever a bill exist a bond
instrument exists if this is Not true they are
Regards
Shane Charles (Wenzel)capitis diminutio minima,
: Shane-Charles:(Wenzel)
All Rights Powers Privileges Benefits, Duties, Liabilities Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
E shane@sci.co.nz
w http://www.sci.biz.pn
International Complaints Services
_____
From: shane wenzel [mailto:shane@sci.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 16 July 2007 9:51 p.m.
To: ‘david.harte’
Cc: ‘Cindy Seaman’; ‘Ross van der Schyff’
Subject:
Regards
Shane Charles (Wenzel)capitis diminutio minima,
: Shane-Charles:(Wenzel)
All Rights Powers Privileges Benefits, Duties, Liabilities Reserved.
only in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
E shane@sci.co.nz
w http://www.sci.biz.pn
International Complaints Services
Subscribe to our e-newsletter
To keep business updated on our work, the Ministry publishes a monthly
electronic newsletter.
To subscribe to this free newsletter see
http://news.business.govt.nz
govt.nz – connecting you to New Zealand central &
local government services
_____
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the
Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted
with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you
have received this message in error and that any use is strictly
prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any
attachment from your computer.
_____
__________ NOD32 2400 (20070716) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
Subscribe to our e-newsletter:
To keep business updated on our work, the Ministry publishes a monthly
electronic newsletter.
To subscribe to this free newsletter see http://news.business.govt.nz
http://www.govt.nz – connecting you to New Zealand central & local
government services
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the
Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted
with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended
recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person
responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you
have received this message in error and that any use is strictly
prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any
attachment from your computer.
__________ NOD32 2401 (20070716) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
Subscribe to our e-newsletter:
To keep business updated on our work, the Ministry publishes a monthly electronic newsletter.
To subscribe to this free newsletter see http://news.business.govt.nz
http://www.govt.nz – connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
__________ NOD32 2404 (20070717) Information __________
This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com
Subscribe to our e-newsletter
To keep business updated on our work, the Ministry publishes a monthly electronic newsletter.
To subscribe to this free newsletter see http://news.business.govt.nz
govt.nz – connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services
________________________________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
________________________________________
Subscribe to our e-newsletter
To keep business updated on our work, the Ministry publishes a monthly electronic newsletter.
To subscribe to this free newsletter see http://news.business.govt.nz
govt.nz – connecting you to New Zealand central & local government services
________________________________________
Any opinions expressed in this message are not necessarily those of the Ministry of Economic Development. This message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivery to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your computer.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Pengu Says:
July 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Try answering the questions you silly little man
You would not have gotten away this with your father
You have my name. Pengu.
Not my allegations, these have come from numerous others and will be added to at court
I am asking you to confirm of deny the accusations, they are not alligations
There is no need to hide to hide behind the court for much longer as you will be facing your accusers face to face
yes or no wenzel, your refusal to answer simple questions mearly confirms your GUILT
see you when they eventually send you back here
Looking forward to that….mate!
shane wenzel Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Is it NOT true that you are Hiding behind false names?
Is it not true true that you make allegation with out substances?
Is it not true that you are fishing because that you have no facts?
Is it not true you wish to create arguement where arguement does not exsist?
Pengu Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
You already know who I am…mate
Again no real answers….mate
Just your usual BS designed to distract from the questions that you do not what to have to answer in public
be seeing you a little later…mate
THE CHARGES YOU ARE FACING WENZEL ARE
FRAUD RE CBA
FRAUD, SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE AND YOU
FRAUD, NZ POLICE AND YOU
ACCUSATIONS OF CHILD MOLESTATION AND YOU
FORGET THE CUTE STUFF WENZEL, WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE SO USED TO LIEING YOU HAVE BELIEVED YOUR OWN LIES BUT TRY FOR ONCE GIVING A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO A QUESTION
CBA IS STUFFED AND THERE WILL BE FRAUD CHARGES TO FOLLOW NO DOUBT. YOU PERSONALLY WILL FACE THE MUSIC AND YOUR ACCUSERS STARTING 23 THIS MONTH AND NZ POLICE ARE LINING UP TO HAVE THEIR GO TOO
WHEN YOU ARE DEPORTED, AFTER YOUR LITTLE STAY AT HERE WITH THE BOYS, LOOKS LIKE THOSE IN OZ AWAIT YOUR RETURN TOO
ALL A “CONSPIRACY” IS IT WENZEL????
NOT!!!
July 20th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I have just had a case today where this scallywag has taken advantage of a person…. Irang his mobile 0212888351 and gave him a piece of my mind
You should too
July 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
I DON T THINK SO !!!
PENGU allis MR DAVID FISHER is it NOT
come clean!!!
FOR the record
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOT FOR PUBLIC FILING
c/- Presiding Judge/Clerk of the Court/(Deputy)Registrar, (in Chambers).
APOLOGY TO THE HONOURABLE COURT by: Shane-Charles(Wenzel)
Spoken Apology:
“Upon mature reflection, it has to come to my attention, that I have committed an unintentional mistaken dishonour. I wish to sincerely and humbly apologise for any and all of my dishonours, which were committed unintentionally and in error, and I humbly seek the forgiveness of all parties in interest in this matter for any and all such dishonours which to the best of my ability, will not occur again.
I hereby wish to inform all real parties in interest in this matter that it is my sincere and humble intention to make all parties in interest in these/this matter(s), who believe that they may have been damaged in any way, be made commercially whole again, and not to argue any of the well-pled facts in this matter.
Once again, I humbly and sincerely apologise for any and all of my past mistaken and unintentional dishonours and pray that all parties in interest in this matter will find it in their hearts to forgive me for having committed such unintentional and mistaken dishonours”.
As good as aval, …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
: William-Henry ; (Turner) capitis diminutio minima,
All Rights Reserved in his capacity as beneficiary of the Original Jurisdiction.
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL NOT FOR PUBLIC FILING
c/- Presiding Judge/Registrar, (in Chambers).
APOLOGY TO THE HONOURABLE COURT BY : William Henry Turner
dated : Monday the 23th day of July AD2007.
“Upon mature reflection, it has to come to the Undersigned’s attention, that he has committed an unintentional and mistaken dishonour, due to his previous ignorance of the law and inability to cope with accusations facing Him.
It is therefore that Undersigned wishes to sincerely and humbly apologise for any and all of his dishonours, which were committed unintentionally and in error, and he humbly requests the forgiveness of all real parties in interest in this matter for any and all such dishonours which to the best of his ability, will not occur again. Undersigned hereby wishes to inform all parties in interest in this matter that it is his sincere and humble intention to make all parties in interest in these/this matter(s), who believe that they may have been damaged in any way, commercially whole again, and not to argue any of the well-pled facts in this matter.
Once again, Undersigned humbly and sincerely apologises for any and all of his past mistaken and unintentional dishonours and pray that all parties in interest in this matter will find it in their hearts to forgive him for having committed such unintentional and mistaken dishonours”.
With the Undersigned’s sincerest appreciation in anticipation of your honourable services and assistance and as time is of the essence, I entreat you govern yourselves accordingly.
As good as aval, …………………………………………………………………………..
: William-Henry ; (Turner) capitis diminutio minima,
All Rights Reserved in his capacity as beneficiary of the original jurisdiction.
Your Honour I am here today by special appearance as a man unrepresented waiving any benefit or privilege of representation including the title of Mr. or any correction that is not in accord and satisfaction of my lords law the same lord Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth-the-Second, who by the Grace of God is Queen in Right of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, as well as the Head of the Commonwealth, and most importantly Defender of the Faith; foreswore and promised herself to that his law was right and just and that all other law is void.
if during this proceedings or any other you refer to me as Mr.WENZEL or any other derivative or crown security interest of my property I sincerely require of you to swear to that under your own unrestricted commercial liability doing so without dishonouring your own judicial oath which I fully accept along with your oath of allegiance and require your court to take judicial notice thereof that Mr. WENZEL is not a legal entity that of a non-commissioned officer within any admiralty or naval prize jurisdiction and is not merely and artificially contrived entity a corporation sole a construct or creation at not in law ands that you are not holding me as surety for the defendant especially seeing that I have already tendered payment in full by the surrender of the bonded instrument more than three months ago….. and is surrender not as it states in Blacks law dictionary…….
surrender Commercial Law the delivery of an instrument so that delivery releases the deliverer from all liability Blacks Eighth
Your Honour may it please the court to uphold what is true and allow me to be bonded by the surrendered instrument in that my word is my bond and as I am willing to swear to almighty God as I shall be judge at the great day of judgement that what I say shall be true to the best of ,my belief and knowledge my yes being yes and no being no and everything else coming from evil…. let the honourable courts record now show
Your Honour do you take oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the secons her heirs and successors to do right to all manner of people ?
Your Honour are you paid or remunerated to hold the esteemed and entrusted position that you do???
Your Honour are we not all equal before and under The Law????
Well sir with all due respect as an equal under that law I hold you to your bonded oath and relieve you of all administrative non judicial duties within this court….
Your Honour is it not true that we are in a court bound by the rules of equity and unless like you I am bonded I have no standing in this court well sir as I am bonded please release me from this enshacklement, incaseration against my will or chains
Bill I wouldn’t use Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 they are subordinated by commercial law anyways that is why they haven’t worked for years anymore !!!!!
Without respect of “person”? and ask the court to uphold this.
It said that you can not see the bigger game . But a pawn in the game.
Is it not true that your fishing without bait and you requir the bait from me?
you would Not travel far to the see number PVT prosecutions againist the police by the ICA
The new division ICS has started in auckland see thw web site http://www.ics.biz.pn for details
SEE the Queen oath to her subjects
Notes on this text PLEASE READ
back to An Anglican Liturgical Library and the oremus home page.
http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/index.html
________________________________________
________________________________________
Abbreviated coronation oath of Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second all relevant parts
The Form and Order of Service that is to be performed and the Ceremonies that are to be observed in The Coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster, on Tuesday, the second day of June, 1953.
CORONATION, n. [a crown.]
1. The act or solemnity of crowning a king or emperor; the act of investing a prince with the insignia of royalty, on his succeeding to the sovereignty.
2. The pomp or assembly attending a coronation.
Coronation-oath, the oath taken by a monarch at their coronation.
GOD SAVE QUEEN ELIZABETH. Then the trumpets shall sound.
IV. The Oath.
The Queen having returned to her Chair (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the fourth day of November, 1952, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,
Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath? [coronation oath]
And the Queen answering, I am willing,
Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.
Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?
Queen: I will.
Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?
Queen: All this I promise to do.
before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of [The Bible to be brought.] all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the altar by the Archbishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:
The things which I have here promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.
Our gracious Queen: to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, we present you with this Book, the most valuable thing that this world affords.
And the Moderator shall continue:
Here is Wisdom; This is the royal Law; These are the lively Oracles of God.
The hymn being ended, the Archbishop shall say:
LET US PRAY.
O Lord and heavenly Father, the exalter of the humble and the strength of thy chosen, who by anointing with Oil didst of old make and consecrate kings, priests, and prophets, to teach and govern thy people Israel: Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant Elizabeth, who by our office and ministry is now to be anointed with this Oil,
ALL LAW GOES BACK TO THE QUEEN THEN TO GODs LAW
DO YOUR HOMEWORK IF YOU NEED A HAND CALL ME
July 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 pm
youve lost the plot Wenzel – bring on the straight jacket and men in the white coats take him away! The pressure mustve got to you, you sad sad man
July 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
The issue is you wenzel
And specifically what you have done
Assault, theft, fraud, intimidation and it now would appear, child molestation
The list grows wenzel, might be an idea to keep quiet, there is much more I am sure and so it seems is the press. Another article in the Herald on Sunday. I am assured that they have much more to divulge when it becomes public knowledge through the courts
What will become public knowledge today wenzel?????????
Australia have been very helpful as have more of your victims?
July 24th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
HI CHRIS HAVE YOU RECIEVE YOUR LETTERS YET?
WILL SEE WHO WILL BE IN JAIL ALONG WITH YOUR HUBBY?
So it is you mr fisher NZ hearld
why not come and it Declare it for all to see?
WHY NOT?
lET ME COACH YOU, HOW TO BE MAN !!!!
July 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
lOOK IT UP EVERYONE THIS WHAT THEY DO WANT ME TO SHOW AND TEACH ABOUT
http://WWW.ZEITGEISTMOVIE.COM
MATRIX
THEY LIVE
PAY IT FOWARD
V
POWDER
July 25th, 2007 at 7:59 am
This is why Robyn is laying charges?
Went againist the company records?
Why is it that we have them?
19 January 2006
Dennis Wood
McDonald Vague
P O Box 6092
Wellesley St PO
AUCKLAND
Dear Sir,
You visited our office on 23 December 2005 and informed me that you had been appointed Liquidator of Barrea Group Limited.
At that stage I advised you that I was a Director of this company and held 51% of the shares in the company. You advised me that you had been instructed by one Barry Penellum to liquidate.
This letter serves to give you notice that you have been advised of the correct position and that your actions in liquidating this company are unlawful. You will be held personally responsible and liable for your actions.
I also enclose for your information a copy of the Joint Venture Agreement entered into at the time Barrea Group Limited was formed.
I would have assumed that a person in your position, having been given the information you have would not have continued in the manner in which you have done. I would remind you of your obligations as a Liquidator, they are clearly spelt out in law. One of those obligations is for you to act in the utmost good faith without fear or favour and without consideration to your own personal position.
For the sake of clarity I would remind you that you were alerted to the true position in respect of Barrea Group Limited on the 23 December last year.
I now demand that you cease any further activity in the liquidation process of Barrea Group Limited and that I do that in my capacity as a Director and 51% shareholder of Barrea Group Limited.
Barrea Group Limited is solvent and will hold you and your company personally responsible for any damage to the financial viability or reputation of Barrea Group Limited caused through your actions to date.
I request a written response from you within 10 working days to the issues raised and contained in this letter.
Should you fail to do this I will be left with no alternative but to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure you and your company are called to account for your unlawful actions.
Might I suggest that given the documentation you have in front of you, you and your company would be best served to meet with Mr Penellum and ask him to explain why he has mislead you.
Yours faithfully,
Robyn Case
Director & Shareholder
Barrea Group Limited
July 25th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
WELL THE CROWN CAN LIE?
Is it NOT THE CROWN duties to find THE TRUTH?
Does the CROWN NOT create RAPE & deceit?
Does the crown NOT represents the living man into the DEAD MAN?
Shane Wenzel ( living man)
Into
SHANE WENZEL (DEAD MAN )
GOVT TRADES IN SLAVING LIVING MAN INTO REPRESENTING IN THE DEAD MAN AND LEASES THE CORPERATE DEAD MAN THUS IN SLAVING THE LIVING MAN BY DECEPTION ( WAKE UP MAN)
Beware of the mark someone wrote (BIBLE)
Could NOT be the tax number /berth cert ?
BEAWARE OF The GANGS and there patches !!!!
LAWYERS
CROWN REPRSENTERS
BARRISTERS
REGISTRARS
GOVT BODIES
GOVT ADMINItrators ETC
GO TO http://WWW.SHANEWENZEL.COM REF: WE ARE BROKE SECTION
THEY ARE TRADING FRAUD AND DECIEVING
July 25th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
news news flash
news news flash
news news flash
news news flash
news news flash
news news flash
4 SUMMONS, FOR CHARGES GONE OUT
section 240 109
111 112 110
Crown representers
dennis wood
July 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
news news flash
news news flash
news news flash
news news flash
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH !!!!!
BEWARE NOT FOR THE WEAK AT HEART!!!
R RATED FOR ABLE LIVING BEINGS!!!!!
S for SUN SELF ???????
July 25th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
hay bucky here’s to mate
I decided that Nature might support a man who was doing what Nature wanted to be done and concluded that I would be informed by Nature if I proceeded in the following manner:
1. Use myself as an experiment to see what, if anything, a healthy, young male human of average size, experience, and capability with an economically independent team, starting without capital or any kind of wealth, cash savings, credit or university degree could effectively do that could not be done by great nations or great private enterprise to lastingly improve the physical protection and support of all human lives.
2. Commit all of my productivity toward dealing only with the whole planet Earth and all its resources and cumulative know-how. Observation of my life to date shows that the larger the number for whom I work, the more positively effective I become. Thus, it is obvious that if I work always and only for all humanity, I will be optimally effective.
3. Seek to do my own thinking, confining it to only experientially gained information.
4. Seek to accomplish whatever is to be attained in such a manner that the advantage attained would never be secured at the cost of another or others.
5. Seek to cope with all humanly unfavourable conditions by searching for the family of relevant physical principles involved.
6. Reduce my inventions to physically working models and must never talk about the inventions until physically proved or disproved.
7. Seek to reform the environment, not the humans. I am determined never to try to persuade humanity to alter its customs and viewpoints.
8. Never promote or sell either my ideas or artefacts or pay others to do so. All support must be spontaneously engendered by evolution’s integrating of my inventions with the total evolution of human affairs.
9. Assume that nature has its own gestation rates, not only for the birth of each new biological component, but also for each inanimate technological artefacts.
10. Seek to develop my artefacts with ample anticipatory time margins so that they will be ready for use by society when society discovers–through evolutionary emergencies–a need for them.
11. Seek to learn the most from my mistakes.
12. Seek to decrease time wasted in worried procrastination and to increase time invested in discovery of technological effectiveness.
13. Seek to document my development in the official records of humanity by applying for and being granted government patents.
14. Above all, seek to comprehend the principles of eternally regenerative universe and discover how humans function in these principles.
15. Seek to educate myself comprehensively regarding nature’s inventory of chemical elements, their weights, performance characteristics, relative abundance’s, geographical whereabouts, metallurgical alloys, and chemical assoc abilities and disassociabilities.
16. Seek to comprehend the full gamut of production tool capabilities, energy resources, and all relevant geological, meteorological, demographic, and economic data.
17. Seek to operate only on a do-it-yourself basis and only on the basis of intuition.
18. Plan for my design science strategies to advantage the new life to be born on Earth, life born unencumbered with the conditioned reflexes so prevalent today.
19. Commit whole-heartedly to the above and pay no attention to “earning a living” in humanity’s established economic system, yet find that my family’s and my needs are provided for by seemingly pure happenstance and always only in the nick of time.
a loving way to live
July 26th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“I’ve gotta tell you, folks… I’ve gotta tell you…
When it comes to bullshit… big time, major league bullshit… you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims…
“R E L I G I O N”
Think about it…
Religion has actually convinced people that there is an invisible man living in the sky… who watches everything you do, for every minute of every day.
And the “invisible man” has a list of ten things he does NOT want you to do! And if you do ANY of these ten things he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever until the end of time…
…But HE LOVES YOU!”
He loves you… and He needs MONEY!!! He ALWAYS NEEDS MONEY!!! He’s all powerful… all perfect…all knowing and all wise…but somehow, he just can’t handle money!!!
Religion takes in billions of dollars… they pay no taxes…and yet they always need a little more.
Now, you talk about a G-O-O-D B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T S-T-O-R-Y…
“HOLY SHIT!!!”
____________________________________________________
Incidentally, the words above are not mine, but rather a segment of transcript from the movie, ZEITGEIST. But how true they are. How sad but true.
I find it so astonishingly mind-bending that in this day and age…an age where we beam back crisp, clear photos from robot craft on the surface of Mars; an age where we our entire planetary infrastructure is running on auto-pilot (courtesy of modern day computer technology)… that a huge percentage of us still cling to the absurd belief that:
* God plucked a rib-bone out of the very first human-being on earth so as He could create the second human-being on earth!
* Jonah was swallowed by a whale and then rescued days later!
* God spoke to Moses via a burning bush!
* Mary became pregnant without being impregnated!
* Jesus had no trouble in “walking” across water!
* Jesus cleverly turned a couple of loaves of bread and a handful of sardines into a banquet large enough to feed approximately four thousand fans!
* Jesus rose from the dead!
… and dozens of other equally gob-smacking miracles!!!
I’m sorry, but I just don’t “buy” into this stuff. If I did, then I too would be under the spell of those power-seeking, tax evading, mind-controlling, money-sucking entities known as “churches”.
Sure, I have my own idea of God… but it is based on logic, not fear and mysticism… and it has to do with the God within us all… not some immortal puppet-master in the sky.
Feel free to share your own thoughts on this controversial and often provocative subject.
Oh, and “may the force be with you”.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Quote “A Loving Way to Live” Yet you have no LOVE at all Shane, you dont know nothing about love, is that why you love your daughter so much you had to molest her?
Religion, ARE YOU GOD?????
Or your trying to be????
If you went to church, you will find out that it will save you.
You nothing but a old warned out prick who loves nothing but yourself so Shane like cintractor said GO DIG A DEEP HOLE AND JUMP IN IT!!!!
July 26th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Questions
1 Are we not sheep with fences around us?
2 Is it not true if you jump the fence youll be put back,what happens if you dont want to go back?
3 are fences representations of Jurisdiction?
4. Are not the govts representing living man into dead man?
5 Shane Wenzel (living man) into dead man (dead man)
6 Living man is decieve thinking that he is dead being representing by Lawyers corperated society owned by Govt ‘s YOU HAVE NO chance !!!!!!
July 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
……………….And your point is??????????
Your a bloody nutcase wenzel!!!!!!!!!
July 26th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Contractor chris (TEACHER)
This why you cant keep a job there are great teachers out there you give them a bad name
how is your hubby seeing other woman still
How is your treatment going
July 26th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
abc educate your self OARS ownership accountability remedy Success
———————————————————————————-
BEDS blame excuses denial slavery
life the sun is above the line
dead dark below the line
living man free man native man heath man co operation
—————————————————————————
dead man govt religions companies doctors drug companies competition
what is god !!! do some homework??? but open your mind if you can
are we not the son of GOD growing up? when will you grow up to to be that you are but deny??
GO to http://www.ZEITGEISTmovie.com
July 27th, 2007 at 2:30 am
You need to get treatment Wenzel
go on be true to yourself and let the mental health people try and cure you, oh but probably no cure for your illness – TERMINALLY INSANE
July 27th, 2007 at 8:32 am
Interpretation
[2Interpretation
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
judicial power or function means a power or function involving—
(a)discharging or purporting to discharge (or failing, refusing, or purporting to refuse, to discharge) responsibilities of a judicial nature vested in Justices; or
(b)issuing, or failing or refusing to issue, a warrant
Justice means a person who is a Justice of the Peace for New Zealand—
(a)by virtue of being appointed a Justice of the Peace for New Zealand under section 3(1); or
(b)by virtue of being a District Court Judge, a Judge of the Maori Land Court, the chairperson of a regional council, or the mayor of a territorial authority
Minister means the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of a warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act
Secretary means the Secretary for Justice
working day means a day that—
(a)is not Saturday, Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Labour Day, or the Sovereign's birthday; and
(b)does not fall in a period commencing on 20 December in one year and ending with 15 January in the next year.]
interesting thatb we thoughn we voted for minster of govt that they were working for us the living man the people BUT they work for the CROWN
Minister means the Minister of the Crown who, under the authority of a warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister, is responsible for the administration of this Act
Quote from the stautes of nz
DECIEVING THE PEOPLE wake up people
July 27th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Do us all a favour Wenzel rollover and die you stupid fat delusioned and ugly little illiterate man
July 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
My oh My,
you just cant keep it shut aye, no one wants to read your BULL SHIT coz thats all that comes out of your mouth BULLSHIT, and by the way contractor is not Chris,I spoke to her and has no idea about this dumb site, so I suggest you speak for yourself and get your facts right.
You really love talking about other people, but what about yourself, you can’t come to terms with the fact that your the biggest liar there is;
You talk about everyone elses family and my question to you is WHERES YOUR FAMILY???
Oh thats right YOU DONT HAVE ONE!! Even your own blood dont want to know you.
All you have is Poor old sick Robyn and that Loser Dianna whom you use so that you can satisfy your sexual needs ( Ewwwww)
So Shane go get a real life, maybe a FAMILY and stop criticising everyone that do, because I know deep down inside your crying because you don’t have the one thing everyone needs ‘SUPPORT FROM LOVED ONES’ In your case you have no loved ones.
So GO DIE!!!!
July 27th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Your right abc – no Im not Chris and never claimed to be trouble with Wenzel is he has so many enemies he dosent know whos who?
As for you Wenzel who the hell are you to criticise anyone, you are just jealous – jealous of others success, jealous of others wealth, jealous of others close family, jealous of others loving realtionships!
Coz lets face it your repitare runs as follows;
Lousy husband
Lousy Parent
Lousy Son
No friends
No family
No one who loves you
No money
No Home
No credibility
No intelligence
No common sense
No Education
No respect from anyone
No Career
and on and on and on…………………………..
God you have NOTHING you sad pathetic individual, no wonder your so bitter about those of us who have
Awwww mate just shoot urself
July 27th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Shane/Christopher,
What a sad pathetic attempt to take the spot light of you and your cronies and crooks. You silly sad pathetic little man
Haunted by your past and you Father.
You perverse sick individual. You have the gall and foolishness to challenge God. You have no idea what is in the bible and what constitutes faith in God. You are currently so far removed from Him you stand on the right hand side of Satin himself
Repent, repent repent you sinner and seek forgiveness from God, then man. Restore what you have thieved and put right what you have destroyed
The fiery pit awaits Shane/Christopher Charles Wenzel as you know it does.
You may run from the law but there is no escaping God
July 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Is the CROWN,ADMINISTRATORS,POLICE and GOVT creating Crimes of Torture By decieving the natrual person that he/she is not the artificial person as set down by the blacks law dict under def PERSON
Would it not be correct and tudor the the living man (natrual person) that like money you mat leese it but you may NOT own it, here lie start
TORTURE
Crimes of Torture Act 1989
2 Interpretation
2Interpretation
(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
Act of torture means any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person—
(a)For such purposes as—
(i)Obtaining from that person or some other person information or a confession; or
(ii)Punishing that person for any act or omission for which that person or some other person is responsible or is suspected of being responsible; or
(iii)Intimidating or coercing that person or some other person; or
(b)For any reason based on discrimination of any kind;—
but does not include any act or omission arising only from, or inherent in, or incidental to, any lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
The Convention means the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1984[, a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 1]:
Conviction on indictment has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Crimes Act 1961:
Fugitive Offenders Act 1881:Definition Repealed:
New Zealand includes all waters within the outer limits of the territorial sea of New Zealand (as defined by section 3 of the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977):
Public official means—
(a)Any person in the service of Her Majesty in right of New Zealand, including—
(i)A member of any of the Armed Forces of New Zealand; and
(ii)A judicial officer and a law enforcement officer within the meaning of Part 6 of the Crimes Act 1961; and
(iii)An officer within the meaning of the [Corrections Act 2004]; and
[(iiia)A security officer within the meaning of the [[Corrections Act 2004]]; and]
(iv)A member and an employee of any local authority or public body; and
(b)Any person who may exercise any power, pursuant to any law in force in a foreign state, that would be exercised in New Zealand by any person described in paragraph (a) of this definition.
(2)Unless the context otherwise requires, an expression that is used both in this Act and in the Convention has, in this Act, the same meaning as it has in the Convention.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:47 am
I thought that we are to vote a GOVT in for the people ( LIVING MAN) of NEW ZEALAND to administrate our affairs
WARNINING
WARNINING
WARNINING
we vote on behalf of DEAD MAN CORPERATE MAN( artificial man) the ministers in to act for the CROWN
Remember DEAD CANT TALK therefore must be represented by lawyers crown owned
CROWN IS NOT THE QUEEN!!!!!
WHO IS THE CROWN????
AND IT IS NOT THE PEOPLE!!!!!!! ?????
WHO IS THE CROWN????
Write in to your MP and ask?
BEWARE BEWARE you may be sharffed like Robyn Case Did with Judith Collins Cathern Rich??????
BEWARE BEWARE OF THE MARK OF THE BEAST it was once written!!!!???
C
Crown Entities Act 2004
Part 1 Preliminary provisions (s 3 to s 12)
7 Meaning of Crown entity and categories of Crown entities
7Meaning of Crown entity and categories of Crown entities
(1)In this Act, Crown entity means an entity within 1 of the following 5 categories:
(a)Statutory entities:
What are they? Definition Different types
These are bodies corporate that are established by or under an Act An entity or office named in Schedule 1 Crown agents (which must give effect to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister). These are named in Part 1 of Schedule 1
Autonomous Crown entities (which must have regard to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister). These are named in Part 2 of Schedule 1
Independent Crown entities (which are generally independent of government policy). These are named in Part 3 of Schedule 1
(b)Crown entity companies:
What are they? Definition
These are companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1993 that are wholly owned by the Crown A company named in Schedule 2
(c)Crown entity subsidiaries:
What are they? Definition
These are companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1993 that are controlled by Crown entities A company that, under sections 5 to 8 (except section 5(3) of the Companies Act 1993),—
(a) is a subsidiary of another Crown entity; or
(b) would be a subsidiary of other Crown entities if those Crown entities were treated as 1 entity (with their rights, entitlements, and interests in relation to the company taken together) for the purposes of those sections
(d)School boards of trustees:
What are they? Definition
These are boards that are bodies corporate constituted under the Education Act (including correspondence schools) A body that is a board of trustees constituted under Part 9 of the Education Act 1989 and includes a board of a school designated as a correspondence school by the Minister of Education under section 152 of the Education Act 1989
(e)Tertiary education institutions:
What are they? Definition
These are tertiary institutions (for example, colleges of education, polytechnics, specialist colleges, universities, or wananga) that are bodies corporate established under the Education Act 1989 An institution established under Part 14 of the Education Act 1989
(2)The words in brackets in subsection (1) about the effect of the different types of statutory entities are intended only as a guide.
July 29th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I cannot believe the amount a garbage that is coming out of Wenzel”s mouth. It should not be the court he has a date with, but with a psychologist. This man is nuts and his followers have been brainwashed.
Shane should let the poor people he has sucked in pick up the pieces and get on with life.
Shane you need help.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
What a LOAD of CRAP Shane, you are so full of it!!! Get a grip you stupid man, we are far better off without you than with you. I for one are happier, safer and more secure without all you shysters around. My house is safe, my family is safe and I love my new job. Life is GREAT!!!! ROT IN HELL SHANE!! ROBYN!! JOSE!!
July 30th, 2007 at 8:55 am
GOVT JUST HANDS OUT BILLS !!!!
POLICE JUST COLLECT BILLS !!!!
Bills of Exchange Act 1908
Part 1 Bills of exchange (s 3 to s 72)
Part 1
Bills of exchange
(s 3 to s 72)
Forms and interpretation
3“Bill of exchange” defined
(1)A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.
(2)An instrument that does not comply with these conditions, or that orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a bill of exchange.
(3)An order to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional within the meaning of this section; but an unqualified order to pay, coupled with (a) an indication of a particular fund out of which the drawee is to reimburse himself or a particular account to be debited with the amount, or (b) a statement of the transaction giving rise to the bill, is unconditional.
(4)A bill is not invalid by reason that—
(a)It is not dated:
(b)It does not specify the value given, or that any value has been given, therefor:
(c)It does not specify the place where it is drawn or the place where it is payable.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 3
4Inland and foreign bills
[(1)An inland bill is a bill that is, or on the face of it purports to be,—
(a)both drawn and payable in New Zealand; or
(b)drawn in New Zealand on a person who resides or has a place of business in New Zealand.]
[(1A)Any other bill is a foreign bill.]
(2)Unless the contrary appears on the face of the bill the holder may treat it as an inland bill.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 4; 1884 No 28 s 2
5How bills may be drawn
(1)A bill may be drawn payable to or to the order of the drawer; or it may be drawn payable to or to the order of the drawee.
(2)Where in a bill drawer and drawee are the same person, or where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may treat the instrument, at his option, either as a bill of exchange or as a promissory note.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 5
6Address to drawee
(1)The drawee must be named or otherwise indicated in a bill with reasonable certainty.
(2)A bill may be addressed to 2 or more drawees, whether they are partners or not; but an order addressed to 2 drawees in the alternative, or to 2 or more drawees in succession, is not a bill of exchange.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 6
7Certainty required as to payee
(1)Where a bill is not payable to bearer, the payee must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.
(2)A bill may be made payable—
(a)To 2 or more payees jointly; or
(b)In the alternative to 1 of 2, or 1 or some of several payees; or
(c)To the holder of an office for the time being.
(3)Where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person the bill may be treated as payable to bearer.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 7
8What bills are negotiable
(1)Where a bill contains words prohibiting transfer, or indicating an intention that it is not transferable, it is valid as between the parties thereto, but is not negotiable.
(2)A negotiable bill may be payable either to order or to bearer.
(3)A bill is payable to bearer if it is expressed to be so payable, or if the only or the last indorsement thereon is an indorsement in blank.
(4)A bill is payable to order if it is expressed to be so payable, or if it is expressed to be payable to a particular person, and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it is not transferable.
(5)Where a bill, either originally or by indorsement, is expressed to be payable to the order of a specified person, and not to him or his order, it is nevertheless payable to him or his order at his option.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 8
9Sum payable
(1)The sum payable by a bill is a sum certain within the meaning of this Act, although it is required to be paid—
(a)With interest:
(b)By stated instalments:
(c)By stated instalments, with a provision that upon default in payment of any instalment the whole shall become due:
(d)According to an indicated rate of exchange, or according to a rate of exchange to be ascertained as directed by the bill.
(2)Where the sum payable is expressed in words and also in figures, and there is a discrepancy between the 2, the sum denoted by the words is the amount payable.
(3)Where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest, unless the instrument provides otherwise, interest runs from the date of the bill, and, if the bill is undated, from the issue thereof.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 9
10Bill payable on demand
(1)A bill is payable on demand—
(a)If it is expressed to be payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation; or
(b)If no time for payment is expressed therein.
(2)Where a bill is accepted or indorsed when it is overdue, it shall, as regards the acceptor who so accepts, or any indorser who so indorses it, be deemed a bill payable on demand.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 10
11Bill payable at a future time
(1)A bill is payable at a determinable future time within the meaning of this Act if it is expressed to be payable—
(a)At a fixed period after date or sight:
(b)On or at a fixed period after the occurrence of a specified event that is certain to happen, though the time of happening may be uncertain.
(2)An instrument expressed to be payable on a contingency is not a bill, and the happening of the event does not cure the defect.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 11
12Omission of date in bill payable after date
Where a bill expressed to be payable at a fixed period after date is issued undated, or where the acceptance of a bill payable at a fixed period after sight is undated, any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance, and the bill shall be payable accordingly:
Provided that (a) where the holder in good faith and by mistake inserts a wrong date, and (b) in every case where a wrong date is inserted, if the bill subsequently comes into the hands of a holder in due course, it shall not be avoided by the insertion of a wrong date, but shall operate and be payable as if the date so inserted had been the true date.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 12
13Antedating and postdating
(1)Where a bill or an acceptance or any indorsement on a bill is dated, the date shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the true date of the drawing, acceptance, or indorsement, as the case may be.
(2)A bill is not invalid by reason only that it is antedated or postdated, or that it bears date on a Sunday.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 13
14Computation of time of payment
Where a bill is not payable on demand, the day on which it falls due is determined as follows:
[(a)The bill is due and payable in all cases on the last day of the time of payment as fixed by the bill or, if that day is a non-business day, on the next following business day:]
(b)Where a bill is payable at a fixed period after date, after sight, or after the happening of a specified event, the time of payment is determined by excluding the day from which the time is to begin to run and by including the day of payment.
(c)Where a bill is payable at a fixed period after sight, the time begins to run from the date of the acceptance if the bill is accepted, and from the date of noting or protest if the bill is noted or protested for non-acceptance or for non-delivery.
(d)The term month in a bill means calendar month.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 14
15Referee in case of need
The drawer of a bill and any indorser may insert therein the name of a person to whom the holder may resort in case of need—that is to say, in case the bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment. Such person is called the referee in case of need. It is in the option of the holder to resort to the referee in case of need or not, as he thinks fit.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 15
16Optional stipulations by drawer or indorser
The drawer of a bill, and any indorser, may insert therein an express stipulation—
(a)Negativing or limiting his own liability to the holder:
(b)Waiving as regards himself some or all of the holder’s duties.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 16
17Definition and requisites of acceptance
(1)The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer.
(2)An acceptance is invalid unless it complies with the following conditions, namely:
(a)It must be written on the bill and be signed by the drawee; the mere signature of the drawee without additional words is sufficient:
(b)It must not state that the drawee will perform his promise by any other means than the payment of money.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 17
18Time for acceptance
(1)A bill may be accepted—
(a)Before it has been signed by the drawer or while otherwise incomplete:
(b)When it is overdue, or after it has been dishonoured by a previous refusal to accept, or by non-payment.
(2)Where a bill payable after sight is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and the drawee subsequently accepts it, the holder, in the absence of any different agreement, is entitled to have the bill accepted as on the date of its first presentment to the drawee for acceptance.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 18
19General and qualified acceptances
(1)An acceptance is either (a) general, or (b) qualified.
(2)A general acceptance assents without qualification to the order of the drawer: a qualified acceptance in express terms varies the effect of the bill as drawn.
(3)In particular, an acceptance is qualified which is—
(a)Conditional—that is to say, which makes payment by the acceptor dependent on the fulfilment of a condition therein stated:
(b)Partial—that is to say, an acceptance to pay part only of the amount for which the bill is drawn:
(c)Local—that is to say, an acceptance to pay only at a particular specified place. An acceptance to pay at a particular place is a general acceptance, unless it expressly states that the bill is to be paid there only and not elsewhere:
(d)Qualified as to time:
(e)The acceptance of some one or more of the drawees, but not of all.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 19
20Inchoate instruments
(1)Where a simple signature on a blank stamped paper is delivered by the signer in order that it may be converted into a bill, it operates as a prima facie authority to fill it up as a complete bill for any amount the stamp will cover, using the signature for that of the drawer, or the acceptor, or an indorser; and in like manner, where a bill is wanting in any material particular, the person in possession of it has a prima facie authority to fill up the omission in any way he thinks fit.
(2)In order that any such instrument when completed may be enforceable against any person who became a party thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up within a reasonable time, and strictly in accordance with the authority given. Reasonable time for this purpose is a question of fact:
Provided that if any such instrument after completion is negotiated to a holder in due course, it shall be valid and effectual for all purposes in his hands, and he may enforce it as if it had been filled up within a reasonable time and strictly in accordance with the authority given.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 20
21Delivery
(1)Every contract on a bill, whether it is the drawer’s, the acceptor’s, or an indorser’s, is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument in order to give effect thereto:
Provided that where an acceptance is written on a bill, and the drawee gives notice to or according to the directions of the person entitled to the bill that he has accepted it, the acceptance then becomes complete and irrevocable.
(2)As between immediate parties, and as regards a remote party other than the holder in due course, the delivery—
(a)In order to be effectual must be made either by or under the authority of the party drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may be:
(b)May be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the bill.
(3)If the bill is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery of the bill by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed.
(4)Where a bill is no longer in the possession of a party who has signed it as drawer, acceptor, or indorser, a valid and unconditional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 21
Capacity and authority of parties
22Capacity of parties
(1)Capacity to incur liability as a party to a bill is co-extensive with capacity to contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable a corporation to make itself liable as a drawer, acceptor, or indorser of a bill unless it is competent to it so to do under the law for the time being in force relating to corporations.
(2)Where a bill is drawn or indorsed by a minor or corporation, having no capacity or power to incur liability on a bill, the drawing or indorsement entitles the holder to receive payment of the bill and to enforce it against any other party thereto.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 22
23Signature essential to liability
No person is liable as drawer, indorser, or acceptor of a bill unless he has signed it as such:
Provided that—
(a)Where a person signs a bill in a trade or assumed name, he is liable thereon as if he had signed it in his own name:
(b)The signature of the name of a firm is equivalent to the signature by the person so signing of the names of all persons liable as partners in that firm.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 23
24Forged or unauthorised signature
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a signature on a bill is forged, or is placed thereon without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the forged or unauthorised signature is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the bill or to give a discharge therefor or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto can be acquired through or under that signature, unless the party against whom it is sought to retain or enforce payment of the bill is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.
(2)Nothing in this section shall affect the ratification of an unauthorised signature not amounting to a forgery.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 24
25Signature by procuration
A signature by procuration operates as notice that the agent has but a limited authority to sign, and the principal is bound by such signature only if the agent in so signing was acting within the actual limits of his authority.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 25
26Person signing as agent or representative
(1)Where a person signs a bill as drawer, indorser, or acceptor, and adds words to his signature indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal, or in a representative character, he is not personally liable thereon; but the mere addition to his signature of words describing him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, does not exempt him from personal liability.
(2)In determining whether a signature on a bill is that of the principal, or that of the agent by whose hand it is written, the construction most favourable to the validity of the instrument shall be adopted.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 26
The consideration for a bill
27Value, and holder for value
(1)Valuable consideration for a bill may be constituted by—
(a)Any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract:
(b)An antecedent debt or liability. Such a debt or liability is deemed valuable consideration whether the bill is payable on demand or at future time.
(2)Where value has at any time been given for a bill, the holder is deemed to be a holder for value as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill who became parties prior to that time.
(3)Where the holder of a bill has a lien on it, arising either from contract or by implication of law, he is deemed to be a holder for value to the amount of the sum for which he has a lien.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 27
28Accommodation party
(1)An accommodation party to a bill is a person who has signed a bill as drawer, acceptor, or indorser without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person.
(2)An accommodation party is liable on the bill to a holder for value; and it is immaterial whether, when such holder took the bill, he knew such party to be an accommodation party or not.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 28
29Holder in due course
(1)A holder in due course is a holder who has taken a bill, complete and regular on the face of it, under the following conditions, namely:
(a)That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonoured, if such was the fact:
(b)That he took the bill in good faith and for value, and that at the time the bill was negotiated to him he had no notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated it.
(2)In particular, the title of a person who negotiates a bill is defective within the meaning of this Act when he obtained the bill, or the acceptance thereof, by fraud, duress, or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud.
(3)A holder (whether for value or not) who derives his title to a bill through a holder in due course, and who is not himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting it, has all the rights of that holder in due course as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill prior to that holder.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 29
30Presumption of value and good faith
(1)Every party whose signature appears on a bill is prima facie deemed to have become a party thereto for value.
[(2)Every holder of a bill is prima facie deemed to be a holder in due course; but if in an action on a bill it is admitted or proved—
(a)That the acceptance, issue, or subsequent negotiation of the bill is affected with fraud, duress, or force and fear, or illegality; or
(b)That the bill was drawn as part of, or pursuant to, a credit contract and that one or more of the provisions of the [[Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 have not been complied with, or that section 120(a), (b), or (c) of that Act applies]], in respect of the contract—
the burden of proof is shifted, unless and until the holder proves that,—
(c)In any case to which paragraph (a) of this subsection applies, subsequent to the alleged fraud or illegality, value has in good faith been given for the bill; and
(d)In any case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies, value has been given for the bill in good faith and without knowledge of the non-compliance or any oppressiveness.]
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 30
Negotiation of bills
31Negotiation of bill
(1)A bill is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder of the bill.
(2)A bill payable to bearer is negotiated by delivery.
(3)A bill payable to order is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder completed by delivery.
(4)Where the holder of a bill payable to his order transfers it for value without indorsing it, the transfer gives the transferee such title as the transferor had in the bill, and the transferee in addition acquires the right to have the indorsement of the transferor.
(5)Where any person is under obligation to indorse a bill in a representative capacity, he may indorse the bill in such terms as to negative personal liability.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 31
32Requisition of a valid indorsement
An indorsement in order to operate as a negotiation must comply with the following conditions, namely:
(a)It must be written on the bill itself and be signed by the indorser; the simple signature of the indorser on the bill, without additional words, is sufficient:
Provided that an indorsement written on an allonge, or on a “copy” of a bill issued or negotiated in a country where “copies” are recognised, shall be deemed to be written on the bill itself.
(b)It must be an indorsement of the entire bill. A partial indorsement—that is to say, an indorsement that purports to transfer to the indorsee a part only of the amount payable, or to transfer the bill to 2 or more indorsees severally—does not operate as a negotiation of the bill.
(c)Where a bill is payable to the order of 2 or more payees or indorsees who are not partners, all must indorse, unless the one indorsing has authority to indorse for the others.
(d)Where in a bill payable to order the payee or indorsee is wrongly designated, or his name is misspelt, he may indorse the bill as therein described, adding, if he thinks fit, his proper signature.
(e)Where there are 2 or more indorsements on a bill, each indorsement is deemed to have been made in the order in which it appears on the bill, until the contrary is proved.
(f)An indorsement may be either special or in blank; it may also contain terms making it restrictive.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 32
33Conditional indorsement
Where a bill purports to be indorsed conditionally, the condition may be disregarded by the payer, and payment to the indorsee is valid whether the condition has been fulfilled or not.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 33
34Indorsement in blank, and special indorsement
(1)An indorsement in blank specifies no indorsee, and a bill so indorsed becomes payable to bearer.
(2)A special indorsement specifies the person to whom, or to whose order, the bill is to be payable.
(3)The provisions of this Act relating to a payee apply, with the necessary modifications, to an indorsee under a special indorsement.
(4)Where a bill has been indorsed in blank, any holder may convert the blank indorsement into a special indorsement by writing above the indorser’s signature a direction to pay the bill to or to the order of himself or some other person.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 34
35Restrictive indorsement
(1)An indorsement is restrictive which prohibits the further negotiation of the bill, or which expresses that it is a mere authority to deal with the bill as thereby directed and not a transfer of the ownership thereof—as, for example, if a bill is indorsed “Pay D. only”, or “Pay D. for the account of X.”, or “Pay D. or order for collection”.
(2)A restrictive indorsement gives the indorsee the right to receive payment of the bill, and to sue any party thereto that his indorser could have sued, but gives him no power to transfer his rights as indorsee unless it expressly authorises him to do so.
(3)Where a restrictive indorsement authorises further transfer, all subsequent indorsees take the bill with the same rights and subject to the same liabilities as the first indorsee under the restrictive indorsement.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 35
36Negotiation of overdue or dishonoured bill
(1)Where a bill is negotiable in its origin, it continues to be negotiable until it has been either restrictively indorsed, or discharged by payment or otherwise.
(2)Where an overdue bill is negotiated, it can be negotiated only subject to any defect of title affecting it at its maturity, and thenceforward no person who takes it can acquire or give a better title than that which the person from whom he took it had.
(3)A bill payable on demand is deemed to be overdue within the meaning and for the purposes of this section when it appears on the face of it to have been in circulation for an unreasonable length of time. What is an unreasonable length of time for this purpose is a question of fact.
(4)Except where an indorsement bears date after the maturity of the bill, every negotiation is prima facie deemed to have been effected before the bill became overdue.
(5)Where a bill that is not overdue has been dishonoured, any person who takes it with notice of the dishonour takes it subject to any defect of title attaching thereto at the time of dishonour; but nothing in this subsection shall affect the rights of a holder in due course.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 36
37Negotiation of bill to party already liable thereon
Where a bill is negotiated back to the drawer, or to a prior indorser, or to the acceptor, such party may, subject to the provisions of this Act, reissue and further negotiate the bill; but he is not entitled to enforce payment of the bill against any intervening party to whom he was previously liable.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 37
38Rights of the holder
The rights and powers of the holder of a bill are as follow:
(a)He may sue on the bill in his own name:
(b)Where he is a holder in due course, he holds the bill free from any defect of title of prior parties, as well as from mere personal defences available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment against all parties liable on the bill:
(c)Where his title is defective,—
(i)If he negotiates the bill to a holder in due course, that holder obtains a good and complete title to the bill; and
(ii)If he obtains payment of the bill, the person who pays him in due course gets a valid discharge for the bill.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 38
General duties of the holder
39When presentment for acceptance is necessary
(1)Where a bill is payable after sight, presentment for acceptance is necessary in order to fix the maturity of the instrument.
(2)Where a bill expressly stipulates that it shall be presented for acceptance, or where a bill is drawn payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the drawee, it must be presented for acceptance before it can be presented for payment.
(3)In no other case is presentment for acceptance necessary in order to render liable any party to the bill.
(4)Where the holder of a bill drawn payable elsewhere than at the place of business or residence of the drawee has not time, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, to present the bill for acceptance before presenting it for payment on the day that it falls due, the delay caused by presenting the bill for acceptance before presenting it for payment is excused, and does not discharge the drawer and indorsers.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 39
40Time for presenting bill payable after sight
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill payable after sight is negotiated, the holder must either present it for acceptance or negotiate it within a reasonable time.
[(2)If he does not do so, the drawer and all indorsers prior to that holder are discharged to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission.]
(3)In determining what is a reasonable time within the meaning of this section, regard shall be had to the nature of the bill, the usage of trade with respect to similar bills, and the facts of the particular case.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 40
41Rules as to presentment for acceptance, and excuses for non-presentment
(1)A bill is duly presented for acceptance if it is presented in accordance with the following rules:
(a)The presentment must be made by or on behalf of the holder to the drawee, or to some person authorised to accept or to refuse acceptance on his behalf, at a reasonable hour on a business day and before the bill is overdue:
(b)Where a bill is addressed to 2 or more drawees, who are not partners, presentment must be made to them all, unless one has authority to accept for all, in which case presentment may be made to him only:
(c)Where the drawee is dead, presentment may be made to his executor or administrator:
(d)Where the drawee is bankrupt, presentment may be made to him or to his assignee:
[(da)Where the drawee is a body corporate that is being wound up, presentment may be made to the body corporate itself or to the liquidator:]
(e)Where authorised by agreement or usage, a presentment through the post office is sufficient:
(2)Presentment in accordance with these rules is excused, and a bill may be treated as dishonoured by non-acceptance,—
(f)Where the drawee is dead or bankrupt, or is a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract by bill:
[(fa)Where the drawee is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
(g)Where, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, such presentment cannot be affected:
(h)Where, although the presentment has been irregular, acceptance has been refused on some other ground.
(3)The fact that the holder has reason to believe that the bill, on presentment, will be dishonoured does not excuse presentment.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 41
42Non-acceptance
Where a bill is duly presented for acceptance and is not accepted within the customary time, the person presenting it must treat it as dishonoured by non-acceptance. If he does not, the holder shall lose his right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers [to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission].
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 42
43Dishonour by non-acceptance, and its consequences
(1)A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance—
(a)Where it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused, or cannot be obtained; or
(b)Where presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act, when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance an immediate right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 43
44Qualified acceptance
(1)The holder of a bill may refuse to take a qualified acceptance, and if he does not obtain a general acceptance may treat the bill as dishonoured by non-acceptance.
(2)Where a qualified acceptance is taken, and the drawer or an indorser has not expressly or impliedly authorised the holder to take a qualified acceptance, or does not subsequently assent thereto, such drawer or indorser is discharged from his liability on the bill. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a partial acceptance whereof due notice has been given. Where a foreign bill has been accepted as to part, it must be protested as to the balance.
(3)Where the drawer or indorser of a bill receives notice of a qualified acceptance, and does not within a reasonable time express his dissent to the holder, he shall be deemed to have assented thereto.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 44
45Rules as to presentment for payment
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, a bill must be duly presented for payment. If it is not so presented, the drawer and indorsers shall be discharged [to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission].
(2)A bill is duly presented for payment if it is presented in accordance with the following rules:
(a)Where the bill is not payable on demand, presentment must be made on the day it falls due.
(b)Where the bill is payable on demand, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, presentment must be made within a reasonable time after its issue in order to render the drawer liable, and within a reasonable time after its indorsement in order to render the indorser liable.
In determining what is a reasonable time regard shall be had to the nature of the bill, the usage of trade with regard to similar bills, and the facts of the particular case.
(c)Presentment must be made by the holder, or by some person authorised to receive payment on his behalf, at a reasonable hour on a business day, at the proper place as hereinafter defined, either to the person designated by the bill as payer, or to some person authorised to pay or refuse payment on his behalf, if by the exercise of reasonable diligence such person can there be found.
(d)A bill is presented at the proper place—
(i)Where a place of payment is specified in the bill, and the bill is there presented:
(ii)Where no place of payment is specified, but the address of the drawee or acceptor is given in the bill, and the bill is there presented:
(iii)Where no place of payment is specified and no address given, and the bill is presented at the drawee’s or acceptor’s place of business, if known, and if not, at his ordinary residence, if known:
(iv)In any other case, if presented to the drawee or acceptor at his last known place of business or residence, or wherever he can be found.
(e)Where a bill is presented at the proper place, and after the exercise of reasonable diligence no person authorised to pay or refuse payment can be found there, no further presentment to the drawee or acceptor is required.
(f)Where a bill is drawn upon or accepted by 2 or more persons who are not partners, and no place of payment is specified, presentment must be made to them all.
(g)Where the drawee or acceptor of the bill is dead, and no place of payment is specified, presentment must be made to the executor or administrator of the deceased, if any, and if by the exercise of reasonable diligence he can be found.
[(ga)Where the drawee or acceptor of the bill is bankrupt, presentment may be made to the bankrupt himself or to his assignee.]
[(gb)Where the drawee or acceptor of the bill is a body corporate that is being wound up, presentment may be made to the body corporate itself or to the liquidator.]
(h)Where authorised by agreement or usage, presentment through the post office is sufficient.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 45
46Excuses for delay or non-presentment for payment
(1)Delay in making presentment for payment is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made with reasonable diligence.
(2)Presentment for payment is dispensed with—
(a)Where, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, presentment as required by this Act cannot be effected:
The fact that the holder has reason to believe that the bill will, on presentment, be dishonoured, does not dispense with the necessity for presentment:
(b)Where the drawee is a fictitious person:
[(ba)Where the drawee or acceptor is bankrupt:]
[(bb)Where the drawee or acceptor is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
[(c)As regards the drawer,—
(i)Where the drawee or acceptor is not bound, as between himself and the drawer, to accept or pay the bill, and the drawer has no reason to believe that the bill would be paid if presented; or
(ii)Where the drawer is bankrupt; or
(iii)Where the drawer is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
[(d)As regards an indorser,—
(i)Where the bill was accepted or made for the accommodation of that indorser, and he has no reason to believe that the bill would be paid if presented; or
(ii)Where that indorser is bankrupt; or
(iii)Where that indorser is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
(e)By waiver of presentment, express or implied.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 46
47Dishonour by non-payment
(1)A bill is dishonoured by non-payment—
(a)Where it is duly presented for payment and payment is refused, or cannot be obtained; or
(b)Where presentment is excused and the bill is overdue and unpaid.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill is dishonoured by non-payment an immediate right of recourse against the drawers or indorsers accrues to the holder.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 47
48Notice of dishonour
Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance or by non-payment, notice of dishonour must be given to the drawer and each indorser, and any drawer or indorser to whom such notice is not given is discharged [to the extent that he is prejudiced by the omission]:
Provided that—
(a)Where a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and notice of dishonour is not given, the rights of a holder in due course subsequent to the omission shall not be prejudiced by the omission:
(b)Where a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and due notice of dishonour is given, it shall not be necessary to give notice of a subsequent dishonour by non-payment unless the bill has in the meantime been accepted.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 48
49Rules as to notice of dishonour
Notice of dishonour in order to be valid and effectual must be given in accordance with the following rules:
(a)The notice must be given by or on behalf of the holder, or by or on behalf of an indorser who, at the time of giving it, is himself liable on the bill.
(b)Notice of dishonour may be given by an agent either in his own name or in the name of any party entitled to give notice, whether that party is his principal or not.
(c)Where the notice is given by or on behalf of the holder, it enures for the benefit of all subsequent holders and all prior indorsers having a right of recourse against the party to whom it is given.
(d)Where notice is given by or on behalf of an indorser entitled to give notice as hereinbefore provided, it enures for the benefit of the holder and all indorsers subsequent to the party to whom notice is given.
(e)The notice may be given either in writing or by personal communication, and may be given in any terms sufficient to identify the bill, and intimating that the bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment.
(f)The return of a dishonoured bill to the drawer or an indorser is in point of form deemed a sufficient notice of dishonour.
(g)A written notice need not be signed, and an insufficient written notice may be supplemented and made valid by verbal communication.
(h)A misdescription of the bill shall not vitiate the notice unless the party to whom the notice is given is in fact misled thereby.
(i)Where notice of dishonour is required to be given to any person, it may be given either to the party himself or to his agent in that behalf.
(j)Where the drawer or indorser is dead, and the party giving notice is aware of the fact, the notice must be given to an executor or administrator of the deceased, if any, and if by the exercise of reasonable diligence he can be found.
(k)Where the drawer or indorser is bankrupt, notice may be given either to the party himself or to his assignee.
[(ka)Where the drawer or indorser is a body corporate that is being wound up, notice may be given either to the body corporate itself or to the liquidator:]
(l)Where there are more than 2 drawers or indorsers, who are not partners, notice must be given to each of them, unless one of them has authority to receive such notice on behalf of the others.
(m)The notice may be given as soon as the bill is dishonoured, and must be given within a reasonable time thereafter.
(n)In the absence of special circumstances notice is not deemed to have been given within a reasonable time unless—
(i)Where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in the same place, the notice is given or sent off in time to reach the latter on the day after the dishonour of the bill:
(ii)Where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in different places, the notice is sent off on the day after the dishonour of the bill, if there is a post at a convenient hour on that day, and, if there is no such post on that day, then by the next post thereafter.
(o)Where a bill when dishonoured is in the hands of an agent, he may either himself give notice to the parties liable on the bill, or he may give notice to his principal. If he gives notice to his principal, he must do so within the same time as if he were the holder; and the principal, upon receipt of such notice, has himself the same time for giving notice as if the agent had been an independent holder.
(p)Where a party to a bill receives due notice of dishonour, he has after the receipt of such notice the same period of time for giving notice to antecedent parties that the holder has after the dishonour.
(q)Where a notice of dishonour is duly addressed and posted, the sender is deemed to have given due notice of dishonour notwithstanding any miscarriage by the post office.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 49
50Excuses for want of notice and delay
(1)Delay in giving notice of dishonour is excused where the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the party giving notice, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate the notice must be given with reasonable diligence.
(2)Notice of dishonour is dispensed with—
(a)When, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, notice as required by this Act cannot be given to or does not reach the drawer or indorser sought to be charged:
(b)By waiver, express or implied, either before the time of giving notice of dishonour has arrived, or after the omission to give due notice:
(c)As regards the drawer, in the following cases, namely:
(i)Where the drawer and drawee are the same person;
(ii)Where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract;
(iii)Where the drawer is the person to whom the bill is presented for payment;
(iv)Where the drawee or acceptor is as between himself and the drawer under no obligation to accept or pay the bill;
(v)Where the drawer has countermanded payment:
(d)As regards the indorser, in the following cases, namely:
(i)Where the drawee is a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract, and the indorser was aware of the fact at the time he indorsed the bill;
(ii)Where the indorser is the person to whom the bill is presented for payment;
(iii)Where the bill was accepted and made for his accommodation.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 50
51Noting or protest of bill
(1)Where an inland bill has been dishonoured it may, if the owner thinks fit, be noted for non-acceptance or non-payment, as the case may be; but it shall not be necessary to note or protest any such bill in order to preserve the recourse against the drawer or indorser.
(2)Where a foreign bill, appearing on the face of it to be such, has been dishonoured by non-acceptance it must be duly protested for non-acceptance, and where such a bill, not having been previously dishonoured by non-acceptance, is dishonoured by non-payment it must be duly protested for non-payment, otherwise the drawer and indorsers are discharged [to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission].
(3)Where a bill does not appear on the face of it to be a foreign bill, protest thereof as in case of dishonour is unnecessary.
(4)A bill that has been protested for non-acceptance may be subsequently protested for non-payment.
(5)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill is noted or protested it must be noted on the day of dishonour.
(6)Where a bill has been duly noted, the protest may be subsequently extended so as to take effect from the date of the noting.
(7)Where the acceptor of a bill becomes bankrupt or insolvent or suspends payment before it matures, the holder may cause the bill to be protested for better security against the drawer and indorsers.
(8)A bill must be protested at the place where it is dishonoured:
Provided that—
(a)Where a bill is presented through the post office, and returned by post dishonoured, it may be protested at the place to which it is returned and on the day of its return if received during business hours, and if not received during business hours, then not later than the next business day; and
(b)When a bill drawn payable at the place of business or residence of some person other than the drawee has been dishonoured by non-acceptance, it must be protested for non-payment at the place where it is expressed to be payable, and no further presentment for payment to or demand on the drawee is necessary.
(9)A protest must contain a copy of the bill, and must be signed by the notary making it, and must specify—
(a)The person at whose request the bill is protested:
(b)The place and date of protest, the cause or reason for protesting the bill, the demand made, and the answer given, if any, or the fact that the drawee or acceptor could not be found.
(10)Where a bill is lost or destroyed, or is wrongly detained from the person entitled to hold it, protest may be made on a copy or on written particulars thereof.
(11)Protest is dispensed with by any circumstance that would dispense with notice of dishonour.
(12)Delay in noting or protesting is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate the bill must be noted or protested with reasonable diligence.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 51
52Duties of holder as regards drawee or acceptor
(1)When a bill is accepted generally, presentment for payment is not necessary in order to render the acceptor liable.
(2)When by the terms of a qualified acceptance presentment for payment is required, the acceptor, in the absence of an express stipulation to that effect, is not discharged by the omission to present the bill for payment on the day that it matures.
(3)In order to render the acceptor of a bill liable it is not necessary to protest it, or that notice of dishonour should be given to him.
(4)When the holder of a bill presents it for payment, he shall exhibit the bill to the person from whom he demands payment, and when a bill is paid the holder shall forthwith deliver it up to the party paying it.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 52
Liabilities of parties
53Funds in hands of drawee
A bill of itself does not operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee available for the payment thereof, and the drawee of a bill who does not accept as required by this Act is not liable on the instrument.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 53
54Liability of acceptor
The acceptor of a bill, by accepting it,—
(a)Engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance:
(b)Is precluded from denying to a holder in due course—
(i)The existence of the drawer, the genuineness of his signature, and his capacity and authority to draw the bill;
(ii)In the case of a bill payable to drawer’s order, the then capacity of the drawer to indorse, but not the genuineness or validity of his indorsement;
(iii)In the case of a bill payable to the order of a third person, the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse, but not the genuineness or validity of his indorsement.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 54
55Liability of drawer or indorser
(1)The drawer of a bill, by drawing it,—
(a)Engages that on due presentation it shall be accepted and paid according to its tenor, and that if it is dishonoured he will compensate the holder or any indorser who is compelled to pay it, provided that the requisite proceedings on dishonour are duly taken:
(b)Is precluded from denying to a holder in due course the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse.
(2)The indorser of a bill, by indorsing it,—
(c)Engages that on due presentment it shall be accepted and paid according to its tenor, and that if it is dishonoured he will compensate the holder or a subsequent indorser who is compelled to pay it, provided that the requisite proceedings on dishonour are duly taken:
(d)Is precluded from denying to a holder in due course the genuineness and regularity in all respects of the drawer’s signature and all previous indorsements:
(e)Is precluded from denying to his immediate or a subsequent indorsee that the bill was at the time of his indorsement a valid and subsisting bill, and that he had then a good title thereto.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 55
56Stranger signing bill liable as indorser
Where a person signs a bill otherwise than as drawer or acceptor, he thereby incurs the liabilities of an indorser to a holder in due course.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 56
57Measure of damages against parties to dishonoured bill
Where a bill is dishonoured, the measure of damages, which shall be deemed to be liquidated damages, shall be as follows:
(a)The holder may recover from any party liable on the bill, and the drawer who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from the acceptor, and an indorser who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from the acceptor or from the drawer, or from a prior indorser,—
(i)The amount of the bill:
(ii)Interest thereon from the time of presentment for payment if the bill is payable on demand, and from the maturity of the bill in any other case:
(iii)The expenses of noting, or, when protest is necessary and the protest has been extended, the expenses of protest.
(b)In the case of a bill that has been dishonoured abroad, in lieu of the above damages the holder may recover from the drawer or an indorser, and the drawer or an indorser who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from any party liable to him, the amount of the re-exchange, with interest thereon until the time of payment.
(c)Where by this Act interest may be recovered as damages, such interest may, if justice requires it, be withheld wholly or in part, and, where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest at a given rate, interest as damages may or may not be given at the same rate as interest proper.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 57
58Transferor and transferee by delivery
(1)Where the holder of a bill payable to bearer negotiates it by delivery without indorsing it, he is called a transferor by delivery.
(2)A transferor by delivery is not liable on the instrument.
(3)A transferor by delivery who negotiates a bill thereby warrants to his immediate transferee being a holder for value that the bill is what it purports to be, that he has a right to transfer it, and that at the time of transfer he is not aware of any fact which renders it valueless.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 58
Discharge of bill
59Payment in due course
(1)A bill is discharged by payment in due course by or on behalf of the drawee or acceptor.
(2)Payment in due course means payment to the holder of the bill made at or after the maturity thereof in good faith and without notice that the holder’s title is defective.
(3)Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, when a bill is paid by the drawer or an indorser it is not discharged: but
(a)Where a bill payable to or to the order of a third party is paid by the drawer, the drawer may enforce payment thereof against the acceptor, but may not reissue the bill;
(b)Where a bill is paid by an indorser, or where a bill payable to drawer’s order is paid by the drawer, the party paying it is remitted to his former rights as regards the acceptor or antecedent parties, and may, if he thinks fit, strike out his own and subsequent indorsements, and again negotiate the bill.
(4)Where an accommodation bill is paid in due course by the party accommodated the bill is discharged.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 59
60Banker paying on demand draft bearing forged indorsement
(1)Where a bill payable to order on demand is drawn on a banker, and the banker on whom it is drawn pays the bill in good faith and in the ordinary course of business, it is not incumbent on the banker to show that the indorsement of the payee or any subsequent indorsement was made by or under the authority of the person whose indorsement it purports to be, and the banker is deemed to have paid the bill in due course, although such indorsement has been forged or made without authority.
(2)Where a banker carries on the business of banking at more branches than one he shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be an independent banker in respect of each of such branches, and a draft issued by one of such branches and payable at another shall be deemed to be a bill.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 60; 1905 No 40 s 2
61Where acceptor the holder at maturity
Where the acceptor of a bill is or becomes the holder of it in his own right, at or after its maturity, the bill is discharged.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 61
62Holder may waive his rights
(1)Where the holder of a bill at or after its maturity absolutely and unconditionally renounces his rights against the acceptor the bill is discharged. The renunciation must be in writing, unless the bill is delivered up to the acceptor.
(2)The liabilities of any party to a bill may in like manner be renounced by the holder before, at, or after its maturity.
(3)Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a holder in due course without notice of any such renunciation.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 62
63Cancellation
(1)Where a bill is intentionally cancelled by the holder or his agent, and the cancellation is apparent thereon, the bill is discharged.
(2)Any party liable on a bill may in like manner be discharged by the intentional cancellation of his signature by the holder or his agent. In such case an indorser who would have had a right of recourse against the party whose signature has been cancelled is also discharged.
(3)A cancellation made unintentionally, or under a mistake, or without the authority of the holder, is inoperative; but where a bill or any signature thereon appears to have been cancelled the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges that the cancellation was made unintentionally, or under a mistake, or without authority.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 63
64Alteration of bill
(1)Where a bill or acceptance is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable on the bill, the bill is avoided except as against a party who has himself made, authorised, or assented to the alteration, and subsequent indorsers:
Provided that, where a bill has been materially altered, but the alteration is not apparent, and the bill is in the hands of a holder in due course, such holder may avail himself of the bill as if it had not been altered, and may enforce payment of it according to its original tenor.
(2)In particular the following alterations are material, namely, any alteration of the date, the sum payable, the time of payment, the place of payment, and, where a bill has been accepted generally, the addition of a place of payment without the acceptor’s assent.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 64
Acceptance and payment for honour
65Acceptance for honour supra protest
(1)Where a bill of exchange has been protested for dishonour by non-acceptance, or protested for better security, and is not overdue, any person, not being a party already liable thereon, may, with the consent of the holder, intervene and accept the bill supra protest, for the honour of any party liable thereon, or for the honour of the person on whose account the bill is drawn.
(2)A bill may be accepted for honour for part only of the sum for which it is drawn.
(3)An acceptance for honour supra protest in order to be valid must—
(a)Be written on the bill, and indicate that it is an acceptance for honour; and
(b)Be signed by the acceptor for honour.
(4)Where an acceptance for honour does not expressly state for whose honour it is made, it is deemed to be an acceptance for the honour of the drawer.
(5)Where a bill payable after sight is accepted for honour, its maturity is calculated from the date of the noting for non-acceptance, and not from the date of the acceptance for honour.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 65
66Liability of acceptor for honour
(1)The acceptor for honour of a bill by accepting it engages that he will, on due presentment, pay the bill according to the tenor of his acceptance, if it is not paid by the drawee, provided that it has been duly presented for payment and protested for non-payment, and that he receives notice of these facts.
(2)The acceptor for honour is liable to the holder and to all parties to the bill subsequent to the party for whose honour he has accepted.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 66
67Presentation to acceptor for honour
(1)Where a dishonoured bill has been accepted for honour supra protest, or contains a reference in case of need, it must be protested for non-payment before it is presented for payment to the acceptor for honour or referee in case of need.
(2)Where the address of the acceptor for honour is in the same place where the bill is protested for non-payment, the bill must be presented to him not later than the day following its maturity; and where the address of the acceptor for honour is in some place other than the place where it was protested for non-payment, the bill must be forwarded for presentment to him not later than the day following its maturity.
(3)Delay in presentment, or non-presentment, is excused by any circumstance that would excuse delay in presentment for payment, or non-presentment for payment.
(4)Where a bill is dishonoured by the acceptor for honour it must be protested for non-payment by him.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 67
68Payment for honour supra protest
(1)Where a bill has been protested for non-payment, any person may intervene and pay it supra protest for the honour of any party liable thereon, or for the honour of the person on whose account the bill is drawn.
(2)Where 2 or more persons offer to pay a bill for the honour of different parties, the person whose pa
July 30th, 2007 at 8:55 am
GOVT JUST HANDS OUT BILLS !!!!
POLICE JUST COLLECT BILLS !!!!
Bills of Exchange Act 1908
Part 1 Bills of exchange (s 3 to s 72)
Part 1
Bills of exchange
(s 3 to s 72)
Forms and interpretation
3“Bill of exchange” defined
(1)A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.
(2)An instrument that does not comply with these conditions, or that orders any act to be done in addition to the payment of money, is not a bill of exchange.
(3)An order to pay out of a particular fund is not unconditional within the meaning of this section; but an unqualified order to pay, coupled with (a) an indication of a particular fund out of which the drawee is to reimburse himself or a particular account to be debited with the amount, or (b) a statement of the transaction giving rise to the bill, is unconditional.
(4)A bill is not invalid by reason that—
(a)It is not dated:
(b)It does not specify the value given, or that any value has been given, therefor:
(c)It does not specify the place where it is drawn or the place where it is payable.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 3
4Inland and foreign bills
[(1)An inland bill is a bill that is, or on the face of it purports to be,—
(a)both drawn and payable in New Zealand; or
(b)drawn in New Zealand on a person who resides or has a place of business in New Zealand.]
[(1A)Any other bill is a foreign bill.]
(2)Unless the contrary appears on the face of the bill the holder may treat it as an inland bill.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 4; 1884 No 28 s 2
5How bills may be drawn
(1)A bill may be drawn payable to or to the order of the drawer; or it may be drawn payable to or to the order of the drawee.
(2)Where in a bill drawer and drawee are the same person, or where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract, the holder may treat the instrument, at his option, either as a bill of exchange or as a promissory note.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 5
6Address to drawee
(1)The drawee must be named or otherwise indicated in a bill with reasonable certainty.
(2)A bill may be addressed to 2 or more drawees, whether they are partners or not; but an order addressed to 2 drawees in the alternative, or to 2 or more drawees in succession, is not a bill of exchange.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 6
7Certainty required as to payee
(1)Where a bill is not payable to bearer, the payee must be named or otherwise indicated therein with reasonable certainty.
(2)A bill may be made payable—
(a)To 2 or more payees jointly; or
(b)In the alternative to 1 of 2, or 1 or some of several payees; or
(c)To the holder of an office for the time being.
(3)Where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person the bill may be treated as payable to bearer.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 7
8What bills are negotiable
(1)Where a bill contains words prohibiting transfer, or indicating an intention that it is not transferable, it is valid as between the parties thereto, but is not negotiable.
(2)A negotiable bill may be payable either to order or to bearer.
(3)A bill is payable to bearer if it is expressed to be so payable, or if the only or the last indorsement thereon is an indorsement in blank.
(4)A bill is payable to order if it is expressed to be so payable, or if it is expressed to be payable to a particular person, and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it is not transferable.
(5)Where a bill, either originally or by indorsement, is expressed to be payable to the order of a specified person, and not to him or his order, it is nevertheless payable to him or his order at his option.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 8
9Sum payable
(1)The sum payable by a bill is a sum certain within the meaning of this Act, although it is required to be paid—
(a)With interest:
(b)By stated instalments:
(c)By stated instalments, with a provision that upon default in payment of any instalment the whole shall become due:
(d)According to an indicated rate of exchange, or according to a rate of exchange to be ascertained as directed by the bill.
(2)Where the sum payable is expressed in words and also in figures, and there is a discrepancy between the 2, the sum denoted by the words is the amount payable.
(3)Where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest, unless the instrument provides otherwise, interest runs from the date of the bill, and, if the bill is undated, from the issue thereof.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 9
10Bill payable on demand
(1)A bill is payable on demand—
(a)If it is expressed to be payable on demand, or at sight, or on presentation; or
(b)If no time for payment is expressed therein.
(2)Where a bill is accepted or indorsed when it is overdue, it shall, as regards the acceptor who so accepts, or any indorser who so indorses it, be deemed a bill payable on demand.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 10
11Bill payable at a future time
(1)A bill is payable at a determinable future time within the meaning of this Act if it is expressed to be payable—
(a)At a fixed period after date or sight:
(b)On or at a fixed period after the occurrence of a specified event that is certain to happen, though the time of happening may be uncertain.
(2)An instrument expressed to be payable on a contingency is not a bill, and the happening of the event does not cure the defect.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 11
12Omission of date in bill payable after date
Where a bill expressed to be payable at a fixed period after date is issued undated, or where the acceptance of a bill payable at a fixed period after sight is undated, any holder may insert therein the true date of issue or acceptance, and the bill shall be payable accordingly:
Provided that (a) where the holder in good faith and by mistake inserts a wrong date, and (b) in every case where a wrong date is inserted, if the bill subsequently comes into the hands of a holder in due course, it shall not be avoided by the insertion of a wrong date, but shall operate and be payable as if the date so inserted had been the true date.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 12
13Antedating and postdating
(1)Where a bill or an acceptance or any indorsement on a bill is dated, the date shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the true date of the drawing, acceptance, or indorsement, as the case may be.
(2)A bill is not invalid by reason only that it is antedated or postdated, or that it bears date on a Sunday.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 13
14Computation of time of payment
Where a bill is not payable on demand, the day on which it falls due is determined as follows:
[(a)The bill is due and payable in all cases on the last day of the time of payment as fixed by the bill or, if that day is a non-business day, on the next following business day:]
(b)Where a bill is payable at a fixed period after date, after sight, or after the happening of a specified event, the time of payment is determined by excluding the day from which the time is to begin to run and by including the day of payment.
(c)Where a bill is payable at a fixed period after sight, the time begins to run from the date of the acceptance if the bill is accepted, and from the date of noting or protest if the bill is noted or protested for non-acceptance or for non-delivery.
(d)The term month in a bill means calendar month.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 14
15Referee in case of need
The drawer of a bill and any indorser may insert therein the name of a person to whom the holder may resort in case of need—that is to say, in case the bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment. Such person is called the referee in case of need. It is in the option of the holder to resort to the referee in case of need or not, as he thinks fit.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 15
16Optional stipulations by drawer or indorser
The drawer of a bill, and any indorser, may insert therein an express stipulation—
(a)Negativing or limiting his own liability to the holder:
(b)Waiving as regards himself some or all of the holder’s duties.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 16
17Definition and requisites of acceptance
(1)The acceptance of a bill is the signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer.
(2)An acceptance is invalid unless it complies with the following conditions, namely:
(a)It must be written on the bill and be signed by the drawee; the mere signature of the drawee without additional words is sufficient:
(b)It must not state that the drawee will perform his promise by any other means than the payment of money.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 17
18Time for acceptance
(1)A bill may be accepted—
(a)Before it has been signed by the drawer or while otherwise incomplete:
(b)When it is overdue, or after it has been dishonoured by a previous refusal to accept, or by non-payment.
(2)Where a bill payable after sight is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and the drawee subsequently accepts it, the holder, in the absence of any different agreement, is entitled to have the bill accepted as on the date of its first presentment to the drawee for acceptance.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 18
19General and qualified acceptances
(1)An acceptance is either (a) general, or (b) qualified.
(2)A general acceptance assents without qualification to the order of the drawer: a qualified acceptance in express terms varies the effect of the bill as drawn.
(3)In particular, an acceptance is qualified which is—
(a)Conditional—that is to say, which makes payment by the acceptor dependent on the fulfilment of a condition therein stated:
(b)Partial—that is to say, an acceptance to pay part only of the amount for which the bill is drawn:
(c)Local—that is to say, an acceptance to pay only at a particular specified place. An acceptance to pay at a particular place is a general acceptance, unless it expressly states that the bill is to be paid there only and not elsewhere:
(d)Qualified as to time:
(e)The acceptance of some one or more of the drawees, but not of all.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 19
20Inchoate instruments
(1)Where a simple signature on a blank stamped paper is delivered by the signer in order that it may be converted into a bill, it operates as a prima facie authority to fill it up as a complete bill for any amount the stamp will cover, using the signature for that of the drawer, or the acceptor, or an indorser; and in like manner, where a bill is wanting in any material particular, the person in possession of it has a prima facie authority to fill up the omission in any way he thinks fit.
(2)In order that any such instrument when completed may be enforceable against any person who became a party thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up within a reasonable time, and strictly in accordance with the authority given. Reasonable time for this purpose is a question of fact:
Provided that if any such instrument after completion is negotiated to a holder in due course, it shall be valid and effectual for all purposes in his hands, and he may enforce it as if it had been filled up within a reasonable time and strictly in accordance with the authority given.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 20
21Delivery
(1)Every contract on a bill, whether it is the drawer’s, the acceptor’s, or an indorser’s, is incomplete and revocable until delivery of the instrument in order to give effect thereto:
Provided that where an acceptance is written on a bill, and the drawee gives notice to or according to the directions of the person entitled to the bill that he has accepted it, the acceptance then becomes complete and irrevocable.
(2)As between immediate parties, and as regards a remote party other than the holder in due course, the delivery—
(a)In order to be effectual must be made either by or under the authority of the party drawing, accepting, or indorsing, as the case may be:
(b)May be shown to have been conditional, or for a special purpose only, and not for the purpose of transferring the property in the bill.
(3)If the bill is in the hands of a holder in due course, a valid delivery of the bill by all parties prior to him so as to make them liable to him is conclusively presumed.
(4)Where a bill is no longer in the possession of a party who has signed it as drawer, acceptor, or indorser, a valid and unconditional delivery by him is presumed until the contrary is proved.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 21
Capacity and authority of parties
22Capacity of parties
(1)Capacity to incur liability as a party to a bill is co-extensive with capacity to contract:
Provided that nothing in this section shall enable a corporation to make itself liable as a drawer, acceptor, or indorser of a bill unless it is competent to it so to do under the law for the time being in force relating to corporations.
(2)Where a bill is drawn or indorsed by a minor or corporation, having no capacity or power to incur liability on a bill, the drawing or indorsement entitles the holder to receive payment of the bill and to enforce it against any other party thereto.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 22
23Signature essential to liability
No person is liable as drawer, indorser, or acceptor of a bill unless he has signed it as such:
Provided that—
(a)Where a person signs a bill in a trade or assumed name, he is liable thereon as if he had signed it in his own name:
(b)The signature of the name of a firm is equivalent to the signature by the person so signing of the names of all persons liable as partners in that firm.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 23
24Forged or unauthorised signature
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a signature on a bill is forged, or is placed thereon without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the forged or unauthorised signature is wholly inoperative, and no right to retain the bill or to give a discharge therefor or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto can be acquired through or under that signature, unless the party against whom it is sought to retain or enforce payment of the bill is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.
(2)Nothing in this section shall affect the ratification of an unauthorised signature not amounting to a forgery.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 24
25Signature by procuration
A signature by procuration operates as notice that the agent has but a limited authority to sign, and the principal is bound by such signature only if the agent in so signing was acting within the actual limits of his authority.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 25
26Person signing as agent or representative
(1)Where a person signs a bill as drawer, indorser, or acceptor, and adds words to his signature indicating that he signs for or on behalf of a principal, or in a representative character, he is not personally liable thereon; but the mere addition to his signature of words describing him as an agent, or as filling a representative character, does not exempt him from personal liability.
(2)In determining whether a signature on a bill is that of the principal, or that of the agent by whose hand it is written, the construction most favourable to the validity of the instrument shall be adopted.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 26
The consideration for a bill
27Value, and holder for value
(1)Valuable consideration for a bill may be constituted by—
(a)Any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract:
(b)An antecedent debt or liability. Such a debt or liability is deemed valuable consideration whether the bill is payable on demand or at future time.
(2)Where value has at any time been given for a bill, the holder is deemed to be a holder for value as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill who became parties prior to that time.
(3)Where the holder of a bill has a lien on it, arising either from contract or by implication of law, he is deemed to be a holder for value to the amount of the sum for which he has a lien.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 27
28Accommodation party
(1)An accommodation party to a bill is a person who has signed a bill as drawer, acceptor, or indorser without receiving value therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person.
(2)An accommodation party is liable on the bill to a holder for value; and it is immaterial whether, when such holder took the bill, he knew such party to be an accommodation party or not.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 28
29Holder in due course
(1)A holder in due course is a holder who has taken a bill, complete and regular on the face of it, under the following conditions, namely:
(a)That he became the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonoured, if such was the fact:
(b)That he took the bill in good faith and for value, and that at the time the bill was negotiated to him he had no notice of any defect in the title of the person who negotiated it.
(2)In particular, the title of a person who negotiates a bill is defective within the meaning of this Act when he obtained the bill, or the acceptance thereof, by fraud, duress, or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or for an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud.
(3)A holder (whether for value or not) who derives his title to a bill through a holder in due course, and who is not himself a party to any fraud or illegality affecting it, has all the rights of that holder in due course as regards the acceptor and all parties to the bill prior to that holder.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 29
30Presumption of value and good faith
(1)Every party whose signature appears on a bill is prima facie deemed to have become a party thereto for value.
[(2)Every holder of a bill is prima facie deemed to be a holder in due course; but if in an action on a bill it is admitted or proved—
(a)That the acceptance, issue, or subsequent negotiation of the bill is affected with fraud, duress, or force and fear, or illegality; or
(b)That the bill was drawn as part of, or pursuant to, a credit contract and that one or more of the provisions of the [[Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 have not been complied with, or that section 120(a), (b), or (c) of that Act applies]], in respect of the contract—
the burden of proof is shifted, unless and until the holder proves that,—
(c)In any case to which paragraph (a) of this subsection applies, subsequent to the alleged fraud or illegality, value has in good faith been given for the bill; and
(d)In any case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection applies, value has been given for the bill in good faith and without knowledge of the non-compliance or any oppressiveness.]
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 30
Negotiation of bills
31Negotiation of bill
(1)A bill is negotiated when it is transferred from one person to another in such a manner as to constitute the transferee the holder of the bill.
(2)A bill payable to bearer is negotiated by delivery.
(3)A bill payable to order is negotiated by the indorsement of the holder completed by delivery.
(4)Where the holder of a bill payable to his order transfers it for value without indorsing it, the transfer gives the transferee such title as the transferor had in the bill, and the transferee in addition acquires the right to have the indorsement of the transferor.
(5)Where any person is under obligation to indorse a bill in a representative capacity, he may indorse the bill in such terms as to negative personal liability.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 31
32Requisition of a valid indorsement
An indorsement in order to operate as a negotiation must comply with the following conditions, namely:
(a)It must be written on the bill itself and be signed by the indorser; the simple signature of the indorser on the bill, without additional words, is sufficient:
Provided that an indorsement written on an allonge, or on a “copy” of a bill issued or negotiated in a country where “copies” are recognised, shall be deemed to be written on the bill itself.
(b)It must be an indorsement of the entire bill. A partial indorsement—that is to say, an indorsement that purports to transfer to the indorsee a part only of the amount payable, or to transfer the bill to 2 or more indorsees severally—does not operate as a negotiation of the bill.
(c)Where a bill is payable to the order of 2 or more payees or indorsees who are not partners, all must indorse, unless the one indorsing has authority to indorse for the others.
(d)Where in a bill payable to order the payee or indorsee is wrongly designated, or his name is misspelt, he may indorse the bill as therein described, adding, if he thinks fit, his proper signature.
(e)Where there are 2 or more indorsements on a bill, each indorsement is deemed to have been made in the order in which it appears on the bill, until the contrary is proved.
(f)An indorsement may be either special or in blank; it may also contain terms making it restrictive.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 32
33Conditional indorsement
Where a bill purports to be indorsed conditionally, the condition may be disregarded by the payer, and payment to the indorsee is valid whether the condition has been fulfilled or not.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 33
34Indorsement in blank, and special indorsement
(1)An indorsement in blank specifies no indorsee, and a bill so indorsed becomes payable to bearer.
(2)A special indorsement specifies the person to whom, or to whose order, the bill is to be payable.
(3)The provisions of this Act relating to a payee apply, with the necessary modifications, to an indorsee under a special indorsement.
(4)Where a bill has been indorsed in blank, any holder may convert the blank indorsement into a special indorsement by writing above the indorser’s signature a direction to pay the bill to or to the order of himself or some other person.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 34
35Restrictive indorsement
(1)An indorsement is restrictive which prohibits the further negotiation of the bill, or which expresses that it is a mere authority to deal with the bill as thereby directed and not a transfer of the ownership thereof—as, for example, if a bill is indorsed “Pay D. only”, or “Pay D. for the account of X.”, or “Pay D. or order for collection”.
(2)A restrictive indorsement gives the indorsee the right to receive payment of the bill, and to sue any party thereto that his indorser could have sued, but gives him no power to transfer his rights as indorsee unless it expressly authorises him to do so.
(3)Where a restrictive indorsement authorises further transfer, all subsequent indorsees take the bill with the same rights and subject to the same liabilities as the first indorsee under the restrictive indorsement.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 35
36Negotiation of overdue or dishonoured bill
(1)Where a bill is negotiable in its origin, it continues to be negotiable until it has been either restrictively indorsed, or discharged by payment or otherwise.
(2)Where an overdue bill is negotiated, it can be negotiated only subject to any defect of title affecting it at its maturity, and thenceforward no person who takes it can acquire or give a better title than that which the person from whom he took it had.
(3)A bill payable on demand is deemed to be overdue within the meaning and for the purposes of this section when it appears on the face of it to have been in circulation for an unreasonable length of time. What is an unreasonable length of time for this purpose is a question of fact.
(4)Except where an indorsement bears date after the maturity of the bill, every negotiation is prima facie deemed to have been effected before the bill became overdue.
(5)Where a bill that is not overdue has been dishonoured, any person who takes it with notice of the dishonour takes it subject to any defect of title attaching thereto at the time of dishonour; but nothing in this subsection shall affect the rights of a holder in due course.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 36
37Negotiation of bill to party already liable thereon
Where a bill is negotiated back to the drawer, or to a prior indorser, or to the acceptor, such party may, subject to the provisions of this Act, reissue and further negotiate the bill; but he is not entitled to enforce payment of the bill against any intervening party to whom he was previously liable.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 37
38Rights of the holder
The rights and powers of the holder of a bill are as follow:
(a)He may sue on the bill in his own name:
(b)Where he is a holder in due course, he holds the bill free from any defect of title of prior parties, as well as from mere personal defences available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment against all parties liable on the bill:
(c)Where his title is defective,—
(i)If he negotiates the bill to a holder in due course, that holder obtains a good and complete title to the bill; and
(ii)If he obtains payment of the bill, the person who pays him in due course gets a valid discharge for the bill.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 38
General duties of the holder
39When presentment for acceptance is necessary
(1)Where a bill is payable after sight, presentment for acceptance is necessary in order to fix the maturity of the instrument.
(2)Where a bill expressly stipulates that it shall be presented for acceptance, or where a bill is drawn payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the drawee, it must be presented for acceptance before it can be presented for payment.
(3)In no other case is presentment for acceptance necessary in order to render liable any party to the bill.
(4)Where the holder of a bill drawn payable elsewhere than at the place of business or residence of the drawee has not time, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, to present the bill for acceptance before presenting it for payment on the day that it falls due, the delay caused by presenting the bill for acceptance before presenting it for payment is excused, and does not discharge the drawer and indorsers.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 39
40Time for presenting bill payable after sight
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill payable after sight is negotiated, the holder must either present it for acceptance or negotiate it within a reasonable time.
[(2)If he does not do so, the drawer and all indorsers prior to that holder are discharged to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission.]
(3)In determining what is a reasonable time within the meaning of this section, regard shall be had to the nature of the bill, the usage of trade with respect to similar bills, and the facts of the particular case.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 40
41Rules as to presentment for acceptance, and excuses for non-presentment
(1)A bill is duly presented for acceptance if it is presented in accordance with the following rules:
(a)The presentment must be made by or on behalf of the holder to the drawee, or to some person authorised to accept or to refuse acceptance on his behalf, at a reasonable hour on a business day and before the bill is overdue:
(b)Where a bill is addressed to 2 or more drawees, who are not partners, presentment must be made to them all, unless one has authority to accept for all, in which case presentment may be made to him only:
(c)Where the drawee is dead, presentment may be made to his executor or administrator:
(d)Where the drawee is bankrupt, presentment may be made to him or to his assignee:
[(da)Where the drawee is a body corporate that is being wound up, presentment may be made to the body corporate itself or to the liquidator:]
(e)Where authorised by agreement or usage, a presentment through the post office is sufficient:
(2)Presentment in accordance with these rules is excused, and a bill may be treated as dishonoured by non-acceptance,—
(f)Where the drawee is dead or bankrupt, or is a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract by bill:
[(fa)Where the drawee is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
(g)Where, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, such presentment cannot be affected:
(h)Where, although the presentment has been irregular, acceptance has been refused on some other ground.
(3)The fact that the holder has reason to believe that the bill, on presentment, will be dishonoured does not excuse presentment.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 41
42Non-acceptance
Where a bill is duly presented for acceptance and is not accepted within the customary time, the person presenting it must treat it as dishonoured by non-acceptance. If he does not, the holder shall lose his right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers [to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission].
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 42
43Dishonour by non-acceptance, and its consequences
(1)A bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance—
(a)Where it is duly presented for acceptance, and such an acceptance as is prescribed by this Act is refused, or cannot be obtained; or
(b)Where presentment for acceptance is excused and the bill is not accepted.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act, when a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance an immediate right of recourse against the drawer and indorsers accrues to the holder, and no presentment for payment is necessary.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 43
44Qualified acceptance
(1)The holder of a bill may refuse to take a qualified acceptance, and if he does not obtain a general acceptance may treat the bill as dishonoured by non-acceptance.
(2)Where a qualified acceptance is taken, and the drawer or an indorser has not expressly or impliedly authorised the holder to take a qualified acceptance, or does not subsequently assent thereto, such drawer or indorser is discharged from his liability on the bill. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to a partial acceptance whereof due notice has been given. Where a foreign bill has been accepted as to part, it must be protested as to the balance.
(3)Where the drawer or indorser of a bill receives notice of a qualified acceptance, and does not within a reasonable time express his dissent to the holder, he shall be deemed to have assented thereto.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 44
45Rules as to presentment for payment
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, a bill must be duly presented for payment. If it is not so presented, the drawer and indorsers shall be discharged [to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission].
(2)A bill is duly presented for payment if it is presented in accordance with the following rules:
(a)Where the bill is not payable on demand, presentment must be made on the day it falls due.
(b)Where the bill is payable on demand, then, subject to the provisions of this Act, presentment must be made within a reasonable time after its issue in order to render the drawer liable, and within a reasonable time after its indorsement in order to render the indorser liable.
In determining what is a reasonable time regard shall be had to the nature of the bill, the usage of trade with regard to similar bills, and the facts of the particular case.
(c)Presentment must be made by the holder, or by some person authorised to receive payment on his behalf, at a reasonable hour on a business day, at the proper place as hereinafter defined, either to the person designated by the bill as payer, or to some person authorised to pay or refuse payment on his behalf, if by the exercise of reasonable diligence such person can there be found.
(d)A bill is presented at the proper place—
(i)Where a place of payment is specified in the bill, and the bill is there presented:
(ii)Where no place of payment is specified, but the address of the drawee or acceptor is given in the bill, and the bill is there presented:
(iii)Where no place of payment is specified and no address given, and the bill is presented at the drawee’s or acceptor’s place of business, if known, and if not, at his ordinary residence, if known:
(iv)In any other case, if presented to the drawee or acceptor at his last known place of business or residence, or wherever he can be found.
(e)Where a bill is presented at the proper place, and after the exercise of reasonable diligence no person authorised to pay or refuse payment can be found there, no further presentment to the drawee or acceptor is required.
(f)Where a bill is drawn upon or accepted by 2 or more persons who are not partners, and no place of payment is specified, presentment must be made to them all.
(g)Where the drawee or acceptor of the bill is dead, and no place of payment is specified, presentment must be made to the executor or administrator of the deceased, if any, and if by the exercise of reasonable diligence he can be found.
[(ga)Where the drawee or acceptor of the bill is bankrupt, presentment may be made to the bankrupt himself or to his assignee.]
[(gb)Where the drawee or acceptor of the bill is a body corporate that is being wound up, presentment may be made to the body corporate itself or to the liquidator.]
(h)Where authorised by agreement or usage, presentment through the post office is sufficient.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 45
46Excuses for delay or non-presentment for payment
(1)Delay in making presentment for payment is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment must be made with reasonable diligence.
(2)Presentment for payment is dispensed with—
(a)Where, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, presentment as required by this Act cannot be effected:
The fact that the holder has reason to believe that the bill will, on presentment, be dishonoured, does not dispense with the necessity for presentment:
(b)Where the drawee is a fictitious person:
[(ba)Where the drawee or acceptor is bankrupt:]
[(bb)Where the drawee or acceptor is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
[(c)As regards the drawer,—
(i)Where the drawee or acceptor is not bound, as between himself and the drawer, to accept or pay the bill, and the drawer has no reason to believe that the bill would be paid if presented; or
(ii)Where the drawer is bankrupt; or
(iii)Where the drawer is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
[(d)As regards an indorser,—
(i)Where the bill was accepted or made for the accommodation of that indorser, and he has no reason to believe that the bill would be paid if presented; or
(ii)Where that indorser is bankrupt; or
(iii)Where that indorser is a body corporate that is being wound up:]
(e)By waiver of presentment, express or implied.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 46
47Dishonour by non-payment
(1)A bill is dishonoured by non-payment—
(a)Where it is duly presented for payment and payment is refused, or cannot be obtained; or
(b)Where presentment is excused and the bill is overdue and unpaid.
(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill is dishonoured by non-payment an immediate right of recourse against the drawers or indorsers accrues to the holder.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 47
48Notice of dishonour
Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance or by non-payment, notice of dishonour must be given to the drawer and each indorser, and any drawer or indorser to whom such notice is not given is discharged [to the extent that he is prejudiced by the omission]:
Provided that—
(a)Where a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and notice of dishonour is not given, the rights of a holder in due course subsequent to the omission shall not be prejudiced by the omission:
(b)Where a bill is dishonoured by non-acceptance, and due notice of dishonour is given, it shall not be necessary to give notice of a subsequent dishonour by non-payment unless the bill has in the meantime been accepted.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 48
49Rules as to notice of dishonour
Notice of dishonour in order to be valid and effectual must be given in accordance with the following rules:
(a)The notice must be given by or on behalf of the holder, or by or on behalf of an indorser who, at the time of giving it, is himself liable on the bill.
(b)Notice of dishonour may be given by an agent either in his own name or in the name of any party entitled to give notice, whether that party is his principal or not.
(c)Where the notice is given by or on behalf of the holder, it enures for the benefit of all subsequent holders and all prior indorsers having a right of recourse against the party to whom it is given.
(d)Where notice is given by or on behalf of an indorser entitled to give notice as hereinbefore provided, it enures for the benefit of the holder and all indorsers subsequent to the party to whom notice is given.
(e)The notice may be given either in writing or by personal communication, and may be given in any terms sufficient to identify the bill, and intimating that the bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment.
(f)The return of a dishonoured bill to the drawer or an indorser is in point of form deemed a sufficient notice of dishonour.
(g)A written notice need not be signed, and an insufficient written notice may be supplemented and made valid by verbal communication.
(h)A misdescription of the bill shall not vitiate the notice unless the party to whom the notice is given is in fact misled thereby.
(i)Where notice of dishonour is required to be given to any person, it may be given either to the party himself or to his agent in that behalf.
(j)Where the drawer or indorser is dead, and the party giving notice is aware of the fact, the notice must be given to an executor or administrator of the deceased, if any, and if by the exercise of reasonable diligence he can be found.
(k)Where the drawer or indorser is bankrupt, notice may be given either to the party himself or to his assignee.
[(ka)Where the drawer or indorser is a body corporate that is being wound up, notice may be given either to the body corporate itself or to the liquidator:]
(l)Where there are more than 2 drawers or indorsers, who are not partners, notice must be given to each of them, unless one of them has authority to receive such notice on behalf of the others.
(m)The notice may be given as soon as the bill is dishonoured, and must be given within a reasonable time thereafter.
(n)In the absence of special circumstances notice is not deemed to have been given within a reasonable time unless—
(i)Where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in the same place, the notice is given or sent off in time to reach the latter on the day after the dishonour of the bill:
(ii)Where the person giving and the person to receive notice reside in different places, the notice is sent off on the day after the dishonour of the bill, if there is a post at a convenient hour on that day, and, if there is no such post on that day, then by the next post thereafter.
(o)Where a bill when dishonoured is in the hands of an agent, he may either himself give notice to the parties liable on the bill, or he may give notice to his principal. If he gives notice to his principal, he must do so within the same time as if he were the holder; and the principal, upon receipt of such notice, has himself the same time for giving notice as if the agent had been an independent holder.
(p)Where a party to a bill receives due notice of dishonour, he has after the receipt of such notice the same period of time for giving notice to antecedent parties that the holder has after the dishonour.
(q)Where a notice of dishonour is duly addressed and posted, the sender is deemed to have given due notice of dishonour notwithstanding any miscarriage by the post office.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 49
50Excuses for want of notice and delay
(1)Delay in giving notice of dishonour is excused where the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the party giving notice, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate the notice must be given with reasonable diligence.
(2)Notice of dishonour is dispensed with—
(a)When, after the exercise of reasonable diligence, notice as required by this Act cannot be given to or does not reach the drawer or indorser sought to be charged:
(b)By waiver, express or implied, either before the time of giving notice of dishonour has arrived, or after the omission to give due notice:
(c)As regards the drawer, in the following cases, namely:
(i)Where the drawer and drawee are the same person;
(ii)Where the drawee is a fictitious person or a person not having capacity to contract;
(iii)Where the drawer is the person to whom the bill is presented for payment;
(iv)Where the drawee or acceptor is as between himself and the drawer under no obligation to accept or pay the bill;
(v)Where the drawer has countermanded payment:
(d)As regards the indorser, in the following cases, namely:
(i)Where the drawee is a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract, and the indorser was aware of the fact at the time he indorsed the bill;
(ii)Where the indorser is the person to whom the bill is presented for payment;
(iii)Where the bill was accepted and made for his accommodation.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 50
51Noting or protest of bill
(1)Where an inland bill has been dishonoured it may, if the owner thinks fit, be noted for non-acceptance or non-payment, as the case may be; but it shall not be necessary to note or protest any such bill in order to preserve the recourse against the drawer or indorser.
(2)Where a foreign bill, appearing on the face of it to be such, has been dishonoured by non-acceptance it must be duly protested for non-acceptance, and where such a bill, not having been previously dishonoured by non-acceptance, is dishonoured by non-payment it must be duly protested for non-payment, otherwise the drawer and indorsers are discharged [to the extent that they are prejudiced by the omission].
(3)Where a bill does not appear on the face of it to be a foreign bill, protest thereof as in case of dishonour is unnecessary.
(4)A bill that has been protested for non-acceptance may be subsequently protested for non-payment.
(5)Subject to the provisions of this Act, where a bill is noted or protested it must be noted on the day of dishonour.
(6)Where a bill has been duly noted, the protest may be subsequently extended so as to take effect from the date of the noting.
(7)Where the acceptor of a bill becomes bankrupt or insolvent or suspends payment before it matures, the holder may cause the bill to be protested for better security against the drawer and indorsers.
(8)A bill must be protested at the place where it is dishonoured:
Provided that—
(a)Where a bill is presented through the post office, and returned by post dishonoured, it may be protested at the place to which it is returned and on the day of its return if received during business hours, and if not received during business hours, then not later than the next business day; and
(b)When a bill drawn payable at the place of business or residence of some person other than the drawee has been dishonoured by non-acceptance, it must be protested for non-payment at the place where it is expressed to be payable, and no further presentment for payment to or demand on the drawee is necessary.
(9)A protest must contain a copy of the bill, and must be signed by the notary making it, and must specify—
(a)The person at whose request the bill is protested:
(b)The place and date of protest, the cause or reason for protesting the bill, the demand made, and the answer given, if any, or the fact that the drawee or acceptor could not be found.
(10)Where a bill is lost or destroyed, or is wrongly detained from the person entitled to hold it, protest may be made on a copy or on written particulars thereof.
(11)Protest is dispensed with by any circumstance that would dispense with notice of dishonour.
(12)Delay in noting or protesting is excused when the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate the bill must be noted or protested with reasonable diligence.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 51
52Duties of holder as regards drawee or acceptor
(1)When a bill is accepted generally, presentment for payment is not necessary in order to render the acceptor liable.
(2)When by the terms of a qualified acceptance presentment for payment is required, the acceptor, in the absence of an express stipulation to that effect, is not discharged by the omission to present the bill for payment on the day that it matures.
(3)In order to render the acceptor of a bill liable it is not necessary to protest it, or that notice of dishonour should be given to him.
(4)When the holder of a bill presents it for payment, he shall exhibit the bill to the person from whom he demands payment, and when a bill is paid the holder shall forthwith deliver it up to the party paying it.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 52
Liabilities of parties
53Funds in hands of drawee
A bill of itself does not operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee available for the payment thereof, and the drawee of a bill who does not accept as required by this Act is not liable on the instrument.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 53
54Liability of acceptor
The acceptor of a bill, by accepting it,—
(a)Engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance:
(b)Is precluded from denying to a holder in due course—
(i)The existence of the drawer, the genuineness of his signature, and his capacity and authority to draw the bill;
(ii)In the case of a bill payable to drawer’s order, the then capacity of the drawer to indorse, but not the genuineness or validity of his indorsement;
(iii)In the case of a bill payable to the order of a third person, the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse, but not the genuineness or validity of his indorsement.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 54
55Liability of drawer or indorser
(1)The drawer of a bill, by drawing it,—
(a)Engages that on due presentation it shall be accepted and paid according to its tenor, and that if it is dishonoured he will compensate the holder or any indorser who is compelled to pay it, provided that the requisite proceedings on dishonour are duly taken:
(b)Is precluded from denying to a holder in due course the existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse.
(2)The indorser of a bill, by indorsing it,—
(c)Engages that on due presentment it shall be accepted and paid according to its tenor, and that if it is dishonoured he will compensate the holder or a subsequent indorser who is compelled to pay it, provided that the requisite proceedings on dishonour are duly taken:
(d)Is precluded from denying to a holder in due course the genuineness and regularity in all respects of the drawer’s signature and all previous indorsements:
(e)Is precluded from denying to his immediate or a subsequent indorsee that the bill was at the time of his indorsement a valid and subsisting bill, and that he had then a good title thereto.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 55
56Stranger signing bill liable as indorser
Where a person signs a bill otherwise than as drawer or acceptor, he thereby incurs the liabilities of an indorser to a holder in due course.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 56
57Measure of damages against parties to dishonoured bill
Where a bill is dishonoured, the measure of damages, which shall be deemed to be liquidated damages, shall be as follows:
(a)The holder may recover from any party liable on the bill, and the drawer who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from the acceptor, and an indorser who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from the acceptor or from the drawer, or from a prior indorser,—
(i)The amount of the bill:
(ii)Interest thereon from the time of presentment for payment if the bill is payable on demand, and from the maturity of the bill in any other case:
(iii)The expenses of noting, or, when protest is necessary and the protest has been extended, the expenses of protest.
(b)In the case of a bill that has been dishonoured abroad, in lieu of the above damages the holder may recover from the drawer or an indorser, and the drawer or an indorser who has been compelled to pay the bill may recover from any party liable to him, the amount of the re-exchange, with interest thereon until the time of payment.
(c)Where by this Act interest may be recovered as damages, such interest may, if justice requires it, be withheld wholly or in part, and, where a bill is expressed to be payable with interest at a given rate, interest as damages may or may not be given at the same rate as interest proper.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 57
58Transferor and transferee by delivery
(1)Where the holder of a bill payable to bearer negotiates it by delivery without indorsing it, he is called a transferor by delivery.
(2)A transferor by delivery is not liable on the instrument.
(3)A transferor by delivery who negotiates a bill thereby warrants to his immediate transferee being a holder for value that the bill is what it purports to be, that he has a right to transfer it, and that at the time of transfer he is not aware of any fact which renders it valueless.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 58
Discharge of bill
59Payment in due course
(1)A bill is discharged by payment in due course by or on behalf of the drawee or acceptor.
(2)Payment in due course means payment to the holder of the bill made at or after the maturity thereof in good faith and without notice that the holder’s title is defective.
(3)Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, when a bill is paid by the drawer or an indorser it is not discharged: but
(a)Where a bill payable to or to the order of a third party is paid by the drawer, the drawer may enforce payment thereof against the acceptor, but may not reissue the bill;
(b)Where a bill is paid by an indorser, or where a bill payable to drawer’s order is paid by the drawer, the party paying it is remitted to his former rights as regards the acceptor or antecedent parties, and may, if he thinks fit, strike out his own and subsequent indorsements, and again negotiate the bill.
(4)Where an accommodation bill is paid in due course by the party accommodated the bill is discharged.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 59
60Banker paying on demand draft bearing forged indorsement
(1)Where a bill payable to order on demand is drawn on a banker, and the banker on whom it is drawn pays the bill in good faith and in the ordinary course of business, it is not incumbent on the banker to show that the indorsement of the payee or any subsequent indorsement was made by or under the authority of the person whose indorsement it purports to be, and the banker is deemed to have paid the bill in due course, although such indorsement has been forged or made without authority.
(2)Where a banker carries on the business of banking at more branches than one he shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be an independent banker in respect of each of such branches, and a draft issued by one of such branches and payable at another shall be deemed to be a bill.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 60; 1905 No 40 s 2
61Where acceptor the holder at maturity
Where the acceptor of a bill is or becomes the holder of it in his own right, at or after its maturity, the bill is discharged.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 61
62Holder may waive his rights
(1)Where the holder of a bill at or after its maturity absolutely and unconditionally renounces his rights against the acceptor the bill is discharged. The renunciation must be in writing, unless the bill is delivered up to the acceptor.
(2)The liabilities of any party to a bill may in like manner be renounced by the holder before, at, or after its maturity.
(3)Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a holder in due course without notice of any such renunciation.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 62
63Cancellation
(1)Where a bill is intentionally cancelled by the holder or his agent, and the cancellation is apparent thereon, the bill is discharged.
(2)Any party liable on a bill may in like manner be discharged by the intentional cancellation of his signature by the holder or his agent. In such case an indorser who would have had a right of recourse against the party whose signature has been cancelled is also discharged.
(3)A cancellation made unintentionally, or under a mistake, or without the authority of the holder, is inoperative; but where a bill or any signature thereon appears to have been cancelled the burden of proof lies on the party who alleges that the cancellation was made unintentionally, or under a mistake, or without authority.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 63
64Alteration of bill
(1)Where a bill or acceptance is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable on the bill, the bill is avoided except as against a party who has himself made, authorised, or assented to the alteration, and subsequent indorsers:
Provided that, where a bill has been materially altered, but the alteration is not apparent, and the bill is in the hands of a holder in due course, such holder may avail himself of the bill as if it had not been altered, and may enforce payment of it according to its original tenor.
(2)In particular the following alterations are material, namely, any alteration of the date, the sum payable, the time of payment, the place of payment, and, where a bill has been accepted generally, the addition of a place of payment without the acceptor’s assent.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 64
Acceptance and payment for honour
65Acceptance for honour supra protest
(1)Where a bill of exchange has been protested for dishonour by non-acceptance, or protested for better security, and is not overdue, any person, not being a party already liable thereon, may, with the consent of the holder, intervene and accept the bill supra protest, for the honour of any party liable thereon, or for the honour of the person on whose account the bill is drawn.
(2)A bill may be accepted for honour for part only of the sum for which it is drawn.
(3)An acceptance for honour supra protest in order to be valid must—
(a)Be written on the bill, and indicate that it is an acceptance for honour; and
(b)Be signed by the acceptor for honour.
(4)Where an acceptance for honour does not expressly state for whose honour it is made, it is deemed to be an acceptance for the honour of the drawer.
(5)Where a bill payable after sight is accepted for honour, its maturity is calculated from the date of the noting for non-acceptance, and not from the date of the acceptance for honour.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 65
66Liability of acceptor for honour
(1)The acceptor for honour of a bill by accepting it engages that he will, on due presentment, pay the bill according to the tenor of his acceptance, if it is not paid by the drawee, provided that it has been duly presented for payment and protested for non-payment, and that he receives notice of these facts.
(2)The acceptor for honour is liable to the holder and to all parties to the bill subsequent to the party for whose honour he has accepted.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 66
67Presentation to acceptor for honour
(1)Where a dishonoured bill has been accepted for honour supra protest, or contains a reference in case of need, it must be protested for non-payment before it is presented for payment to the acceptor for honour or referee in case of need.
(2)Where the address of the acceptor for honour is in the same place where the bill is protested for non-payment, the bill must be presented to him not later than the day following its maturity; and where the address of the acceptor for honour is in some place other than the place where it was protested for non-payment, the bill must be forwarded for presentment to him not later than the day following its maturity.
(3)Delay in presentment, or non-presentment, is excused by any circumstance that would excuse delay in presentment for payment, or non-presentment for payment.
(4)Where a bill is dishonoured by the acceptor for honour it must be protested for non-payment by him.
Compare: 1883 No 8 s 67
68Payment for honour supra protest
(1)Where a bill has been protested for non-payment, any person may intervene and pay it supra protest for the honour of any party liable thereon, or for the honour of the person on whose account the bill is drawn.
(2)Where 2 or more persons offer to pay a bill for the honour of different parties, the person whose pa
July 30th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
What a facinating blog
Who is this guy. Delusions of grandure don’t do justice to this. He obviously thinks he is god (small letters deliberately)
Obviously guilty as charged as no where does he refute any alligations that hvae been levelled at him. As some one pointed out he will be in for an interesting time behind bars here and over the ditch
Sounds like a perfect place for him
July 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Again no real answers….mate
Just your usual BS designed to distract from the questions that you do not what to have to answer in public
be seeing you a little later…mate
THE CHARGES YOU ARE FACING WENZEL ARE
FRAUD RE CBA
FRAUD, SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE AND YOU
FRAUD, NZ POLICE AND YOU
ACCUSATIONS OF CHILD MOLESTATION AND YOU
FORGET THE CUTE STUFF WENZEL, WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE SO USED TO LIEING YOU HAVE BELIEVED YOUR OWN LIES BUT TRY FOR ONCE GIVING A STRAIGHT ANSWER TO A QUESTION
CBA IS STUFFED AND THERE WILL BE FRAUD CHARGES TO FOLLOW NO DOUBT. YOU PERSONALLY WILL FACE THE MUSIC AND YOUR ACCUSERS STARTING 23 THIS MONTH AND NZ POLICE ARE LINING UP TO HAVE THEIR GO TOO
WHEN YOU ARE DEPORTED, AFTER YOUR LITTLE STAY AT HERE WITH THE BOYS, LOOKS LIKE THOSE IN OZ AWAIT YOUR RETURN TOO
ALL A “CONSPIRACY” IS IT WENZEL????
NOT!!!
July 31st, 2007 at 10:14 am
You really don’t have a life do you Wenzel? It would take you hours to type out the nonsensical speel you are writing (the illiterate Sod you are) or have you got your little servant Dianna BONGARD typing it for you????? Or some other poor unfortunate young person that you are exploiting work out of fot Zero pay?? I would have thought your time would be better spent building your defence for court you fat twit!
July 31st, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Even if only half of this is true, why has this person not been taken to the labour dept. Seems to be going every where else
July 31st, 2007 at 5:04 pm
YOU can LEED HORSES TO WATER BUT BUT YOU CANT MAKE THEM DRINK??
Look up the facts your self????/?
pod cast soon to be released !!!!!!
FACTS WILL BE RELEASED !!!!
The govt sold out to corperates overseas.
the govt name changes…… from DEPT of JUSTICE TO Ministry of justice ??? CORPERATE TAKE OVER IS NOT????
99 year lease is up is it not ? MAORI LAND MAORI People ( living man)
MAORI wishes ( for all people )
July 31st, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Mary because this is incubator for people, with wishes to be more than slaves in the system
The contractor could NOT make it out of slavery
In every test she failed and now is bitter as she has been exposed
she has lied cheated and got caught she will charge in time
Ihave good support around and the truth will shine as it always does
history is full of it
July 31st, 2007 at 6:55 pm
You couldnt be further from the truth Wenzel, I have a great job, getting Married in 2 months and very happy! Yes thats right Wenzel MARRIED there is something you didnt know, you may have thought you had dug deep enough to find out everything about my private life………
But you were wrong!!!!!
August 1st, 2007 at 10:03 am
HI CHRIS NOW , IT IS OUT ???
Christine the teacher
August 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm
HERE YOU GO AGAIN DIMWIT- BLAMING BLAMING BLAMING
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT LOSER!!!
OH SO I HEAR YOU VISITING YOUR HOME WITHIN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS !!!!! YAYE YAYE ****
YOU GOING TO BE FINALLY LOCKED AWAY WHERE YOU BELONG, THATS RIGHT GUYS, HES FINALLY GOING TO PRISON, AND DONT WORRY WE WILL ALL CELEBRATE FOR YOU SHANE, WHILE YOUR ON THE INSIDE WE WILL HAVE A BIG CELEBRATION AND INVITE ALL THE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ALL HATE YOUR GUTS AYE MATE !!!
Well Im sure you will have alot of fun in there, you can go and tell them all your bull shit stories.
Oh and dont forget to ask your favourite question “WOULD YOU HAVE SEX WITH ME” maybe they might say YES.
AT LAST, THE DAY HAS FINALLY COME !!
August 1st, 2007 at 7:24 pm
How do I find out the judgement/ruling?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Accounting there is DR and CR
1000 that hate me there is 1000+1 love me
because people who make a difference have only a 50/50 chance
I am sorry that your the 50% that hate however there may be a chance that you can change yor viewpoint upon you comperhening the teachings
But this will not happen untill you ask question with in you
What is my pain?
what is the reflection for me?
A client start out like you and she had cancer 2years later she got it !!!!
and change happened . she live in remission to day
I can not cure no one but I can be a mirrior? for them to heal themselves
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
You still really rate yourself as an important and useful human being dont ya Wenzel. You have your own viewpoint that goes alongside your own agenda and reasoning (to make any excuse to make it ok to rip people off) THAT IS NOT OK IT IS NOT EVERYONE ELSES FAULT THAT YOU ARE A CRUEL SOCIOPATH
Make good use of your time inside I hear they have a good mental health team in prisons today- GET HELP man your dillusioned, volitile and unstable – forget your mirror crap mate GET HELP
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Oh one more thing Wenzel the FEW that are flocking around you are doing so out of FEAR not admiration or love – You heard of that saying ‘Keep your friends close but your enemies closer’? your living it man YOU ARE THE ENEMY – WAKE UP TO IT!
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Details please of the incarceration?
Proof that he is a lier seems to exist but where to we find it?
Gossip is just that. Has he been sentenced? is so where is he going? If not sentenced, when is he to be sentenced and where?
I don’t like being lied to and would like to see this
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
As you sow, so you shall reap
Harvest time shane
Convicted of 7 charges brought by the Ministry of Economic Devt. Sentence in three weeks we are told
You foolishly ripped of one of your own, as some one predicted, over Kelvin Rd sale. Po did not like that did he shane, I am surprised you are still alive, let alone walking. Perhaps he has not finished yet?
Getting a little lonely now is it shane. With the other boys filing charges against you also it will be a little quiet around you now. Time for a little time out before the other gang realises that you are no longer “protected”. Time for a little time out before sentencing. Time for a little time out before the other three actions against you conclude. Time for a little time out to let the bruises heal. Time for a little time out to contemplate the storm of angst that surrounds you. Time for little time out to contemplate the boys in the big house and the reception they have organised for you. Time for a little time out to add up all the damage you have done to people and wait for this to go full circle back to you
Karma
Poetic Justice
Divine Justice
Call it what you like shane, your time is up and it is coming for you. Make your peace with God shane because no one else is in the mood to
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:34 pm
This guy is amazing.
I have checked, there are 3 guilty verdicts so far.
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 am
A paedophile it states here and he owns “Kapai The Kiwi” children’s books and a teacher aid course!!! . I have seen the Kapai the Kiwi character in Whakatane surrounded by children. To think that he might have been in that is disgusting. This seems to be the same person associated with Robyn Case from here also
Do the authorities know of this?
How can this occur?
Why is he not behind bars?
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:23 pm
thecontractor Says:
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Who has your son been lock with ????
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:32 pm
thecontractor Says:/ three fingers/ mary
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:20 am
watch this space!!!
You cant Kill the son??
the moon tries every night but the rises every morning!!!????
man careers jobs companies Govt ‘s can class himself/ thereselves in to two areas the sons (suns) or the moons (dark)
the creators or the non creators
which are you what are you creating
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
WTF?????? you should take english classes Wenzel maybe then we wud have some idea what your gibberish says – they have free education in prison u know use the time well
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:49 pm
OMG Shane. You sprout BULLSHIT!!!! Get a life man, you really are FINE arent you, Fucked up, Insecure, Neurotic and Emotional. Im so glad I got away.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
where can you check outcomes of court case, jose barnes is obviously going to be the new ‘cover girl’, my doesn’t she have a lot of companies to direct.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Could Robyn or Jose please explain the meaning of the rantings Wenzel is putting on this site. I am a reasonably intelligent person and cannot understand what he is trying to get at.
I would also like to know where to find information regarding his court cases. Perhaps weasel would like to share it with us in plain English
August 6th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Shane you are famous. Your name is appearing everywhere. Seems like you are the star of the show
http://www.sfo.govt.nz/pending.html
August 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
http://www.justice.govt.nz
Judicial decisions on line.
Click on the search function and type in Robyn Case
Shane. Is it all down hill from here? That’s three nil to the system shane!!!
Your next it would seem
[1] SCI DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD V NZ BUILT LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-3656 23 December 2005
[2] FOUNDATION SECURITIES V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 21 February 2007
[3] FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ) LTD V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 19 March 2007
August 6th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
So what did happen to the case on July 23rd? Anyone know or know how to find out?
August 7th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Watch this space??
As the sun sets and the moon rises the sun will rise to defeat the the moon in the morning it is about the timing . Good will always rise out the bad
Shane owns nothing just services man
He shares the realalities that man have to look at to make change.
For this I have a 50/50 chance of mans comprehension
under law Man is REPRESENTED as Person WHY?
Because man can not be traded as slaves
But peron can be be cause it is dead and CROWN OWNED,
NOT man. Man has a diet of deception? How is it feed to us?
EDUCATION
RELIGION
POLITICS
LAWS (CROWN)
GOVT
MEDIA
BANKS
What are theb ingridents ?
FEAR
Scaricity
August 7th, 2007 at 11:04 am
http://www.justice.govt.nz
Judicial decisions on line.
Click on the search function and type in Robyn Case
Shane. Is it all down hill from here? That’s three nil to the system shane!!!
Your next it would seem
[1] SCI DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD V NZ BUILT LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-3656 23 December 2005
[2] FOUNDATION SECURITIES V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 21 February 2007
[3] FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ) LTD V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 19 March 2007
PLUS convicted last month of SEVEN CHARGES of operating a company while a BANKRUPT, brought by hte Ministry of Economic Devt. In two weeks sentence will be given
10 CONVICYIONS AND STILL COUNTING.
Some one suggested that that there are some 32 charges as yet unanswered. If any one knows of others then add them in. The world needs to know about this fraudster, the way he operates, how he prays on people, his past history ( read all of the above ) and where to find him
August 7th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
http://www.legislation.govt.nz
Statutes
C
Crimes Act 1961
98
C
Crimes Act 1961
Part 5 Crimes against public order (s 73 to s [98F)
Slave dealing
98 Dealing in slaves
98Dealing in slaves
(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, within or outside New Zealand,—
(a)Sells, purchases, transfers, barters, lets, hires, or in any way whatsoever deals with any person as a slave; or
(b)Employs or uses any person as a slave, or permits any person to be so employed or used; or
(c)Detains, confines, imprisons, carries away, removes, receives, transports, imports, or brings into any place whatsoever any person as a slave or to be dealt with as a slave; or
(d)Induces any person to sell, let, or give himself, or any other person dependent on him or in his charge, as a slave; or
[(e)in any case not covered by paragraph (d), induces any person to sell, let, or give any other person into debt-bondage or serfdom; or]
[(f)builds, fits out, sells, purchases, transfers, lets, hires, uses, provides with personnel, navigates, or serves on board any ship or aircraft for any of the purposes in paragraphs (a) to (e); or]
(g)For gain or reward gives in marriage or transfers any woman to another person without her consent; or
(h)Is a party to the inheritance by any person of a woman on the death of her husband; or
(i)Being a parent or guardian of any child under the age of 18 years, delivers that child to another person with intent that the child or his labour shall be exploited; or
(j)Agrees or offers to do any of the acts mentioned in this subsection.
(2)For the purposes of this section—
Debt-bondage means the status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of his personal services, or of the personal services of any person under his control, as security for a debt, if the value of those services, as reasonably assessed, is not applied towards the liquidation of the debt or if the length and nature of those services are not limited and defined:
Serfdom means the status or condition of a tenant who is by any law, custom, or agreement bound to live and labour on land belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to that other person, whether for reward or not, and who is not free to change that status or condition.
[slave includes, without limitation, a person subject to debt-bondage or serfdom.]
Compare: Slave Trade Act 1824, ss 2, 3, 10 (UK); Slave Trade Act 1843, s 1 (UK)
August 7th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
What is conflict of interest
what is a bribe
Is it not true Crown rep LIQUIDATOR ref to CROWN investigator ref CROWN registra ref CROWN result
Is the CUP half empty or Half Full?
It would depend on the CROWN APPOINTMENT rep ref to the CROWN REP would it not??
C
Crimes Act 1961
Part 6 Crimes affecting the administration of law and justice (s 99 to s [122)
Bribery and corruption
100 Judicial corruption
100Judicial corruption
(1)Every judicial officer is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his judicial capacity.
(2)Every judicial officer, and every Registrar or Deputy Registrar of any Court, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his official capacity, not being an act or omission to which subsection (1) of this section applies.
Compare: 1908 No 32 ss 126(a), 127(a)
August 7th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Who is telling sotries now? Mirror mirror on the wall, Robyn and Shane are doing a wonderful job reflecting off each other. Went into Robyn’s blog and read some of her lies. Just because she is a woman doesn’t remove her from any of the underhanded ways of Shane’s teachings. I clearly recall Robyn on several occassions telling us to use Shane as a business coach as she was ‘paying’ him enough for his services – maybe it was with cash she was paying him. Our understanding was that he was in her employment, which she denied in her radio interview in Whakatane. I hope your children’s father is giving them some stability Robyn as you as a role model just now is despicable.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Just to lower himself a bit more, and insult anyone with a disability, Shane’s absolute lack of intelligence shows through when he spouts off about having dyslexia, all it is is a cover up for being ‘as thick as pigshit’, for if he had any understanding at all of dyslexia he would clearly understand that he has misdiagnosed himself. Maybe he can study it with the extra time he will have whilst in jail.
So pleased I am out of teaching now so I don’t have to go to any schools and be embarassed of any association that was had with CBA.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:51 am
And hey, how bout dat pore Macsine King (Kahui twins mum)?? She slaved there, probably wazted on wateva whil hur kidz waz been bashed.
And Jee, dat guy is a really good dude, just cant get hip to the shit dis fat skunk pullz and da wool ova his eyes, aye?? Jee is a dimond in da ruff, and derservs a good brake in life. He has NO idea wat scumbukit Shane has dun and da things he sed and still plans.
Robyn too. She is just so hipnitised and unda da fat man’s controle, he took her gud biz and pulld it 2 peeces wid his “stradegys” and “creating welth” and shit like dat.
Dis guy manly needs to go down for wat happend to all those pore kids, and wen he goes inside Jee can make shore he getz a speshial welcome
And snd hm bk to oz, i hear from sum1 dat dey r w8tg 4 hm der.
mebe den jee + rob cn gt bk 2 bilding up sumfin realy gud agin
August 9th, 2007 at 8:59 am
C
Commonwealth Countries Act 1977
2 Membership of Commonwealth
2Membership of Commonwealth
A
Age of Majority Act 1970
2 Interpretation
2Interpretation
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
Act means any Act of the [Parliament of New Zealand]; and includes any Act of the Parliament of England, of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is in force in New Zealand:
Enactment means any provision of any Act (other than this Act) or of any regulations or bylaws:
Instrument means any written document of whatever nature (not being an enactment):
Regulations means regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act 1936.
A
Age of Majority Act 1970
3 Act to bind the Crown
3Act to bind the Crown
This Act shall bind the Crown.
A
Age of Majority Act 1970
Schedule 3 Transitional provisions and savings
Schedule 3
Transitional provisions and savings
(cl 1 to cl 11)
Section 8
ANALYSIS
(List of Sections)
Attainment of full age by person aged between 20 and 21 at the commencement of the Act
1
Application of Act to instruments (other than wills) executed or made before the commencement of the Act and to wills of testators who have died before the commencement of the Act
2
Distribution of property as to which persons die intestate before the commencement of the Act
3
Funds recovered
4
Wardship and custody orders
5
Maintenance agreements and orders
6
Vested interests
7
Trustees’ powers of maintenance and advancement
8
Adoption orders
9
Limitation of actions
10
Enactments incorporated in instruments
11
Attainment of full age by person aged between 20 and 21 at the commencement of the Act
1Where at the commencement of this Act a person has attained the age of 20 years but has not attained the age of 21 years he shall attain full age on 1 January 1971.
Application of Act to instruments (other than wills) executed or made before the commencement of the Act and to wills of testators who have died before the commencement of the Act
2(1)The following, namely,—
(a)Every instrument (other than a will or other testamentary disposition) executed or made before the commencement of this Act; and
(b)The will or other testamentary disposition of any testator who has died before the commencement of this Act,—
shall be construed as if this Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule) had not been passed.
(2)For the purposes of this clause and for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the term instrument includes every award, industrial agreement, determination, or instrument of authority relating to remuneration or conditions of employment; and includes the Agricultural Workers (Market Gardens) Order 1967 and the Agricultural Workers (Orchardists) Order 1965, but does not include any other enactment.
Distribution of property as to which persons die intestate before the commencement of the Act
3Except to the extent that section 4 of this Act and clause 1 of this Schedule enable a person to give a receipt or a discharge, or to assign or otherwise dispose of or disclaim rights or property, all property as to which any person has died intestate before the commencement of this Act shall be distributed in accordance with the enactments and rules of law which would have applied to it if this Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule) had not been passed.
Funds recovered
4Any order or directions in force immediately before the commencement of this Act and made pursuant to any enactment relating to the control of money recovered by or otherwise payable to a minor in any proceedings or as the result of the compromise or settlement of any claim for money or damages shall have effect as if any reference to the minor’s attaining the age of 21 years or full age (however expressed) were a reference to his attaining the age of 20 years, or in relation to a person who by virtue of clause 1 of this Schedule attains full age on the 1st day of January 1971, to that date.
Wardship and custody orders
5Any order in force immediately before the commencement of this Act—
(a)Making a person a ward of court; or
(b)Made under the Guardianship Act 1968 or any enactment repealed by that Act,—
which is expressed to continue in force until the person who is the subject of the order attains the age of 21 years or full age (however expressed), shall have effect as if the reference to his attaining that age were a reference to his attaining the age of 20 years, or in relation to a person who by virtue of clause 1 of this Schedule attains full age on the 1st day of January 1971, to that date.
Maintenance agreements and orders
6Nothing in this Act shall affect the liability of any person to pay maintenance under any agreement or order which is in force immediately before the commencement of this Act.
Vested interests
7Nothing in this Act shall affect any estate, right, or interest in any real or personal property to which any person has become absolutely entitled, whether beneficially or otherwise, before the commencement of this Act.
Trustees’ powers of maintenance and advancement
8(1)Where any trustee is empowered or directed by the provisions of the will or other testamentary disposition executed or made before the date of the commencement of this Act of a testator who dies on or after that date to pay or apply any income or any capital money or other capital asset for the maintenance, education, advancement, or benefit of any person, nothing in this Act shall have the effect of limiting that power or direction.
(2)Where by any instrument executed or made before the date of the commencement of this Act or by any enactment in force immediately before the commencement of this Act any trustee is empowered or directed to pay income to the parent or guardian of any person, or to apply it for the maintenance, education, advancement, or benefit of any person, the trustee shall also have power to pay it to that person himself if that person has attained the age of 20 years.
(3)Notwithstanding any rule of law, any will or other testamentary disposition executed or made before the date of the commencement of this Act shall not be treated for the purposes of this clause as executed or made on or after that date by reason only that the will or other testamentary disposition is confirmed by a codicil made or executed on or after the date.
Adoption orders
9This Act shall not prevent the making of an adoption order or interim adoption order under the Adoption Act 1955 in respect of a person who has attained the age of 20 years if the application for the order was made before the commencement of this Act, and in relation to any such case that Act shall have effect as if this Act had not been enacted.
Limitation of actions
10The change by virtue of this Act in the construction of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Limitation Act 1950 (limitation in the case of a person under disability) shall not affect the time for bringing proceedings in respect of a cause of action which arose before the commencement of this Act.
Enactments incorporated in instruments
11This Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule) shall not affect the construction of any enactment where it is incorporated in and has effect as part of any instrument the construction of which is not affected by this Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule).
This Act is administered in the Ministry of Justice.
A
Age of Majority Act 1970
Schedule 3 Transitional provisions and savings
Schedule 3
Transitional provisions and savings
(cl 1 to cl 11)
Section 8
ANALYSIS
(List of Sections)
Attainment of full age by person aged between 20 and 21 at the commencement of the Act
1
Application of Act to instruments (other than wills) executed or made before the commencement of the Act and to wills of testators who have died before the commencement of the Act
2
Distribution of property as to which persons die intestate before the commencement of the Act
3
Funds recovered
4
Wardship and custody orders
5
Maintenance agreements and orders
6
Vested interests
7
Trustees’ powers of maintenance and advancement
8
Adoption orders
9
Limitation of actions
10
Enactments incorporated in instruments
11
Attainment of full age by person aged between 20 and 21 at the commencement of the Act
1Where at the commencement of this Act a person has attained the age of 20 years but has not attained the age of 21 years he shall attain full age on 1 January 1971.
Application of Act to instruments (other than wills) executed or made before the commencement of the Act and to wills of testators who have died before the commencement of the Act
2(1)The following, namely,—
(a)Every instrument (other than a will or other testamentary disposition) executed or made before the commencement of this Act; and
(b)The will or other testamentary disposition of any testator who has died before the commencement of this Act,—
shall be construed as if this Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule) had not been passed.
(2)For the purposes of this clause and for the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the term instrument includes every award, industrial agreement, determination, or instrument of authority relating to remuneration or conditions of employment; and includes the Agricultural Workers (Market Gardens) Order 1967 and the Agricultural Workers (Orchardists) Order 1965, but does not include any other enactment.
Distribution of property as to which persons die intestate before the commencement of the Act
3Except to the extent that section 4 of this Act and clause 1 of this Schedule enable a person to give a receipt or a discharge, or to assign or otherwise dispose of or disclaim rights or property, all property as to which any person has died intestate before the commencement of this Act shall be distributed in accordance with the enactments and rules of law which would have applied to it if this Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule) had not been passed.
Funds recovered
4Any order or directions in force immediately before the commencement of this Act and made pursuant to any enactment relating to the control of money recovered by or otherwise payable to a minor in any proceedings or as the result of the compromise or settlement of any claim for money or damages shall have effect as if any reference to the minor’s attaining the age of 21 years or full age (however expressed) were a reference to his attaining the age of 20 years, or in relation to a person who by virtue of clause 1 of this Schedule attains full age on the 1st day of January 1971, to that date.
Wardship and custody orders
5Any order in force immediately before the commencement of this Act—
(a)Making a person a ward of court; or
(b)Made under the Guardianship Act 1968 or any enactment repealed by that Act,—
which is expressed to continue in force until the person who is the subject of the order attains the age of 21 years or full age (however expressed), shall have effect as if the reference to his attaining that age were a reference to his attaining the age of 20 years, or in relation to a person who by virtue of clause 1 of this Schedule attains full age on the 1st day of January 1971, to that date.
Maintenance agreements and orders
6Nothing in this Act shall affect the liability of any person to pay maintenance under any agreement or order which is in force immediately before the commencement of this Act.
Vested interests
7Nothing in this Act shall affect any estate, right, or interest in any real or personal property to which any person has become absolutely entitled, whether beneficially or otherwise, before the commencement of this Act.
Trustees’ powers of maintenance and advancement
8(1)Where any trustee is empowered or directed by the provisions of the will or other testamentary disposition executed or made before the date of the commencement of this Act of a testator who dies on or after that date to pay or apply any income or any capital money or other capital asset for the maintenance, education, advancement, or benefit of any person, nothing in this Act shall have the effect of limiting that power or direction.
(2)Where by any instrument executed or made before the date of the commencement of this Act or by any enactment in force immediately before the commencement of this Act any trustee is empowered or directed to pay income to the parent or guardian of any person, or to apply it for the maintenance, education, advancement, or benefit of any person, the trustee shall also have power to pay it to that person himself if that person has attained the age of 20 years.
(3)Notwithstanding any rule of law, any will or other testamentary disposition executed or made before the date of the commencement of this Act shall not be treated for the purposes of this clause as executed or made on or after that date by reason only that the will or other testamentary disposition is confirmed by a codicil made or executed on or after the date.
Adoption orders
9This Act shall not prevent the making of an adoption order or interim adoption order under the Adoption Act 1955 in respect of a person who has attained the age of 20 years if the application for the order was made before the commencement of this Act, and in relation to any such case that Act shall have effect as if this Act had not been enacted.
Limitation of actions
10The change by virtue of this Act in the construction of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Limitation Act 1950 (limitation in the case of a person under disability) shall not affect the time for bringing proceedings in respect of a cause of action which arose before the commencement of this Act.
Enactments incorporated in instruments
11This Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule) shall not affect the construction of any enactment where it is incorporated in and has effect as part of any instrument the construction of which is not affected by this Act (other than section 5 and clauses 2 to 11 of this Schedule).
This Act is administered in the Ministry of Justice.
(1)In any proceeding before any Court or any person acting judicially—
(a)A certificate signed by the [Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade] that on a date specified in the certificate a specified country was or was not a Commonwealth country, or that a specified territory was or was not one for whose international relations a specified Commonwealth country was responsible, shall be conclusive evidence of the matters stated in the certificate:
(b)If no certificate pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection is produced relating to it, the fact that a country is specified in Schedule 1 to this Act shall be conclusive evidence that that country is a Commonwealth country, and the fact that a country is not so specified shall be conclusive evidence that it is not a Commonwealth country.
(2)The Governor-General may from time to time, by Order in Council, amend the said Schedule 1 by adding to it the names of countries that have become Commonwealth countries or deleting from it the names of countries that have ceased to be Commonwealth countries.
(3)An Order in Council pursuant to subsection (2) of this section shall come into force or be deemed to have come into force on a date specified therein, whether that date is before, on, or after the date of the making of the order.
(4)The Court or person acting judicially to which or to whom any certificate under subsection (1)(a) of this section is produced shall take judicial notice of the signature thereon of the [Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade].
(5)For the purposes of this section, the terms Court, person acting judicially, and proceeding shall have the meanings assigned to them by the Evidence Act 1908.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:01 am
http://www.sfo.govt.nz
and
http://www.justice.govt.nz
Judicial decisions on line.
Click on the search function and type in Robyn Case
[1] SCI DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD V NZ BUILT LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-3656 23 December 2005
[2] FOUNDATION SECURITIES V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 21 February 2007
[3] FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ) LTD V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 19 March 2007
PLUS convicted last month of SEVEN CHARGES of operating a company while a BANKRUPT, brought by the Ministry of Economic Development. In two weeks sentence will be given
No response to interfering with your own daughter Shane Charles Wenzel? Are there others as well Shane Charles Wenzel? Is this why there is no response? Is this why Dianna’s daughter hated you? Is this why all children there hated you? Did you interfere with anyone else’s daughters Shane Charles Wenzel? Or are there sons as well? Why do you ask every one you met if they would have sex with you Shane Charles Wenzel?
Do people know that you own/control Kapai the Kiwi, children’s story books Shane Charles Wenzel
Is it all down hill from here? That’s 10 nil to the system Shane Charles Wenzel!!!
Your companies are collapsing under their own weight of fraud and deceit. The people that came to you in good faith that you abused, defrauded and raped are coming back Shane Charles Wenzel to get their day in court
Many articles about you in the newspapers with many more in the pipeline. Attacking members of the press was a lunatic move Shane Charles Wenzel
Threatening officers of the court
Threatening Members of Parliament. This is recorded in Hansard for all to read for ever
10 CONVICTIONS AND STILL COUNTING.
Some one suggested that that there are some 32 charges pending as yet unanswered. If any one knows of others then add them in. The world needs to know about this fraudster, the way he operates, how he prays on people/children, his past history ( read all of the above ) and where to find him
Beaten up by your own gang member Thugs, Shane Charles Wenzel for ripping them of as well
All the above Shane Charles Wenzel is being proven in courts of law, one by one you and the companies you controlled are being found guilty. Mt Eden knows to expect you. Oz follows with interest. The pain and suffering you have inflicted on others will now be yours.
Karma, I believe you call it Shane Charles Wenzel
August 9th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Come on Robyn we all know you are reading the dribble Shane is spewing out. Can you honestly tell all the people who are reading this that you both understand what Sane is writing about and that you follow his ‘teachings’
If you agree have the courage of your convictions.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Imperial Acts
Accession Declaration Act 1910
1 Alteration of form of accession declaration. 1 Will & Mary Sess 2, c 2, 12 & 13 Will 3, c 2
1Alteration of form of accession declaration. 1 Will & Mary Sess 2, c 2, 12 & 13 Will 3, c 2
The declaration to be made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by the Sovereign under section one of the Bill of Rights and section two of the Act of Settlement 1700 shall be that set out in the Schedule to this Act instead of that referred to in the said sections.
Imperial Acts
Bill Of Rights 1688
Bill Of Rights 1688
1 Will and Mar, Sess 2, c 2
AN ACT declareing the rights and liberties of the subject and setleing the succession of the Crowne.
[13 February 1688
ANALYSIS
(List of Sections)
1
2 Non obstantes made voidException
ANALYSIS
(List of Sections)
WHEREAS the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Comons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this Realme did upon the thirteenth day of February in the yeare of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the names and stile of William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange being present in their proper persons a certaine declaration in writeing made by the said Lords and Comons in the words following viz
The Heads of Declaration of Lords and Commons, recited.
WHEREAS the late King James the Second by the assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the lawes and liberties of this Kingdome.
Dispensing and Suspending Power.
By assumeing and exerciseing a power of dispensing with and suspending of lawes and the execution of lawes without consent of Parlyament.
Committing Prelates.
By committing and prosecuting diverse worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power.
Ecclesiastical Commission.
By issueing and causeing to be executed a commission under the Great Seale for erecting a court called The Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes.
Levying Money.
By levying money for and to the use of the crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner then the same was granted by Parlyament.
Standing Army.
By raising and keeping a standing army within this Kingdome in time of peace without consent of Parlyament and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
Disarming Protestants, etc
By causing severall good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both armed and imployed contrary to law.
Violating Elections.
By violating the freedome of election of members to serve in Parlyament.
Illegal Prosecutions.
By prosecutions in the Court of Kings Bench for matters and causes cognizable onely in Parlyament and by diverse other arbitrary and illegall courses.
Juries.
And whereas of late yeares partiall corrupt and unqualifyed persons have beene returned and served on juryes in tryalls and particularly diverse jurors in tryalls for high treason which were not freeholders,
Excessive Bail.
And excessive baile hath beene required of persons committed in criminall cases to elude the benefitt of the lawes made for the liberty of the subjects.
Fines.
And excessive fines have beene imposed.
Punishments.
And illegall and cruell punishments inflicted.
Grants of Fines, etc before Conviction, etc.
And severall grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgement against the persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the knowne lawes and statutes and freedome of this Realme.
Recital that the late King James II had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was vacant, and that the Prince of Orange had written letters to the Lords and Commons for the choosing representatives in Parliament.
And whereas the said late King James the Second haveing abdicated the Government and the Throne being thereby vacant His [Hignesse] the Prince of Orange (whome it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this Kingdome from Popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and diverse principall persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spirituall and Temporall being Protestants and other letters to the severall countyes cityes universities burroughs and cinque ports for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parlyament to meete and sitt at Westminster upon the two and twentyeth day of January in this yeare one thousand six hundred eighty and eight in order to such an establishment as that their religion lawes and liberties might not againe be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections haveing beene accordingly made.
The Subject’s Rights.
And thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation takeing into their most serious consideration the best meanes for attaining the ends aforesaid doe in the first place (as their auncestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their auntient rights and liberties, declare
1Dispensing power—That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by Regall Authority without consent of Parlyament is illegall.
Late dispensing power—That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by Regall Authoritie as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late is illegall.
Ecclesiastical Courts illegal—That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiasticall Causes and all other commissions and courts of like nature are illegall and pernicious.
Levying money—That levying money for or to the use of the Crowne by pretence of prerogative without grant of Parlyament for longer time or in other manner then the same is or shall be granted is illegall.
Right to petition—That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegall.
Standing army—That the raising or keeping a standing army within the Kingdome in time of peace unlesse it be with consent of Parlyament is against law.
Subjects’ arms—That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
Freedom of election—That election of members of Parlyament ought to be free.
Freedom of speech—That the freedome of speech and debates or proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament.
Excessive bail—That excessive baile ought not to be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruell and unusuall punishments inflicted.
Juries—That jurors ought to be duely impannelled and returned ….
Grants of forfeitures—That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegall and void.
Frequent Parliaments—And that for redresse of all grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.
The said rights claimed—And they doe claime demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties and that noe declarations judgements doeings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premisses ought in any wise to be drawne hereafter into consequence or example. To which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highnesse the Prince of Orange as being the onely meanes for obtaining a full redresse and remedy therein.
Tender of the Crown—Haveing therefore an intire confidence that his said Highnesse the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance soe farr advanced by him and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted and from all other attempts upon their religion rights and liberties,
Regal power exercised—The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons assembled at Westminster doe resolve that William and Mary Prince and Princesse of Orange be and be declared King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging to hold the Crowne and Royall Dignity of the said kingdomes and dominions to them the said Prince and Princesse dureing their lives and the life of the survivour of them
Limitation of the Crown—And that the sole and full exercise of the Regall power be onely in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the names of the said Prince and Princesse dureing their joynt lives and after their deceases the said Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heires of the body of the said Princesse and for default of such issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke and the heires of her body
And for default of such issue to the heires of the body of the said Prince of Orange. And the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe pray the said Prince and ( *2) Princesse to accept the same accordingly.
New oaths of allegiance, etc—And the the oathes hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whome the oathes of allegiance and supremacy might be required by law instead of them and that the said oathes of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.
Allegiance—I A B doe sincerely promise and sweare that I will be faithfull and beare true allegiance to their Majestyes King William and Queene Mary Soe helpe me God.
Supremacy—I A B doe sweare that I doe from my heart abhorr, detest and abjure as impious and hereticall this damnable doctrine and position that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the See of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I doe declare that noe forreigne Prince person prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superiority preeminence or authoritie ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
Acceptance of the Crown—Upon which their said Majestyes did accept the Crowne and Royall Dignitie of the Kingdoms of England France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration.
The two Houses to sit—And thereupon their Majestyes were pleased that the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons being the two Houses of Parlyament should continue to sitt and with their Majesties Royall concurrence make effectuall provision for the setlement of the religion lawes and liberties of this Kingdome soe that the same for the future might not be in danger againe of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons did agree and proceede to act accordingly.
Subjects’ liberties to be allowed, and ministers hereafter to serve according to the same—Now in pursuance of the premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the articles clauses matters and things therein contained by the force of a law made in due forme by authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration
And all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their successors according to the same in all times to come.
William and Mary declared King and Queen—And the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and mercifull goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majestyes Royall Persons most happily to raigne over us upon the throne of their auncestors for which they render unto him from the bottome of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises doe truely firmely assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts thinke and doe hereby recognize acknowledge and declare that King James the Second haveing abdicated the Government and their Majestyes haveing accepted the Crowne and Royall dignity [as] aforesaid their said Majestyes did become were are and of right ought to be by the lawes of this Realme our Soveraigne Liege Lord and Lady King and Queene of England France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose princely persons the Royall State Crowne and dignity of the said Realmes with all honours stiles titles regalities prerogatives powers jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully rightfully and intirely invested and incorporated united and annexed
Limitation of the Crown—And for preventing all questions and divisions in this Realme by reason of any pretended titles to the Crowne and for preserveing a certainty in the succession thereof in and upon which the unity peace tranquillity and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend The said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe beseech their Majestyes that it may be enacted established and declared that the Crowne and Regall Government of the said Kingdoms and dominions with all and singular the premisses thereunto belonging and appertaining shall bee and continue to their said Majestyes and the survivour of them dureing their lives and the life of the survivour of them And that the entire perfect and full exercise of the Regall Power and Government be onely in and executed by his Majestie in the names of both their Majestyes dureing their joynt lives And after their deceases the said Crowne and premisses shall be and remaine to the heires of the body of her Majestie and for default of such issue to her Royall Highnesse the Princess Anne of Denmarke and the heires of her body and for default of such issue to the heires of the body of his said Majestie And thereunto the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submitt themselves their heires and posterities for ever and doe faithfully promise that they will stand to maintaine and defend their said Majesties and alsoe the limitation and succession of the Crowne herein specified and contained to the utomost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt any thing to the contrary.
Papists debarred the Crown—And whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince or by and King or Queene marrying a Papist the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall power authoritie or jurisdiction within the same [And in all and every such case or cases the people of these Realmes shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance*2 And the said Crowne and Government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons soe reconciled holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead.
Every King, etc, shall make the Declaration of 30 car II—[And that every King and Queene of this Realme who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeede in the Imperiall Crowne of this Kingdome shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parlyament next after his or her comeing to the Crowne sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peeres in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the Coronation Oath to him or her at the time of his or her takeing the said Oath (which shall first happen) make subscribe and audibly repeate the declaration mentioned in the Statute made in the thirtyeth yeare of the Raigne of King Charles the Second entituled “An Act for the more effectuall preserveing the Kings person and Government by disableing Papists from sitting in either House of Parlyament”.
If under 12 years old, to be done after attainment thereof—[But if it shall happen that such King or Queene upon his or her succession to the Crowne of this Realme shall be under the age of twelve yeares then every such King or Queene shall make subscribe and audibly repeate the said Declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the Parlyament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such King or Queene shall have attained the said age of twelve yeares.*3
King’s and Queen’s assent—All which their Majestyes are contented and pleased shall be declared enacted and established by authoritie of this present Parliament and shall stand remaine and be the law of this Realme for ever And the same are by their said Majesties by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled and by the authoritie of the same declared enacted and established accordingly.
Imperial Acts
Act of Settlement 1700
2 The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
2The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
PROVIDED always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled an Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed.
Imperial Acts
Act of Settlement 1700
2 The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
2The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
PROVIDED always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled an Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed.
Imperial Acts
Act of Settlement 1700
2 The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
2The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
PROVIDED always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled an Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed.
Imperial Acts
Act of Settlement 1700
2 The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
2The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
PROVIDED always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled an Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Imperial Acts
Act of Settlement 1700
2 The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
2The persons inheritable by this Act, holding Communion with the Church of Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act; to take the oath at their Coronation, according to Stat I W & M c6
PROVIDED always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who shall or may take or inherit the said Crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided enacted and established And that every King and Queen of this Realm who shall come to and succeed in the Imperiall Crown of this Kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have the Coronation Oath administred to him her or them at their respective Coronations according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of His Majesty and the said late Queen Mary intituled an Act for establishing the Coronation Oath and shall make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed.
Imperial Acts
Accession Declaration Act 1910
Schedule
Schedule
I [here insert the name of the Sovereign] do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne of my Realm, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law.
Source: New Zealand Parliamentary Library, International Documents Collection
O
Oaths and Declarations Act 1957
Part 1 Oaths, affirmations, and declarations in general (s 3 to s 12)
Part 1
Oaths, affirmations, and declarations in general
(s 3 to s 12)
Oaths and affirmations
3Form in which oath may be administered
An oath may be administered and taken in any of the manners following:
(a)The person taking the oath may, while holding in his hand a copy of the Bible, New Testament, or Old Testament, repeat the words of the oath as prescribed or allowed by law; or
(b)The person administering the oath may repeat the appropriate form of adjuration commencing with the words “You swear by Almighty God that,” or words to the like effect, and concluding with the words of the oath as prescribed or allowed by law, and the person taking the oath shall thereupon, while holding in his hand a copy of the Bible, New Testament, or Old Testament, indicate his assent to the oath so administered by uttering the words “I do”, or other words to the like effect; or
(c)The oath may be administered and taken in any manner which the person taking it may declare to be binding on him.
Compare: 1910 No 17 s 3; Oaths Act 1838, s 3 (UK)
[9Declarations made in New Zealand
(1)A declaration made in New Zealand must be in the form in Schedule 1, and must be made before—
(a)a person enrolled as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court; or
(b)a Justice of the Peace; or
(c)a notary public; or
[[(ca)the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court; or]]
(d)the Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal; or
(e)a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the High Court or a District Court; or
(f)some other person authorised by law to administer an oath; or
(g)a member of Parliament; or
(h)a person who—
(i)is a fellow of the body (incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908) that, immediately before the commencement of the Oaths and Declarations Amendment Act 2001, was called the New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives; and
(ii)is acting in the employment of the holder of a practising certificate as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court; or
[[(i)an employee of [Land Transport] New Zealand, authorised for that purpose (by name, or as the holder for the time being of a specified office or title) by the Minister of Justice by notice in the Gazette; or]]
[[(ia)an employee of Public Trust constituted under the Public Trust Act 2001, authorised for that purpose (by name, or as the holder for the time being of a specified office or title) by the Minister of Justice by notice in the Gazette; or.]]
[[(j)an officer in the service of the Crown, or of a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 2002, authorised for that purpose (by name, or as the holder for the time being of a specified office or title) by the Minister of Justice by notice in the Gazette]]
[[(2)Despite subsection (1), if a te reo Maori equivalent of the declaration prescribed in Schedule 1 is prescribed by regulations made under section 30A, using that te reo Maori equivalent has the same effect as using the declaration prescribed in Schedule 1.]] ]
Oaths, affirmations, and declarations made outside New Zealand
10Commonwealth representatives may administer oaths
(1)In this section, unless the context otherwise requires,—
Affidavit includes any affirmation, acknowledgment, examination, or attestation or protestation of honour:
Oath includes an affirmation:
Swear includes affirm and protest.
(2)Every Commonwealth representative exercising his functions in any place outside New Zealand may, in that place, administer any oath and take any affidavit, and also do any notarial act which any notary public can do within New Zealand; and every oath, affidavit, and notarial act administered, sworn, or done by or before any such representative shall be as effectual as if duly administered, sworn, or done by or before any lawful authority in New Zealand.
(3)Any document purporting to have affixed, impressed, or subscribed thereon or thereto the seal or signature of any person authorised by this section to administer an oath in testimony of any oath, affidavit, or act being administered, taken, or done by or before him shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the seal or signature being the seal or signature of that person, or of the official character of that person.
Compare: 1939 No 39 s 21
11Declarations made outside New Zealand
(1)A declaration made in a Commonwealth country other than New Zealand shall be made before a Judge, a Commissioner of Oaths, a notary public, a Justice of the Peace, or any person authorised by the law of that country to administer an oath there for the purpose of a judicial proceeding, or before a Commonwealth representative, or before a solicitor of [the High Court] of New Zealand.
(2)A declaration made in a country other than a Commonwealth country shall be made before a Commonwealth representative, or before a Judge, or before a notary public, or before a solicitor of [the High Court] of New Zealand.
(3)Any document purporting to have affixed, impressed, or subscribed thereon or thereto the seal or signature of any person authorised by this section to take a declaration shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the seal or signature being the seal or signature of that person or of the official or other character of that person.
Compare: Statutory Declarations Act 1835, s 15 (UK)
12Oaths and declarations of servicemen outside New Zealand
(1)In this section, unless the context otherwise requires,—
Affidavit includes an affirmation and a statutory or other declaration:
Allied force includes any force which is co-operating with any New Zealand armed force; and also includes any United Nations force:
Member, in relation to any naval, military, or air force, includes any person who by the law of the country to which the force belongs is subject to the naval, military, or air force law thereof:
Oath includes an affirmation and a declaration; and also includes, as well as evidentiary oaths, any promissory oath, including, in particular, any oath of allegiance (whether required for the purposes of [the Citizenship Act 1977] or of any other enactment or for any other purpose):
Swear includes affirm and declare.
(2)Any officer of any of the armed forces of any Commonwealth country or of any allied force who holds a rank not below that of Lieutenant-Commander, Major, or Squadron Leader, or an equivalent rank, or who holds an appointment as a Legal Staff Officer may, while serving outside New Zealand, administer oaths to, and take affidavits from, any member of any of the said forces, and every oath or affidavit administered by or sworn before any such officer as aforesaid shall be as effectual as if duly administered by or sworn before any lawful authority in New Zealand:
Provided that an officer of an allied force shall not be entitled under this subsection to administer any promissory oath.
(3)An officer who administers an oath or takes an affidavit by virtue of the powers conferred by this section shall state, in the jurat or attestation to the document in respect of which the power is being exercised or after his signature, the date on which the oath or affidavit is administered or sworn, and the name and rank of the officer, and (if his rank is below that of Lieutenant-Commander, Major, or Squadron Leader, or an equivalent rank) the fact that he is a Legal Staff Officer; and it shall not be necessary to state the place where the oath or affidavit is administered or sworn.
(4)Any document purporting to have subscribed thereto the signature of any officer in testimony of any oath or affidavit being administered by or sworn before him (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) shall be admitted in evidence without proof of the rank or appointment of the officer and without proof that the signature is the signature of the officer or that the officer was, on the date on which the oath or affidavit was administered or sworn, serving outside New Zealand.
Compare: 1945 No 16 ss 7, 8
August 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Stop with the BS comments Shane. Answer the people you have raped
http://www.sfo.govt.nz
and
http://www.justice.govt.nz
Judicial decisions on line.
Click on the search function and type in Robyn Case
[1] SCI DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD V NZ BUILT LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-3656 23 December 2005
[2] FOUNDATION SECURITIES V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 21 February 2007
[3] FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ) LTD V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 19 March 2007
PLUS convicted last month of SEVEN CHARGES of operating a company while a BANKRUPT, brought by the Ministry of Economic Development. In two weeks sentence will be given
No response to interfering with your own daughter Shane Charles Wenzel? Are there others as well Shane Charles Wenzel? Is this why there is no response? Is this why Dianna’s daughter hated you? Is this why all children there hated you? Did you interfere with anyone else’s daughters Shane Charles Wenzel? Or are there sons as well? Why do you ask every one you met if they would have sex with you Shane Charles Wenzel?
Do people know that you own/control Kapai the Kiwi, children’s story books Shane Charles Wenzel
Is it all down hill from here? That’s 10 nil to the system Shane Charles Wenzel!!!
Your companies are collapsing under their own weight of fraud and deceit. The people that came to you in good faith that you abused, defrauded and raped are coming back Shane Charles Wenzel to get their day in court
Many articles about you in the newspapers with many more in the pipeline. Attacking members of the press was a lunatic move Shane Charles Wenzel
Threatening officers of the court
Threatening Members of Parliament. This is recorded in Hansard for all to read for ever
10 CONVICTIONS AND STILL COUNTING.
Some one suggested that that there are some 32 charges pending as yet unanswered. If any one knows of others then add them in. The world needs to know about this fraudster, the way he operates, how he prays on people/children, his past history ( read all of the above ) and where to find him
Beaten up by your own gang member Thugs, Shane Charles Wenzel for ripping them of as well
All the above Shane Charles Wenzel is being proven in courts of law, one by one you and the companies you controlled are being found guilty. Mt Eden knows to expect you. Oz follows with interest. The pain and suffering you have inflicted on others will now be yours.
Karma, I believe you call it Shane Charles Wenzel
August 9th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
You are truly f..d in the head Shane. I have been following this blog with interest and I’m so pleased to hear that you have been found guilty – fabulous news. By the way read the article of Robyn in the local Whakatane rag – you have now ruined her as well, do you feel proud- or have you brainwashed her as well, I always thought that Robyn had above average intelligence – how wrong I was- mind you everyone thought the same – why do you think everyone has left the ship that was sinking- now its about to be torpedoed- pfreferably with you in it. How do you feel knowing you have so many people that truly hate you – and that word is such a strong word. You are not original in any of your thinking- in fact you plagarise – read your above shit – I personally can’t be bothered. I look forward to hearing your sentence as do so many others. Sweet dreams- no body else will.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Oaths and Declarations Act 1957
Part 3 Promissory oaths and affirmations (s 17 to s [30A)
Part 3
Promissory oaths and affirmations
(s 17 to s [30A)
17Oath of Allegiance
The oath in this Act referred to as the Oath of Allegiance shall be in the form following, that is to say:
I, ......, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her [or His] Majesty [Specify the name of the reigning Sovereign, as thus: Queen Elizabeth the Second], Her [or His] heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 2
18Judicial Oath
The oath in this Act referred to as the Judicial Oath shall be in the form following, that is to say:
I,……, swear that I will well and truly serve Her [or His] Majesty [specify as above], Her [or His] heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of ; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 4
19Executive Councillor’s Oath
(1)The oath in this Act referred to as the Executive Councillor’s Oath shall be in the form following, that is to say:
I,……, being chosen and admitted of the Executive Council of New Zealand, swear that I will to the best of my judgment, at all times, when thereto required, freely give my counsel and advice to the Governor-General for the time being, for the good management of the affairs of New Zealand. That I will not directly nor indirectly reveal such matters as shall be debated in Council and committed to my secrecy, but that I will in all things be a true and faithful Councillor. So help me God.
(2)Repealed.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 7
20Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath
The oath in this Act referred to as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath shall be in the form following, that is to say:
I,……, swear that I will well and truly serve Her [or His] Majesty [Specify as above], Her [or His] heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of Parliamentary Under-Secretary. So help me God.
Compare: 1950 No 99 s 15(1)
21Official Oath
The oath in this Act referred to as the Official Oath shall be in the form following, that is to say:
I,……, swear that I will well and truly serve Her [or His] Majesty [Specify as above], Her [or His] heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of . So help me God.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 3
Persons to make and administer oaths
22By whom Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath to be taken
(1)The Oath of Allegiance and the Judicial Oath shall be taken by each of the officers named in Schedule 2 to this Act as soon as may be after his acceptance of office.
(2)The oaths to be taken under this section shall be administered by the following persons in such manner as the person administering the oath sees fit to adopt:
[(a)In the case of the Chief Justice, the Judges of the High Court, the Masters of the High Court, the Judges of the Arbitration Court, …, by a Judge of the High Court:]
[(aa)in the case of a Judge of the Employment Court, by a Judge of the High Court or a Judge of the Employment Court:]
(b)In the case of a Judge … of the Maori Land Court, by a Judge of [the High Court] or a Judge of the Maori Land Court:
(c)In the case of any other officer referred to in Schedule 2, by a Judge of [the High Court] or a [District Court Judge].
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 7; 1927 No 37 s 7; 1947 No 16 s 5(6); 1948 No 50 s 8; 1951 No 73 s 3; 1953 No 94 s 20(1), (3); 1954 No 72 s 18(6); 1956 No 62 s 41(6)
23By whom Oath of Allegiance and Executive Councillor’s Oath to be taken
(1)The Oath of Allegiance and the Executive Councillor’s Oath shall be taken by every person appointed to the Executive Council of New Zealand as soon as may be after his acceptance of office.
(2)The oaths to be taken under this section shall be administered by the Clerk of the Executive Council, or officer for the time being acting as Clerk of the Executive Council, in the presence of the Governor-General, or otherwise as the Governor-General directs, at a meeting of the Executive Council.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 6
24By whom Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath to be taken
(1)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath shall be taken by every person appointed to the office of Parliamentary Under-Secretary as soon as may be after his acceptance of office.
(2)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary’s Oath shall be administered by a member of the Executive Council or the Clerk of the Executive Council.
Compare: 1950 No 99 s 15
25By whom Official Oath to be taken (Repealed)
General provisions
26Effect of neglecting to take oath
(1)If any officer mentioned in this Act or in Schedule 2 or Schedule 3 to this Act declines or neglects, when any oath required to be taken by him under this Act is duly tendered, to take that oath, he shall if he has already entered on his office vacate the same, and if he has not entered on the same be disqualified from entering on the same; but no person shall be compelled in respect of the same appointment to the same office to take any oath more than once.
(2)Where any person who is a Justice of the Peace by virtue of his holding any office and has taken the Oath of Allegiance and the Judicial Oath is re-elected to that office at the next succeeding election, it shall not be necessary for him to take those oaths on any such re-election.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 9; 1927 No 37 s 7
27Oath of Allegiance not to be taken except under this Act and other specified Acts
No person shall be required or authorised to take the Oath of Allegiance, or any oath substituted for that oath, or to make any affirmation or declaration to the same effect as that oath, other than the persons required to take that oath by this Act or the Acts mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 10
28Declarations instead of oaths in certain cases
(1)Where in any case not provided for by this Act or included within the savings provisions in section 29 of this Act any person would by virtue of any law now in force be required to take any oath on or as a condition of his accepting any employment or office, or being admitted to any rights or privileges, a declaration shall be substituted for that oath in such form as the person who would have administered the oath thinks fit, but so that the declaration shall be to the like effect in all respects as the oath for which it is substituted.
(2)The making of any such declaration shall in all respects have the same effect as the taking of the oath for which the same is substituted would have had if this Act had not been passed.
(3)If any person required by this Act to make a declaration instead of an oath declines or neglects to make that declaration, he shall be subject to the same penalties and disabilities (if any) as he would have been subject to for declining or neglecting to take the oath for which the declaration provided by this Act is substituted.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 12
29Saving as to certain oaths
Nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect—
(a)Any oath required or authorised to be taken by the Governor-General by any letters patent or by any other authority:
(b)Any oath required to be taken under any of the enactments specified in Schedule 4 to this Act:
(c)Any oath required or authorised by any law in force in New Zealand for the purpose of attesting any fact or verifying any account or document:
(d)Any oath required to be taken by any juror, witness, or other person in pursuance of any law, rule, usage, or custom as preliminary to or in the course of any civil, criminal, naval, military, air force, or other trial, inquest, or proceedings of a judicial nature, including any arbitration or as preliminary to or in the course of any proceedings before a Committee of the House of Representatives, or before any Commission of Inquiry or Commissioner or other special tribunal appointed by the Governor-General or the Governor-General in Council.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 13
30Saving as to persons already holding offices
No person appointed to or holding any office or place or admitted to any rights or privileges before the commencement of this Act, who has taken the oath (if any) which under the law previously in force he was required to take, shall be required by virtue of this Act to take any oath or make any declaration in respect of that appointment, office, place, or admission.
Compare: 1908 No 151 s 14
[30ARegulations
The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, make regulations prescribing te reo Maori equivalents for any or all of the following:
(a)the affirmation set out in section 4(2):
(b)the affirmation set out in section 4(3):
(c)the declaration set out in section 13(1):
(d)the oath set out in section 16:
(e)the oath set out in section 17:
(f)the oath set out in section 18:
(g)the oath set out in section 19:
(h)the oath set out in section 20:
(i)the oath set out in section 21:
(j)the declaration prescribed in Schedule 1.]
I am confused The oath state that QUOTE I will well and truly serve Her
taking money decieving man raping stealing lieing covering up is serving her?????
when man simply asks questions to PUBLIC SERVANTS they
they threaten lie cheat and rude
I will well and truly serve Her HOW?
rape lie what hand outs/
I will well and truly serve Her HOW??
so help me GOD !!!
now I understand
NO NO NO RESPONSABILITY GOD will rescue me at the end!!!???
ZEITGEIST, The Movie – Official Release – Full Film
All time views: 1,221,354 »
Views Rank «
All time 1,221,354 450
Yesterday • 52,571 4
by email 277 8
by embed 33,997 1
GMP
1 hr 56 min 23 sec – Jun 26, 2007
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
August 9th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
you are a sad bastard – no real thoughts of your own. Get a life and leave others alone.
August 10th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Watch the movie CLOWN
I am not hiding behind FAKE names people
Mirror MIRROR on the wall who is making it up Most of all
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
CAN YOU FACE THE THE TRUTH
OR ARE YOU TRAPED IN THE LIES
who are YOU the MAN or the PERSON
What is the difference???
It is a Big one??
go to http://www.shanewenzel.com and look up we are broke and see the balance sheet of the country . it is there for to see!!!!
The trouble is that the MR FISHER cant read it understand it and pets cant report it Mr fisher did you get pick on at school I bet you did???
August 10th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Look Mr Charles Shane Wenzel, how long does it take for you to look up all those facts and copy and paste on the blog?? No one is interested, everyone wants to see you Rot in jail. Rather then trying to be a teacher or whatever it is that you call yourself, you should concentrate more on what your facing you horse sh*t.
August 10th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
abc still NO NAME who are you come clean
In fact the member ship is growing ??
The people are interested
To expose the B* SH*T one needs the people
Field of DREAMs build it they will come thanks to people like you they are coming
Remember you know so much about me NOT !!!!!!YOU KNOW THEN I WAS A UNION DELEIGATE ONE thing we were proud of was networks and how to bait some one So fill free to keep making your ALLEGATION KARMA CANT BE FARR AWAY MR abc (Legally)
REF CALL BLF
August 10th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Shane, if that is your name, respond to the “alligations” It seems that keepitreal knows you and what you have done so here it is again. Respond to the questions with answers not cut and paste rubbish. You are being held to account fo ryour actions, so account for them.
Your ducking and diving and avoiding tactics only confirms what is being said about you. If the court reports are wrong then say so, if the other activity is wrong then say so. Way too many fingers pointing at you to suggest that all of this is wrong though so best you start sorting it
keepitreal Says:
August 9th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Stop with the BS comments Shane. Answer the people you have raped
http://www.sfo.govt.nz
and
http://www.justice.govt.nz
Judicial decisions on line.
Click on the search function and type in Robyn Case
[1] SCI DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION LTD V NZ BUILT LTD HC AK CIV 2005-404-3656 23 December 2005
[2] FOUNDATION SECURITIES V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 21 February 2007
[3] FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ) LTD V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391 19 March 2007
PLUS convicted last month of SEVEN CHARGES of operating a company while a BANKRUPT, brought by the Ministry of Economic Development. In two weeks sentence will be given
No response to interfering with your own daughter Shane Charles Wenzel? Are there others as well Shane Charles Wenzel? Is this why there is no response? Is this why Dianna’s daughter hated you? Is this why all children there hated you? Did you interfere with anyone else’s daughters Shane Charles Wenzel? Or are there sons as well? Why do you ask every one you met if they would have sex with you Shane Charles Wenzel?
Do people know that you own/control Kapai the Kiwi, children’s story books Shane Charles Wenzel
Is it all down hill from here? That’s 10 nil to the system Shane Charles Wenzel!!!
Your companies are collapsing under their own weight of fraud and deceit. The people that came to you in good faith that you abused, defrauded and raped are coming back Shane Charles Wenzel to get their day in court
Many articles about you in the newspapers with many more in the pipeline. Attacking members of the press was a lunatic move Shane Charles Wenzel
Threatening officers of the court
Threatening Members of Parliament. This is recorded in Hansard for all to read for ever
10 CONVICTIONS AND STILL COUNTING.
Some one suggested that that there are some 32 charges pending as yet unanswered. If any one knows of others then add them in. The world needs to know about this fraudster, the way he operates, how he prays on people/children, his past history ( read all of the above ) and where to find him
Beaten up by your own gang member Thugs, Shane Charles Wenzel for ripping them of as well
All the above Shane Charles Wenzel is being proven in courts of law, one by one you and the companies you controlled are being found guilty. Mt Eden knows to expect you. Oz follows with interest. The pain and suffering you have inflicted on others will now be yours.
Karma, I believe you call it Shane Charles Wenzel
August 10th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
HA HA HA FISHER
People like you who have been pick on at school, have some thing to prove for the rest of there life
And your short to a nother chip Looking for the rewards
Aussie we call you MONKEY’s performing tricks so masters can pat your head
If you had to create any thing for yourself you would starve or die
August 10th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Doesn’t take long before you start losing your cool and get nasty does it Shane, it must be frustrating for you not knowing who is really getting at you and I am sure everyone else is having a great laugh at your stupid responses like we are. Can’t imagine anyone teasing you at school with your amazing good looks, gorgeous body and most of all that incredible intelligence. Hey sweety, you need to go and have another look in the mirror.
No sympathy whatsoever for Robyn, she told me several times that she was uncomfortable with what was going on and wanted out, but it was too late she had burnt her bridges and it would seem I am not the only one she told. If they would only listen to their own words; the definition of an idiot is one who does the same thing expecting different results. When you have dug yourself into a hole, you stop digging to get out, oops, seems like these two ‘teachers’ weren’t aware of that either.
Still healed Robyn, incredible to think that Shane can heal you but not his own obesity, are you able to sleep at night yet or has he not been able to heal that? For one so great, looks like you can create a huge amount of ‘shit’, when I look for someone to learn from it is not an obese, short, ugly, lying, cheating, sleazy bankrupt.
August 11th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Ha ha ha Fisher it is you a
we are all laughing fish
How the words are taken out of context Fish
however that is the type of reporter that you are
Loose my cool ha
What is your claim of fame
yes that is right reporting (PUPET)
VERY judgemental ha nothing to with healing
put your name to something
August 11th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Give me a break Weazel. Do you actually read the stuff that dribbles out of your mouth. Nothing makes sense – all you are achieving is having readers laugh at you. Come on Robyn give us a break and if you truely believe this crap then get on this blog and defend this lunatic. Bet you can’t.
August 11th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Who is this guy. No response to statements made about you Wenzel. Who are you and why did these fools fall for an even bigger fool. The term rape was used and this seems apt, a raper of humanity. No Kudos in taking advantage of the less fortunate Wenzel. Your sad pathetic efforts to divert attention from you are as transparent as polished glass. You have clearly abused people and have been up to no good. Seems where you are heading is the best place for you.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Fisher won’t put his name to it because it is not him and we are still having a great laugh – and that is not at all the wrong you have done to people. We are laughing at you Shane.
I suppose Robyn and the other girls aren’t allowed to respond, Shane holds all the strings and the puppets do as they are told.
I can assure you your silly words don’t fool me and never did and maybe I outdid you in playing your game like those who have won claims against you. My claim to fame certainly doesn’t include bankruptcy or any criminal convictions. However as you always said ”arms wide open” bit sad that yours are a bit too short.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Shane, What has happened to Robyn’s http://www.justicesucks. Nothing more to say I suppose. I guess she can’t defend you anymore. Can you tell us all Weasel what court cases are coming up that you are involved in so that we might follow your track to jail. After it’s all over we will celebrate the fact that there is one less snake out there to fleece our people.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
regardless of your zeitgeist view of the world … and these conspiracy theories have been around for ages it does not excuse you of your own behaviour. You know you have deliberately threatened, conned, bullied, taken advantage of mostly the young, uneducated and vulnerable. As Jimi Hendrix said “When the power of love overcomes the love of power we will have peace in the world.”
August 12th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Well said anon. You know Shane we told Robyn years ago that you were evil and a sheister!! But would she listen? No and look whats happened. You should be ashamed of yourself as you knew all along that this would happen. You couldn’t fool any of us- the reason ? We were too intelligent for you to handle and you knew when to back off. I read all the above and there is not one positive comment said about you at all. Doesn’t that concern you at all? I notice also that the other silly puppets in your little group don’t respond. Why not? Scared of what they might say, Guess what? I’m not. I don’t feel any sorrow for you at all, You reap what you sew and you have sewn rotten seeds .
August 12th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
have been watching this blog with interest its good to know that we can all finally band together and tell this fat sweaty pig what we really think of him without having to put up with his threats and bullying. Robyn is just a bloody fool i had many talks with her about shane and little did he know that to his face she was his loyal follower while behind the scenes she wanted out so badly. You should have baled while you could robyn now you have no choice than to sink with the ship you stupid cow. dont let this foolish self appraised fat pig con any of you with his slur, he has no original thoughts or ‘teachings’ everything he says and writes is from others if any of you had been to a ‘training’ run by this guy you would know he could not possible write any of those words without copying them he cannot even spell the most basic words and its not dyslexia at all hes just a plain moron thick shit – burn in hell arsehole
August 12th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Are you starting to wonder Shane about all the people saying that Robyn admitted she wanted out and talking behind your back – the two sides to Robyn, not as sweet as everyone thinks, very good at playing the poor me game.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Robin’s husband has been told about Weasle’s peodophile activities .. and has chosen to do nothing. They are both complicit in this exploitation of these kids. Can someone in this country please deal with this? The movement is happening …. long live the truth … and as Spike Milligan (from 1945) always signed his handwritten letters with … Peace Love and Light
August 13th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Wow, this is great!! Anon , love to know how well you know these sheisters! When Robyn first met Shane he was her shining light- how things change – he has been a bankrupt for many years now – usually people get discharged after 3 years – not so this little worm – he has been bankrupt now for at least 6 years – why ? Because he has been uncoopoerative etc – he thinks hes above the law. One has to say that Josie is the biggest fool as well, what is wrong with these women- I agree, they could put him away for good- what hold does he have – love to know- notice he only picks on those who are motre stupid than him.
August 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Dosent suprise me that Robyns ex is doing nothing, they are a mixed up fucked up family, he ran off with her best mate i feel sorry for the poor kids.at this stage cyps should be informed and take all the children into protective care so this peodophile and all the incompetant parents involved cannot have any chance to hurt them anymore either physically or mentally – ANYONE WHO WANTS TO REPORT CONCERNS CAN RING 0508FAMILY (0508326459) OR VIA http://www.cyf.govt.nz
August 14th, 2007 at 8:08 am
MEMBER JOINING FAST
WORKSHOPS COMING TO AREA by POPULAR REQUESTS
LEARN ABOUT EVERY THING THAT THE GOVT NOT TELLING YOU
WHY THEY ARE FEARING SHANE WENZEL
HOW BANKS GOVT EDUCATION HAVE DECIEVE YOU and YOU CHILDREN
It is the time for the sun to rise The people have been in the dark for to long
August 14th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Piss off Weasel, who the hell wants to listen to you. Interesting that you never answer queries but all you do is spout bollocks!!!! You have had it , a has been, so do us all a favour and disappear in a puff of smoke- you will be no loss.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:20 am
We all know that the banks and government rip us off and deceive us. What this site is wanting Wenzell, it is to let New Zealand know that you are the same, if not worse, or have I misread your advertisment, are you actually going to stand up and account for what you have done
August 14th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Why does Shane continue to show how stupid he is by posting a blog that doesn’t make sense and claim to be in the education business. He is just an embarassment to all teachers. He doesn’t have any answers, it is too hard for him, maybe Robyn is having her week back in Whakatane and he has no one to read out loud for him.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:51 am
What is the debt instument that govt uses over the people
What is the difference between a person and man
Who is the Queen the CROWN and SEC.GOV
What is the relationships between them
When did the DEPT OF JUSTICE change to THE MINISTY OF JUSTICE
Why did it need to change
When did the PUBLIC SERVANT become CIVIL SERVANT
We are all equal under law
Crimes ACT 1961 section 240 make interesting reading
Crimes PEOPLE VS GOVT, PUBLIC SERVANTS
August 15th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Im a past….. victim…. ov wenzels and he throughly screwed me over….. possible long term….. but yeah ive met oliver caludia and elliot and i do have a supreme concern for Notably olivers wellfare as he see’s this F*****g looney almost every weekend. should it be right for some one to contact his father and tell him of these on goings?? i should think so. i can also confirm his ludicris meeting….. at 9am in the morning….. or more his brainwashing sessions where he stps every two seconds to ask how to spell a basic word…. i want to see this man locked away. FOR GOOD!
August 15th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Why don’t you contact his father if you are that concerned. I would. I know that he would be very interested. I know that Claudia really hates Shane , surprise, surprise. Does anyone know when he is being sentenced – please tell all.
As usual , he has written more crap. When will it stop!! This man he is thicker than an ostrich – instead of sticking his head in the sand its up his arse- hence the crap his speels.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
i think i may just do that. id imagine he’s filled the poor boys head with his ludicrous beliefs. i really don’t understand how someone can be so messed up! how does the fat man sleep at night? although hes been “taught by monks to meditate” so he’ll have no problems will he! although the lies he spins he has forced himself to belive. but its almost over people! he is going down. im sure the boys in the big house will love to see the sweaty fat Paedophile!
August 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Shadow , how long have you known this creep . I met him many years ago now and even then I thought him to be an imposter. We all couldn’t understand how Robyn could be so hoodwinked by this worm. You know she had a fabulous course going with some tremendous people working for her but when he came on board it all turned to shit. Even then she couldn’t see the wood for the trees. He had a reputation then of being dishonet and full of bullshit. Any body with some semblance of intelligence could see straight through him (which he hated) of course. Seems to me from reading the above that he has ruined so many peoples lives, he should be exterminated in a very inhumane way.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
your right smy robyn had a great course and was a respected member of the Whakatane community before that slug wenzel came on the scene. Everyone could see him for he what he was but not her. its astonishing that she would put that fat ugly pig before her own children, respect and career. Is she really so desperate for the attention of a man – quite honestly she would have been better paying for one by the hour. That con man has cost her all her $$’s, her family, her business and her self respect.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I was talking to an ex tutor the other day she is still waiting for her $3000 cheque in the mail, a refund on money Shane owes her. Mind you a jail term might be some compensation.
Robyn and Shane bring back childhood memories of the fatty and skinny jokes.
I know Robyn’s ex husband was once looking at getting full custody of the children and it had to do with Shane – Robyn let it slip in another weak moment.
Robyn’s brother has also been involved in a lot of the great deals Shane has done – one big dysfunctional family. Half of them don’t talk to each other. Robyn was in a lot shit (in her personal life) before Shane came along, she just disguised it well, Shane was just a distraction, I hope Robyn realises she is not his one and only.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Well well well, what do we have here Wenzel
Seems one more of your abused people are in court. Will be interesting to see what comes out of Max and Chris’s mouths as to why they acted the way they did. Seems you had many sessions with them and those involved. Seems the Police need to call you as a witness and to hold you to account as to the “advice” you gave them
August 16th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
What is the debt instument that govt uses over the people
What is the difference between a person and man
Who is the Queen the CROWN and SEC.GOV
What is the relationships between them
When did the DEPT OF JUSTICE change to THE MINISTY OF JUSTICE
Why did it need to change
When did the PUBLIC SERVANT become CIVIL SERVANT
We are all equal under law
Crimes ACT 1961 section 240 make interesting reading
Crimes PEOPLE VS GOVT, PUBLIC SERVANTS
Of thousands trained few cry
Those who cry DONT comperhend
D
Department of Justice (Restructuring) Act 1995
5 Establishment of Ministry of Justice
5Establishment of Ministry of Justice
(1)The State Sector Act 1988 is hereby amended by inserting in Schedule 1 (as substituted by section 28(1) of the State Sector Amendment Act (No 2) 1989), in its appropriate alphabetical order, the item “Ministry of Justice.”
(2)The Ombudsmen Act 1975 is hereby amended by inserting in Part 1 of Schedule 1, in its appropriate alphabetical order, the item “Ministry of Justice.”
(3)The chief executive of the Ministry of Justice shall be known as the Secretary for Justice.
(4)Notwithstanding section 35 of the State Sector Act 1988, but subject to section 6 of this Act, the person employed, at the commencement of this section, as the chief executive of the Department of Justice shall by virtue of this section be employed as the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice as if the person’s contract of employment as chief executive of the Department of Justice required the person to hold, for the term of the contract, both the position of chief executive of the Department of Justice and the position of chief executive of the Ministry of Justice.
(5)This section shall come into force on the 1st day of October 1995.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Below the line again Wenzell. Answer the alligations
shadow Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Im a past….. victim…. ov wenzels and he throughly screwed me over….. possible long term….. but yeah ive met oliver caludia and elliot and i do have a supreme concern for Notably olivers wellfare as he see’s this F*****g looney almost every weekend. should it be right for some one to contact his father and tell him of these on goings?? i should think so. i can also confirm his ludicris meeting….. at 9am in the morning….. or more his brainwashing sessions where he stps every two seconds to ask how to spell a basic word…. i want to see this man locked away. FOR GOOD!
smy Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Why don’t you contact his father if you are that concerned. I would. I know that he would be very interested. I know that Claudia really hates Shane , surprise, surprise. Does anyone know when he is being sentenced – please tell all.
As usual , he has written more crap. When will it stop!! This man he is thicker than an ostrich – instead of sticking his head in the sand its up his arse- hence the crap his speels.
shadow Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 11:29 am
i think i may just do that. id imagine he’s filled the poor boys head with his ludicrous beliefs. i really don’t understand how someone can be so messed up! how does the fat man sleep at night? although hes been “taught by monks to meditate” so he’ll have no problems will he! although the lies he spins he has forced himself to belive. but its almost over people! he is going down. im sure the boys in the big house will love to see the sweaty fat Paedophile!
smy Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Shadow , how long have you known this creep . I met him many years ago now and even then I thought him to be an imposter. We all couldn’t understand how Robyn could be so hoodwinked by this worm. You know she had a fabulous course going with some tremendous people working for her but when he came on board it all turned to shit. Even then she couldn’t see the wood for the trees. He had a reputation then of being dishonet and full of bullshit. Any body with some semblance of intelligence could see straight through him (which he hated) of course. Seems to me from reading the above that he has ruined so many peoples lives, he should be exterminated in a very inhumane way.
I know Shane too Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
your right smy robyn had a great course and was a respected member of the Whakatane community before that slug wenzel came on the scene. Everyone could see him for he what he was but not her. its astonishing that she would put that fat ugly pig before her own children, respect and career. Is she really so desperate for the attention of a man – quite honestly she would have been better paying for one by the hour. That con man has cost her all her $$’s, her family, her business and her self respect.
so interesting Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I was talking to an ex tutor the other day she is still waiting for her $3000 cheque in the mail, a refund on money Shane owes her. Mind you a jail term might be some compensation.
Robyn and Shane bring back childhood memories of the fatty and skinny jokes.
I know Robyn’s ex husband was once looking at getting full custody of the children and it had to do with Shane – Robyn let it slip in another weak moment.
Robyn’s brother has also been involved in a lot of the great deals Shane has done – one big dysfunctional family. Half of them don’t talk to each other. Robyn was in a lot shit (in her personal life) before Shane came along, she just disguised it well, Shane was just a distraction, I hope Robyn realises she is not his one and only.
The Long Arm Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Well well well, what do we have here Wenzel
Seems one more of your abused people are in court. Will be interesting to see what comes out of Max and Chris’s mouths as to why they acted the way they did. Seems you had many sessions with them and those involved. Seems the Police need to call you as a witness and to hold you to account as to the “advice” you gave them
August 16th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Shane the child abuser ( and paedophile? )
screamed and yelled at by you
locked up in the bathroom for hours by you
humiliated in front of adults by you
dragged around the room by you
my parents forced to ignore me the whole day by you
locked up with a tv for a parent all day by you
dragged out to the markets at 4 in the morning by you
left to fend for myself by you
brained washed by you
abandoned by you
abused abused abused by you
damaged by you
Signed
The SCI children
August 17th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Thanks guy memberships are growing as different come out
And it is all because of you I really like to thank you
Local and Internation people
I guest that people can see thru you guys
And they are willing to reseach the facts for themselves as I lead them to the areas to find it
I am NOT the person DESCRIBE BY THE CROWN I AM THE LIVING MAN IF YOU COMPREHEND THE DIFFERENCE
August 17th, 2007 at 9:35 am
You know Shane , do you ever wonder who these people are writing these blogs – there are alot who seem to know you very well – do you sleep at night trying to figure out whos writing these nasty things about you? Or don’t you care. You are not the living man- you have no feelings or remorse about any of your actions- the pain you have caused to so many innocent people , the reason? To feather your nest -did you know that baby birds are often tossed out of the nest by their mothers as they are not normal – perhaps this happened to you. I can’t wait to hear of your sentencing – you deserve the worst.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:03 am
your an animal Wenzel not a man living or otherwise you need to be taken out. The children – dont let this fat bastard intimidate you anymore he can do nothing to you he is all hot air and sweat. ring the toll free number in the above post or go on the website and report him what you describe is emotinal and physical abuse he should pay for it.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:03 am
No that is freedom I sleep very thanks
Life is a mirror
Communication is a account of DR AND CR
Therefore I am Dr your accounts and that is interesting
I Cr your account however that account seems to be closed
however other peoples accounts have been open as memberships fill up
so guess again I thank you The truth ( SUN) will always rises over the LIES (moon) .Growth on (MAN)earth always happens as the effect
August 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I wouldn’t be gloating if the truth was that I had been found guilty with the prospect of going to jail. Shane you are right the sun does rise up after the moon sometimes we just don’t see it behind the clouds, I wonder if you will get to see it behind bars.
Your analagies are never ending even if ridiculous. Some come to mind for you:
Shane Wenzel – pig, wolf, arsehole, fat, ugly. Just think of the money you could make in advertising as examples of above. Should have thought about that more rather than ripping people off and then having to go to jail for it.
I think Shane eats whilst thinking about who is writing about him. Must be building up his stores for the horrible food he will get in prison.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Here lies a Fat Pig in life he was A FRAUDSTER, LIAR, CHEAT, CON MAN, PAEDOPHILE, JAILBIRD, BIG MOUTH and A JOKE May he never RIP
Just avin a go at ur epitaph weasel, what do u think so far………
August 18th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
If you are innocent Shane, why are you even responding? If you are a ‘living man’ why are you so fat?
As Shakespear said, ‘methinks he doth protest too much’.
August 19th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Hey get this you fucking moron … the sun does NOT rise! We orbit around it you dickhead. You remind me of an old joke why there was never any daylight saving in Queensland Australia … the then premier Joh Bjelke Petersen thought the sun shone out of his arse and he said wasn’t getting up that early for anyone! And on a more serious note. You and your cronies are seriously fucked. It’s over. And if you have the hide (and I doubt it) to try and run any public seminars to sprout your bullshit I will be there and many others to take you down in public. We will invite the media, the police, the child care people, the fraud squad and everyone you have fucked over. Let’s do it you fat fuck. Bring it on! I dare you! But as we all know there is a duality in everything. So what do you think is really lurking behind a bully? The flipside of course is a coward. Sort of sums you up really doesn’t it?
August 19th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
YES YES we agree I have my name out there
And what is your name???!!!
MIRROR MIRROR MIRROR
I look forward to you all At the seminars they cost $1000.00 book now
seats are filling fast
Stop Look Listen Learn Learning Learnt Leverage
These are the steps to learning
You may wish to follow my Teachings
Follow the steps Slowly
carried Crawl stumble walk ,run
Where are you ?
So are you saying that the Sun doesnt set or rise
And where are you on earth to make that observation?
And do you set and do you rise?
Or Do Orbit ?
And Are you saying I am the moon with pulling power over the earths which have creating and growth powers
What are you earth , sun or moon ?
And what do you orbit around ?
Your allegations are like YOUR legal name on this blog all fiction!!!!
Is it NOT true that under CRIMES ACT section 240 you could be charge with ?
So who is NOT facing up words are Cheap MATE
August 19th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
WTF? So wot Wenzel your saying all the allegations against you in court are fiction? your really sqeeky clean and a poor innocent victim of society, the police, the justice system Whatever! you sick fuck get a life!
August 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Ur in for a big shock inside mate, no way are inmates going to put up with your bullshit – I have my money on your face been smashed in within 24 hours of arrival into her majesty’s
August 19th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
So you sleep well do you Shane?
Well, that just says it all, you really are the cold calculating callus individual every one says you are
Abused your Father
Abused your family
Abused your wife
Abused your daughter
Abused your friends in Oz
Abused your work colleagues
Abused your staff
Abused their children
Abused your business partners
Abused your Hench men
Abused the people of NZ
Abused the law of NZ
Abused the laws of physics ( the moon orbits the earth, fool, not the other way around)
Abused the animals in your care
Abused your tenants
Abused your suppliers
Abused your service providers
Abused God
And the list goes on
You are a parasite Shane, you suck them dry of everything, then when the lies don’t’ work any more they leave and you move on to the next one
The Law, the list and now society has had enough of you.
Repent your evil ways, accept Jesus as your personal saviour and repair as best you can what you have done to people lest you be found shaking with Lucifer on the great and terrible day of the Lord
August 20th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Are shaw that you did nt have past life experience
And you Iam a jesus that you want to kill or Iam a warlock or I am Idian
Or I am Maori What ever Iam People Like YOU will allways live with your
month open and your ears close
People like you make a mess expect others to foregive you and have to clean it up How about growing up Jesus might be sick of you useing his name in vein Jesus as your personal saviour Not Iam my own savior this is what he left behind to UNDERSTAND CLOWN
August 20th, 2007 at 8:47 am
dear oh dear oh dear, what a sad pathetic useless piece of shit you are Shane – why on earth would people want to come and listen to you?? You could put your time in jail to learn to read and write – the above piece is absolutely impossible to make sense of – obviously nobody there to proofread- one more time – answer the allegations that people have put forward to you – do you think that you are above any of this – I think not ( in capital letters!!!) Mind you guys-people who avoid the reality of their misdeeds always blame others – your mirror Shane has cracked!!
August 20th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Why did the dept of education change To Ministry of Education?
Why did the dept of Justice change To Ministry of Justice?
PEOPLE vs ?????
Crimes Act 1961
SECTION 240
Section 98
WHAT IS PVT PERSON
WHAT IS Person
What is Man
Why after 100 years we have NO or next NO ASSETS
Why are we in debt to a Tune of 40 billion
where are the the taxes going??
Is the govt NOW a PVT company or run by a Pvt company?
Are Court Police are revenue collectors??
Is nt had TO solve SYMTONS ? this creates INCOME
No MONEY (DEBT) in cureing CAUSES???????!!!
crime to speed answer speeding tickets(taxes)
Cure NO FAST CARS No INCOME
August 20th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Shane,
The reason that Jesus came here is to die our death. The death that we deserve. He can here to be treated as we deserve so that we can be treated as He deserves
We are incapable of saving ourselves. This is the whole bain of our existence, try as we might, we can not do it. You are wasting your time if you think that you can sort this by yourself
The Only way to peace Shane is to accept Jesus as your personal saviour. With the energy harnessed in the right direction what a powerful pair you would make
Eternal life Shane is a gift. This is why you can’t see it. You think that you have to do everything to get reward
Life and life everlasting area gift from God. To obtain it all that is needed is for you to accept who Jesus is and what he has done for you. You need do nothing more. He will work the change in you, if you let him. Just surrender to your saviour Shane. He died for you too. There is nothing that you have done that He will not forgive you for if you ask Him. To be forgiven, what a release what a joy
This is the surrender that you talk of Shane. It is very real. Apply this to the right cause and see how your life will blossom and bear real fruit
Surrender to Jesus and enjoy peace that is beyond understanding
August 20th, 2007 at 11:38 am
The Most Powerful Man In The World?
The “Black” Pope
Count Hans Kolvenbach–The Jesuit’s General
By
RICK MARTIN
rick@thespectrumnews.org
4/15/00
So, you thought you were pretty well informed by now about all of the main players on the “conspiracy” playing field? You’ve maybe been hearing for years about (or bumped into on your own) the various elements of society who control our world from behind the scenes.
You’ve gotten familiar with the role played by, for instance, the Khazarian Zionists (who invented the word “Jew” to disguise their adopted heritage, as distinguished from the biblical Judeans), or the role played by the Banksters (banking gangsters) controlling the economies of the world, by the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Committee of 300 (the 17 wealthiest so-called “elite” families)–the Rothschilds in England and Rockefellers in America and Bronfmans in Canada, and on and on, comprising the physical power structure of the New World Order puppets under the direction of darkly motivated, other-dimensional “master deceivers” commonly known as Lucifer or Satan and their “fallen angel” cohorts.
While all of those details contribute to understanding the Larger Picture, what you are about to read fills in a most important Missing Link in this entire structure. And I don’t mean a little side issue; I mean a link so central–yet so well hidden from general public view, and for so long–that even the most studied of “conspiracy theory” scholars probably have not put together much of the information that is going to be presented here.
To call the following outlay “controversial” and “sensitive” is about as mild an understatement of the truth of the matter as can be made! This missing link changes the entire slant of the entire playing field!
After months of anticipation and weeks of preparation, I was finally able to speak with Vatican Assassins author Eric Jon Phelps on Tuesday, March 14. There was simply no other way to cover Eric’s historic masterpiece spanning, literally, five centuries, than to just ask questions covering huge spans of time and major historical events. It took us almost four hours to accomplish the task, yet we could easily have gone on for another forty.
We here at The SPECTRUM are simply unwilling to reduce the importance of this work by presenting it in a too distilled fashion. In fact, in order to share this material with at least some of the pertinent backup, Eric has granted us permission to print (directly after the interview) several excerpts from his soon-to-be-published book which will help you in understanding certain aspects of this magnificently important and broad-sweeping story. The missing link is surely a central link.
Let’s call this story the “Jesuit-Vatican connection” to the unfolding New World Order agenda. You make up your own mind just how absolutely central, yet well hidden, has been this link! There’s a good reason the secret Vatican library is so extensive and yet remains so intact from outside intrusion, despite the many others who would like to possess such a collection of information detailing much “censored” data about our true, otherworldly cultural heritage.
When one reads a work like Vatican Assassins, one can’t help but reflect back on the purposely “adjusted” and watered down and boring moments in high school history class. Meanwhile, the true history of what has gone on is dynamic and full of calculated intrigue.
In this business, I’ve heard and read a lot of things. But when I had to pick my jaw up off the floor during the reading of certain historical portions in Eric’s book–well, let me just say that Truth certainly is stranger, and far more interesting, than the many fictions we’ve been led to believe are historical fact. And yet The Truth does fit together like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.
This book SHOULD be a best-seller, but it is hardly likely to achieve such general attention–considering how well controlled and censored is the publishing business. Thus is the reason for our lengthy presentation of this most astonishing and critically important material here in The SPECTRUM.
We are in a time of Truth being revealed from all directions. And there is probably no more fundamental, mind-rattling, and previous notions-shattering example of that than what is being presented here. The interview is directly followed by a number of pertinent excerpts from Eric’s eye-opening book–which will be available July 1.
[Editor's note: It should be noted up-front that the information presented below is the studied opinion of Eric Jon Phelps. We here at The SPECTRUM find much about his presentation of his historical research which meshes with and expands upon Truth which has been presented by many other authors in these pages and elsewhere. And that is good; Truth is Truth is Truth, and should all mesh.
However, for the peace of mind of our unique readership--which typically has cultivated a more aware spiritual perspective than the general public--we do not want to give the impression that we agree with (or wish to promote) some collateral aspects of Eric's presentation having to do with his personal "religious" convictions. The focus of those convictions follows a much more biblically conventional (literal) path--in stark contrast to the unconventional, questioning, wide-angle vision of his historical material.
Generally such opinions are simply allowed to stand on their own--for you to sort and interpret as you see fit--rather than being singled-out to be addressed editorially. However, in this case, the practical side of Eric's stated religious convictions include the condoning of some degree of violence (or violent protest) and use of armaments. And such convictions are very much the opposite of our philosophical position--for many reasons, not the least of which is the obvious Adversarial bait-and-entrapment which would result from choosing what we would consider to be low-frequency responses to schoolroom Earth's current challenges.
Yet, if the perceptive reader penetrates "between the lines" thoughtfully, there is glimpsed a recurring commendable spiritual message in Eric's commentary--of "Have the courage to speak The Truth" and "God helps those who help themselves"--which we certainly DO agree with wholeheartedly and have long supported enthusiastically.
We are in the time of the Great Awakening on this planet. The Light of Truth, intensifying with each passing moment, is nudging many to step forward and share what they know. Will such ones follow that nudge or continue to hide in fear? The answer to that question is perhaps the most important aspect of schoolroom Earth's relentless testing at this critical time.
One last-minute footnote before beginning this interview: The Arts & Entertainment (A&E) cable television channel just started to air--on Easter Sunday evening!--a new two-hour documentary called: The Vatican Revealed. Tape it so you can study it carefully; within the lines of dialog and some of those people chosen for commentaries are many, many clues to the true power of the Vatican over world affairs. It would, of course, be much more revealing to watch the A&E program AFTER having read and digested the following.]
Martin: Before we begin, let me say a few words. The topic of your book is so comprehensive and covers, literally, all aspects of global control by the Jesuits, dating back to 1540. I would like to begin our conversation with a very important point of clarification so that our readers have something to hold onto while reading the historical narrative we are about to present. Let me also add that your book is one of the most compelling, dynamic, genuinely educational historical documents I have ever read. I want to tell you, I am impressed!
You, literally, link every major global conflict and political assassination to the hands of the Jesuit Order. The Jews, as with many other groups you mention, have been the unwitting pawns in this Jesuit Agenda.
Today, the present. I’m going to start here, and then we’re going to go way back in time and work our way up. But, I want to start HERE because it will give a foundation for going back in time.
Today, who is the Superior General of the Jesuits, the so-called “Black Pope” [black here refers to hidden, evil activities, not to race or color] who gives the orders to the actual Pope. Is it still Jean-Baptist Janssens?
Phelps: Janssens, Frenchman. No, he passed away in 1964. Then Pedro Arrupe came to power. Then, after Arrupe died, in 1988, I believe, the present Jesuit General is Count Hans Kolvenbach. [See photo nearby.] I call him Count Hans Kolvenhoof.
Martin: Let’s discuss this position of “General” and, in addition, who is this person, Count Hans Kolvenbach? Who does he serve? What are his origins? Where does he hail from?
Phelps: The present General is a Dutchman, his nationality is Dutch.
Martin: Where is he? Physically, where is he?
Phelps: He resides in Rome, at the headquarters of the Jesuits, called the Church of Jesu. So, the Jesuit General resides in Rome at, what I just called, the Jesuit headquarters.
Martin: The Church of Jesu, is that near the Vatican?
Phelps: It’s not far from the Vatican, right. It’s in the same general area. It’s headquarters of the Knights of Malta.
Martin: Is it part of Vatican City, proper?
Phelps: Right, I believe, yes it is.
Martin: Where does Satan fit into this picture, and what is the ultimate goal of the Jesuits, the so-called Society of Jesus?
Phelps: The Jesuit General, and the other high Jesuit Generals, they are sorcerers. They are Luciferians, and they worship what they would call Lucifer. They do not believe in Satan. They believe in Lucifer.
Now, according to Alberto Rivera, he was invited–because he was a top Jesuit at the time in the late ’60s–he was invited to a “Black Mass” in Spain where there were quite a few top Jesuit Generals present. And he called it a “Black Mass”. Well, when you’re involved in a “Black Mass”, you’re involved in the worship of Lucifer, all dressed in their black capes and so on.
Martin: I’m fascinated by Count Hans Kolvenbach because nobody in the world knows who this person is. I’ve never heard the name.
Phelps: Let me just tell you that you can see his picture and his top Jesuits–just a second and I’ll get the book. The name of the book is called Jesuits: A Multi-Biography, by Jean Lacoutre, and that is available, usually, in the bookstores. It was published in 1995.
Jean Lacoutre is a Frenchman. He was a communist, is a communist. On the last page of the pictures in it, that is right adjacent to page 343, you see Peter Hans Kolvenbach. He’s the Jesuit General, and he looks like just a very evil individual. There’s a Black man, who’s a high Jesuit, he’s a 29 Superior Jesuit with his cosmopolitan General staff. One of the General staff looks like Ben Kingsley of Shindler’s List. There are six White men, and one Black man. And that’s his General staff.
Martin: What is the process of choosing a successor General?
Phelps: The High Jesuits elect him, and he’s elected for life–unless he becomes a “heretic”.
Martin: And the so-called “High Jesuits” represent what group?
Phelps: I would say that they’re the “professed”, the high 4th Degree. When a Jesuit is professed, he is under the Jesuit Oath; he is under the “Bloody Oath” that I have in my book.
Martin: Do we have permission to reprint that Oath in our paper?
Phelps: Of course, absolutely.
Martin: One of my questions has to do with the Oath and it’s similarity to the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion, and I wrote that question before I got back to the Protocols portion of your book.
Phelps: The Jesuits obviously wrote the Protocols because they have carried out every protocol in that little handbook. They have carried everything out. And, Alberto Rivera says–and he was a Jesuit–he was greatly maligned, not helped at all by the Apostate, Protestants, and Baptists in this country; he was helped, somewhat, by Jack Chick. Jack Chick published his story in six volumes, titled Alberto I, II, III, IV, V, & VI.
Alberto Rivera says that it was Jews aligned with the Pope who published the Protocols. Well, I tend to feel that it was just the Jesuits themselves because they, and they alone, were the ones who were able to bring this to pass.
They’re the ones in the government. They’re the ones behind professional sports. The owner of the Pittsburgh Steelers is a Knight of Malta. The owner of the Detroit Lions is a Knight of Malta. All your top owners of these ball clubs, for the most part, are Knights of Malta, getting the people whooped up in this hoopla over games and sports, while they’re busy creating a tyranny. So, that was one of the things in the Protocols–that they would create “amusements”.
Another one they used was Walt Disney, 33rd-degree Freemason–Disneyworld, Disneyland. Another one was Milton Hersey, with Hersey Park. They create all of these amusements and games and pastimes to get the people drunk with pleasure, while they’re busy overthrowing the Protestant form of government.
Martin: Where does Las Vegas factor into all of this?
Phelps: Las Vegas, well, for the most part, is controlled by the Mafia. But all the high Mafia families are Roman Catholic, and they are ALL subordinate to the Pope or to the Cardinal of New York, which is Cardinal O’Connor–because the Commission, the Mafia Commission resides in New York.
Frank Costello was a member of the Mob Commission, and he was intimate, personal friends with Knight of Malta, Hollywood mogul, Joe Kennedy. And that has not changed.
So, the High Knights are good, dear brothers with the High Mafia Dons–the Gambinos, the Lucchese, the Columbos, all of them. And they control Hollywood, not the Jews. It’s only Jews who are front-men who are involved in Hollywood and working for the Mafia and for the Cardinal, just like in politics it would be Arlen Spector. Arlen Spector was Spelly’s [Cardinal Spellman's] Jew in the assassination [of President Kennedy], and he would never say a word about it.
Martin: Now, as we go through here, if there’s anything that you don’t want me to print, please let me know because, literally, I’m going to print everything we say in this conversation.
Phelps: That’s fine, that’s fine with me because it needs to be said.
Martin: Let’s get back to Count Hans Kolvenbach. I want to shine the spotlight on this guy for just a little bit here. Let’s talk about him. What does he do? Who is he? Let’s talk about his position as “General”. How do they exercise this control over the Pope? Does the Pope know he’s a pawn?
Phelps: Ok, one question at a time. So, which question do you want me to deal with?
Martin: Let’s just shine the light right on the Count.
Phelps: The Jesuit General, ok.
Martin: Let’s start there, and you tell me everything you want to tell me about that position.
Phelps: The Jesuit General is the absolute, complete, and total dictator and autocrat of the Order. When he speaks, his provincials move. The provincials are his major subordinates. There are around 83 provincials right now.
As I understand it, the Jesuit Order has divided the world into 83 regions. Ok? For each region, there is a Jesuit provincial. There are 10 provincials in the United States. There is one for Central America. There is one for Ireland. They’ve divided up the world into these provinces.
So it’s old Babylonian provincial government, centered in Nebuchadnezzar or the Jesuit General himself; so it’s strictly a Roman form of government where all the states or provinces are subordinate to this worldwide sovereign.
The Jesuit General exercises full and complete power over the Order. He meets with his provincials. When they decide to start a war or an agitation, he gets the information from the provincial of that country, how best to go about this, the demeanor of the people, and then he uses legitimate grievances to foam an agitation–like the 1964 Civil Rights Movement. That was ALL a Jesuit agitation, completely, because the end result was more consolidation of power in Washington with the 1964 Civil Rights Act that was written by [the longtime President of the University of Notre Dame, the Reverend] Theodore Hesburgh.
The Jesuit General rules the world through his provincials. And the provincials then, of course, rule the lower Jesuits, and there are many Jesuits who are not “professed”, so many of the lower Jesuits have no idea what’s going on at the top. They have no concept of the power of their Order.
It’s just like Freemasonry. The lower Freemasons have no idea that the High Shriner Freemasons are working for the Jesuit General. They think that they’re just doing works and being good people. But the bottom line is that the high-level Freemasons are subject, also, to the Jesuit General because the Jesuit General, with Fredrick the Great, wrote the High Degrees, the last 8 Degrees, of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry when Fredrick protected them when they were suppressed by the Pope in 1773.
So, you have the alignment with the Jesuit Order and the most powerful Freemason they had in the craft, Fredrick the Great, during their suppression. That is an irrefutable conclusion. And then, when you see the Napoleonic Wars, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars carried out by Freemasonry, everything Napoleon did, and the Jacobins, whatever they did, completely benefited the Jesuit Order.
It’s to this end that Alexander Dumas wrote his The Count Of Monte Cristo. The Count is the Jesuit General. Monte=Mount, Cristo=Christ. The Count of the Mount of Christ. Alexander Dumas was talking about the Jesuit General getting vengeance when the Jesuits were suppressed, and many of them were consigned to an island, three hours sailing, West, off the coast of Portugal. And so, when the Jesuits finally regained their power, they punished all of the monarchs of Europe who had suppressed them, drove them from their thrones, including the Knights of Malta from Malta, using Napoleon.
And Alexander Dumas, who fought for the Italian patriots in 1848, to free Rome from the temporal power of the Pope, wrote many books and one of the books was to expose this, and that was The Count Of Monte Cristo.
So, when you read that book, bear in mind that it’s really a satire on the Jesuit Order regaining their power in France. The Count of Monte Cristo has an intelligence apparatus that can’t be beat. Well, that’s the Jesuit Order.
But the Count doesn’t get what he really ought to have, or his last wish, and that’s the love of woman. He gains back all of his political power; he gains back everything he lost; but he doesn’t have the love of a woman. And THAT is the Jesuit Order. They have no women. They have no love of a woman. Because to have a wife, to have a woman, means you have an allegiance to your wife and family, and you cannot obey the General. That’s why they will NEVER be married, and that’s one of the great KEYS to their success.
They can betray a nation and walk away. They can betray all the Irish Catholics getting on the Titanic, and walk away. They can betray us in Vietnam and walk away. They can betray us every time we go to the hospital and get radiated and cut and drugged, and walk away, because it’s “for the greater glory of God”–Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam: the greater glory of the god who sits in Rome.
Martin: What is the ULTIMATE goal of the Jesuits?
Phelps: Their ultimate goal is the rule of the world, with the Pope of their making, from Solomon’s rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. That’s their ultimate goal.
Martin: And why is Solomon’s Temple rebuilt so important?
Phelps: Because the Jesuits have always wanted that. When Ignatius Loyola first started the Order, one of the first things he did was, he wanted to go to Jerusalem and set up the Jesuit headquarters there. So, he went there, he tried to do it and failed, came back, went to school, started his Latin studies, etc. Maybe it might be a good idea to just review a little bit about Ignatius Loyola.
Martin: Yes.
Phelps: Ok, Ignatius Loyola was a Spanish soldier, and he was wounded at a battle between the French and the Spanish, and his leg was shattered. Well, the French General, because Loyola was very brave in conflict, ordered his own doctors to attend Loyola. So they set the leg and sent him back to his home–which, of course, he was royalty to the Counsel of Loyola in Spain, in the area of the Basques.
Loyola, through his series of desiring to regain his leg–it had healed improperly, so he made a rack where he would stretch the leg, with severe, horrible, awful pain–and trying to stretch this leg to get it back to normal shape, he endured awful, terrible pain. He had it rebroken, again, a couple of times and it still did not heal properly, so he had a perpetual limp. He could no longer be the courtier among women, and as a result, he went into this depression, and he then had this vision of the saints, etc., etc., and he wrote his spiritual exercises.
I will stop at the spiritual exercises, just for a minute, but I’ll take up from there. Loyola then wanted to form an army, but when this happened with his spiritual exercises, those spiritual exercises would be basic training for all of his Jesuits. That’s what they will ALL go through. That’s what every Jesuit goes through today.
One of the maxims of the spiritual exercises is that if my superior says “black is white and white is black”, then that’s the way it is. That is in his spiritual exercises. That is what is quoted in JFK, when Kevin Costner is telling his people: “Hey, people, we’ve got to start thinking like the CIA. Black is white and white is black.” That was a Jesuit giveaway that the Jesuits produced that movie, because they’re quoting Ignatius Loyola in that movie from his spiritual exercises.
So, Loyola had an indomitable will. He had a will of steel, and he set his mind to regain back what the Papacy had lost to the Reformation. And so, he went to the Pope, and the Pope in 1540 then created the Jesuit Order. But this man is a soldier, he’s a lawyer, and he put together a legion of soldiers and warriors to get back what Rome had lost, as well as institute a World Government for the Pope, from Jerusalem. This was in 1540.
He started the Order in 1536. He was arrested by the Inquisition, and he was released, and he went to the Pope; he threw himself at the feet of the Pope. He would be completely at his service. The Pope chartered him, and that Pope was Pius III. The Pope chartered them, created the Jesuit Order; now he has Papal protection, and they began their awful history of deeds of blood. And war after war after war after war, they’re all attributed to the Jesuit Order in some way. Catholic nobles, with lots of money, donated castles and schools and money to the Jesuit Order.
Virtually everything they own has been given to them or stolen by them. Of course, they stole all of the fortunes of the Jews in World War II. They stole all their gold, all their assets and everything, whenever they went into a country. What’s just been released is NOTHING compared to what they’ve taken.
In Edmond Paris’s book, printed by Ozark Publications, called The Vatican Against Europe, it gets into great detail of what they did. It calls it–the last 30 years of war is all attributable to the Jesuits, their massacres of the Serbs and Jews, etc. But Edmond Paris did not understand that the Jesuit General–and this is one of the most important points I want to make about Von Kolvenbach–the Jesuit General is in complete control of the international intelligence community: that’s the CIA, the FBI, the KGB, the Israeli Mossad, the German BND, the British SIS. The Jesuit General is in COMPLETE CONTROL of the entire intelligence apparatus–FBI, every bureaucratic agency in this country, all of it; he is in complete control of it.
So, whenever he wants to find something out about an individual, they put in the Social Security number, and everything from all of the intelligence apparatus kicks-in and he and his provincials can review everything about that man. Credit cards, you name it, everything that’s attached to Rome’s social security number, which FDR put upon us in 1933 with the help of Spellman; at the time, I believe he was Archbishop, or maybe it was Cardinal Hayes–but Rome was behind FDR in putting him in office.
The couple of things that he did was implement social insecurity, the income tax, and recognizing Joseph Stalin’s bloody Jesuit USSR government. So, with the giving of us the Social Security number, that is Rome’s number–that’s why I refuse to use it–and that’s why they want everybody using it for everything: driver’s license, tax return, credit card, everything you do, that number is you and that number is Rome’s number.
Martin: Let me just back-up here for a minute. What comes to mind is Louis Freeh, head of the FBI.
Phelps: Roman Catholic, good altar boy. Probably a Knight of Columbus; I can’t prove it. But anybody with that kind of power has got to be a Knight of Columbus.
And the Knights of Columbus implement Jesuit politics. And Louis Freeh was the one behind the Waco atrocity and the Oklahoma City bombing atrocity. And his top sniper was a Japanese Roman Catholic named Lon Horiuchi.
So, it’s Roman Catholics in control, Knights in control of the FBI, who carried out all of this killing. And those two men, Louis Freeh and Lon Horiuchi are personally accountable to Cardinal O’Connor of New York. And Cardinal O’Connor of New York is the most powerful Cardinal in the country. He is the military vicar. And that’s why Bush kissed his fanny for going to Bob Jones, because Cardinal O’Connor is the King of the American Empire. And he rules his Empire from that Palace, St. Patrick’s Cathedral, “the little Vatican”.
Martin: And is he in contact, do you think, with Kolvenbach?
Phelps: Of course. O’Connor himself is not a Jesuit, but the Jesuits are like the SS of the Catholic Church. They maintain order.
And the ones closest to him who maintain order are the Jesuits of Fordham University. Now, one of them–the head of Fordham University, I believe he is an Irishman, is also a member of the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations]. And I have that right here in the Annual Report of the CFR of 1993. Those Jesuits at Fordham maintain semblance and rule over the Cardinal in New York. And, of course, the powerful Jesuits of Fordham include Avery Dulles and John Foster Dulles, one of the writers of the book on the Second Vatican Council.
Martin: Let’s back-up now, let’s go back. What’s the Council of Trent?
Phelps: The Council of Trent was the response of Rome to the Protestant Reformation. Remember–the Protestant Reformation brought us all of the political liberty that we know of today. There’s no such thing as national sovereignty without the Reformation. There’s no such thing as private rights without the Reformation. There’s no such thing as the Law of Nations, as we know of it today, of Montesquieu and the others, without the Reformation.
So, when the Reformation came with their doctrines of salvation by grace through faith alone, and that there was no need for the priesthood to go to Heaven–that all we need is salvation in Christ, and Romans 1:17: the righteous shall live by faith. When the Reformation came, it completely stripped Rome of its spiritual power. The priests were no longer wanted because the people were getting the word of God in a Bible, specifically in Holland, England, and Germany. And so, with these great revivals breaking forth and the Reformation happening, nations were breaking away from the power of the Pope. The Holy Roman Empire was breaking up. Charles V, the Emperor, resigned and became a monk and a gardener. So, the Lord was moving mightily in breaking the power of the Holy Roman Empire, started by Charlemagne and the Pope.
Well, this was not good for Rome because they were losing lots of money. The nations were not paying “Peter’s pence” anymore, which today we call “foreign aid” in this country. And so the Pope was very upset about his.
What’s he going to do? These nations are breaking away from us; they’re not under our temporal or spiritual power; and it’s very important to remember that the Pope claims two powers–spiritual and temporal–and with the breaking of his spiritual power, he then lost his temporal power. In other words, he no longer had the ability to rule the people through the king of the country, because the king was breaking away, like Henry VIII.
So, Henry VIII broke away from the Roman Church and formed the Church of England; he no longer was subject to the Pope. This was happening in England, in Germany, in Holland, and other places.
As a result of this, the Devil raised up Ignatius Loyola with his demonisms, his “spiritual exercises” and–because Loyola had been a member of the Spanish Alumbrados, which is what we call the Illuminati today, and he used the Jesuit Order to attempt to regain back what had been taken by the Reformation–what the Lord had done through Luther, Calvin, and Knox. And, by the way, Luther, Calvin, and Knox–none of those men died violent deaths. They all lived to older age and died peacefully, amidst the power of the Jesuit machinations.
The Council of Trent consists of 25 Sessions. Those 25 Sessions accurse and condemn all the doctrines of the Reformation. It condemns anybody who does not believe that the literal Jesus Christ is in the host [holy communion bread], and that his literal blood is in the wine. That’s called transubstantiation. Anybody who does not believe that is an accursed anathema. Anybody who believes that their salvation is outside the Catholic Church is accursed anathema. Anybody who believes in justification by grace through faith–anathema, accursed. Anybody who believes that the Pope is not the vicar of Christ–accursed, anathema. You see, all of these doctrines were being put forth as a result of reading the Bible, which produced the Reformation, and so the Jesuits accursed everything that the Reformers were preaching. This is all in Law called the Council of Trent.
In the 4th Session, which is probably the most important Session, the Jesuits condemn freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of conscience. So, no man has the right to choose his own religion; no man has the right to publish what he feels is the truth; and no man has the right to freedom of conscience.
Those rights were secured by our Baptist/Calvinist forefathers in the First Amendment. The man who wrote the First Amendment was James Madison, who was a Baptist/Calvinist, and he was told by that Baptist/Calvinist in Virginia, Doc. John Leland: “If you don’t secure all those rights, Virginia will not ratify the Constitution.” Virginia was a Baptist/Calvinist state.
So, we have a warfare between the Council of Trent and the doctrines of the Reformation, particularly as outlined by John Calvin in his Institutes Of The Christian Religion. Calvin [1536] wrote the Institutes Of The Christian Religion, he finished it when he was 27, and he dedicated it to the King of France. And because the Jesuits so hated him, he was driven from France and he resided in Geneva to the day of his death, when he became Governor of Geneva. It’s Calvin and his Institutes Of The Christian Religion vs. Loyola and his Council of Trent, if you want it sewed-up in two major documents.
Martin: Council of Trent was what year?
Phelps: From 1545-1563, eighteen years. And Trent is a little town in Italy. So, it was a Council that took place in the town of Trent, Italy.
The Presbyterian Westminster Confession And Faith that was finished in 1648, after the 30 Years War, is another extension of Calvin’s Institutes, and is what the Church of Scotland and the Covenanters went by when they resisted the powers of Rome and England. That document is a major document, and it’s not the new Westminster Confession, it’s the old one of 1648, where they called the Pope the man of sin, that Roman Anti-Christ, and they also denounced anti-Christian tyranny.
And that it is their duty, to use what they call “the sword of the spirit”, which is the Word of God, which we read in Ephesians, Chapter 6, and “the sword of just defense”–the gun, the sword.
So, us Calvinists believe that there is a time for peace and a time for war, and we do not refuse to go to the battlefield when it’s necessary. It was the Calvinists who gave us our political liberty in England with Cromwell. He was a Calvinist and an independent Baptist. It was Calvinists in Holland who gave the Dutch their political liberty, with William of Orange, and later his son, Prince Maurice, and then later, in our great country, when it was Washington, the Freemason who did not go into that Masonic Lodge that last 30 years of his life–in his own words–who was a Baptist and a Calvinist. He was baptized in the First Baptist Church of New York by one of his captains, Pastor Gano, all surrounded by Calvinists.
That’s why they didn’t surrender at Valley Forge; that’s why, when they were naked, when they went through the snow, barefoot, they endured that because they were Bible-believing Calvinists and they refused to submit to the tyranny of King George, who was controlled by the Jesuits.
And that is the soul of our country. If we lose that soul, we’ve lost everything. And those very same Baptists, in the Second Amendment, secured their right to bear arms, because they secured the right, the “sword of just defense”. And the “sword of the spirit” is contained in the First Amendment, the right to have the Bible never taken from them. The two swords of Calvinism are secured in the First and Second Amendments. Without those first two Amendments, all the others are nothing.
Martin: Well, I got to my question #2. So, let’s go to #3 of the seventy. (laughter)
How does Shriner Freemason President Harry Truman’s signing into law of the Emergency War Powers Act of 1950 factor into the Jesuit Agenda?
Phelps: First of all, Harry Truman, who the Japanese called “Dirty Harry”–when they heard the movie Dirty Harry came out, they thought it was a movie about Harry Truman, according to my Japanese pastor friend, Daniel Fuji, who has passed away.
Harry Truman was put in office by the Jesuits, the Pensergast Democratic machine in Missouri. Harry Truman takes over after FDR’s murder, because he was murdered in the home of Bernard Baruch. When he did that, he then finished up the war with the hoax called the dropping of the nuclear bombs, to purposely create this greater hoax called the Cold War, that would enable the Vatican to knock over country after country after country, and replace the leaders with dictators, subordinate to the Pope. That was the purpose of the Cold War.
And so, when Harry Truman in 1950 signed into law the Emergency War Powers Act, the Cold War was in full force. They were building bomb shelters, etc. So the nation was in kind of a frenzy.
When he signed this into law, it put the whole country under military or martial law, and that’s when the flags in every courtroom, state and federal, began to be changed. And every state flag and every U.S. flag is now trimmed in gold fringe. And whenever you see a flag trimmed in gold fringe, that means that it is the flag of the Commander-in-Chief. Now, if it’s the state flag, it means that’s the flag of the governor, as Commander-in-Chief. And if it’s the federal flag, or the national flag, more correctly, it’s the flag of the Commander-in-Chief in Washington.
So, all your courts are nothing more than courts of military rule. They all proceed with summary procedures. The jury has no power of jury nullification. And they are simply enforcing the laws of the Empire, which I call 14th Amendment America, which is a military-style, King of England-style country. The courts are nothing more than courts of the king’s bench, as you can see in Blackstone’s Commentaries.
And the banks, as you walk into every bank, they all have a flag trimmed in gold fringe. The bank is what England would call, in Blackstone’s day, the king’s bank. So, we have the king’s bank, and we have the king’s bench. And it’s run according to military rule, according to Berkheimer’s great work Military Rule And Martial Law, published in 1914.
When Harry Truman did this, there was a consummation of a great plan to put us under the Emergency War Powers Act and, actually, a war rule. “Daylight savings time” is what was called “war time”. This country only went to daylight savings time during World War II, and they called it, at that time, war time. So, nothing’s changed. We’ve never gone back to not turning back our clocks. We’re still on war time. The income tax is a war tax. It was called a victory tax in 1942.
So, people are paying a war tax, they’re under war time, they’re under an emergency war powers act, and the courts are war courts.
Martin: Regarding the assassination of President John Kennedy, which could take this entire interview, you say that the assassination was ordered by the Jesuit General, executed by Pope Paul VI, and carried out by the “American Pope”, Francis Cardinal Spellman–who, in turn, used the Knights of Malta, Shriner Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, and Mafia Dons, including the FBI and CIA, to carry out the order from Rome. Would you explain why you believe your particular theory on the assassination to be an accurate representation of the facts?
Phelps: Sure. Alright, number one: The powers that be are properly outlined [in his book], and proven through two centuries of showing how it’s all been put together. Now, as to why, I will be conservative and stick with Fletcher Prouty’s reasons, that he outlined in his JFK and also his other book called The Secret Team.
The reason why Kennedy was assassinated was he wanted to end the Vietnam War, and he wanted to end the rule of the CIA. That begets two questions: Did Rome want the Vietnam War? And, did Rome control the CIA? The answer is yes on both counts.
We know, on its face, that the Vietnam War was called “Spelly’s War”–Cardinal Spellman’s war. He went over to the warfront many times and he called the American soldiers the “soldiers of Christ”. The man who was the Commander of the American forces was a Roman Catholic, CFR member, possibly a Knight of Columbus, I don’t know, but he was General William Westmoreland.
So, Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman’s agent to make sure that war was prosecuted properly. And another overseer of Westmoreland was Cardinal Spellman’s boy, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Lyndon Baines Johnson was a 33rd-degree Freemason. He was also part of the assassination, with J. Edgar Hoover, another 33rd-degree Freemason.
And Johnson went to Cardinal Spellman’s death at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, and the picture can be seen in Cooney’s work The American Pope. So, Johnson was completely at the beck and call of Cardinal Spellman through Cartha DeLoach, the 3rd-in-control of the FBI. According to Curt Gentry, in his Hoover: The Man And The Secrets, DeLoach had a phone at his bedside direct to Johnson, and Johnson could call him anytime. DeLoach was a Knight of Malta, subject to Spellman.
Spellman wanted the Vietnam War, why? Spellman was controlled by the Jesuits of Fordham. Why did the Jesuit General want the Vietnam War? The people of Vietnam, the Buddhists, were unconvertible. They would not convert to Catholicism. They didn’t need Rome.
There had been a Jesuit presence in Vietnam for centuries, so it had been decided that about a million or so Buddhists would have to be “purged”. They would later continue this purge of Cambodia, with Pol Pot, and the purge is yet for Thailand. It was a purging of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam of all these Buddhists, just like they purged the Buddhists of China with Mao Zedong, because Mao Zedong was completely controlled by the Jesuits. So, they wanted the Vietnam War.
The other thing is that Rome is in control of the drug trade. The Vatican controls all of the drug trade–all of the heroin, all of the opium, all of the cocaine, everything going around in Columbia.
Columbia has a concordat with the Pope. A concordat is a treaty with the Pope. Hitler had a concordat. Mussolini had a concordat. Franco had a concordat. They want to set up a concordat here, which was the reason for Reagan formally recognizing the sovereign state of Vatican City in 1984. The greatest traitor we ever had was Ronald Reagan.
So, they had a concordat. Columbia has a concordat. Do you think that drugs running out of Columbia, with a country that has a concordat with Rome, is not controlled by Rome? If Rome didn’t want the drug trade out of Columbia, they’d end the concordat. The whole drug trade is run by high Mafia families out of the country of Columbia, subject to the Jesuit General.
And the Jesuit General ran the Opium trade, a couple of centuries ago, out of China. They ran the silk trade, the pearl trade. The movie Shogun is but a slight scratching of the surface of the Jesuit “black ships” that trafficked in all of this silk and pearls and gold and opals and everything they could pull out of the East, including opium.
The Vietnam War was to consolidate and control this huge massive drug-trade that would inundate every American city with drugs, being brought in by the CIA with their Air America, and then distributed by the Trafficante family throughout the United States–Santos Trafficante out of Miami.
So we have the Mafia and the CIA working together in the drug trade. We have the Mafia and the CIA working together in the assassination of Kennedy.
The first reason why the Jesuit General [at that time, Jean-Baptist Janssens] wanted Kennedy out of the way was because he was going to end the Vietnam War.
The second reason is, he wanted to end the reign of the CIA, because the CIA had betrayed him in the person of McGeorge Bundy, by not giving the cover to the Cuban patriots to retake Cuba from that Roman Catholic, Jesuit-trained, grease-ball bastard–he was a bastard, his father was a Nazi–Fidel Castro.
Kennedy was betrayed by the CIA at the Bay of Pigs invasion, which sacrificed all the patriots on the shores of the Bay of Pigs there, so Castro had no real opposition. This was the same tactic, used by the CIA and the KGB at the top, working together with Angleton controlling it, in the Hungarian Revolution, when the CIA fomented that revolution, and then betrayed all of those patriots into the hands of the Soviet army and KGB, which infuriated certain top CIA officials.
It’s the same tactic: you raise up a revolution and you sacrifice the men who truly want to resist. When that happened, when McGeorge Bundy stopped the air cover of the Bay of Pigs invasion, that ended that resistance to Castro and it enthroned him into power. And, of course, it was meant to be by the Jesuits because they HAD trained him. So now Kennedy looks bad. He’s got egg all over his face. What does he want to do? He signs a Memorandum, according to Fletcher Prouty, and takes all of the power away from the CIA, and gives it to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The CIA was built by the Knights of Malta. One of the founders of the CIA was “Wild” Bill Donovan, an Irish Roman Catholic, who are the most fanatical, and his brother was a Dominican priest, Vincent. So, the CIA was founded by this high Roman Catholic, the first head, to solidify the Catholic or the Vatican control of it.
I’m not against the Catholic people; I’m against Rome’s hierarchy. The American Catholic people know NOTHING of what’s going on. And if they did, there would be a march on St. Patrick’s tomorrow morning. So, as I’m against the hierarchy, I’m showing that Kennedy was against the Vietnam War, and he was going to do away with the CIA.
Well, the Jesuits had brought in all of their top Nazi SS soldiers into the CIA because the Jesuits were using the SS to kill the Jews in Europe. When the Einsatzgruppen went into Russia, the Jesuits followed with the SS and purged Western Russia of all its Jews. That’s why Stalin deliberately killed 40,000 of his best officers. That’s why he kicked out his best generals, purged them, because he wanted to make sure that the Red Army would lose with the advance of the German army, because following that would come the SS and purge Russia of the Jews that Stalin so hated. And by the way, justice is often poetic because Stalin’s daughter married a Jew.
Now, the CIA was composed of the SS. The CIA now was an arm–and the intelligence arm–of the Vatican. The Knights of Malta were throughout. Casey was a Knight of Malta. Angleton was a Knight of Malta. The Knights were through and through. Angleton manned the “Vatican desk”, and that is a desk within the CIA that has a direct link to the Vatican.
So, Kennedy wanted to end this “intelligence community”. That was the end of him.
Thus for anyone attempting to end the CIA, and attempting to end the Vietnam War, and also because he attacked the Jesuits’ Federal Reserve Bank by printing United States Notes, they got rid of him. They killed our only Roman Catholic president.
And it’s another piece of poetic justice that a Roman Catholic–not Protestants, like Harry Truman, FDR, and others–it’s a Roman Catholic who truly sought to resist the temporal power of the Pope in this country. And in many ways, even though Kennedy was, in fact, a socialist and communist, at least he resisted the temporal power of the Pope. And for that we should be thankful and remember his name.
But what have they done to his name? They’ve slammed it. They drag it into the dirt. Every time you see it on TV, they parade before you his womanizing, which I don’t deny, but my goodness, can’t we give him some credit where credit is due? That’s why they got rid of John F. Kennedy.
And then, of course, as soon as he’s assassinated, John McCone, the head of the CIA, the following day goes to the White House and they reverse Kennedy’s Memorandum of reversing the Vietnam War and make a full-scale, carte blache war.
The CIA then is tremendously and heavily funded, because it was a CIA war. And there they tried all of their new technology, their anti-gravity machines, their men who they’re trying to make like the “million-dollar man”. They tried out all their new technology in Vietnam. It was a great experimental theater, and Kennedy knew this. He knew it, and he knew that the American people had no idea what was going down, and he still tried to resist it, against his father’s warnings. Because his father was the most powerful Knight of Malta in the Empire.
Martin: Any theories on why they took out junior?
Phelps: Yes. According to Tom Kuncle, in his publication, John F. Kennedy, Jr. wanted to find his father’s real killers, and he had the power to publish the conclusion. So, they took him out right away. They would not allow that to happen.
Martin: Why haven’t you been taken out?
Phelps: Because I am immortal–until the Lord is done with me. I am a Calvinist and a Baptist, and we believe in the sovereignty of God. And as long as we are operating in His Will, they cannot touch us, regardless of their power.
Martin: Which is why we’re having this conversation.
Phelps: Which is why we’re having the conversation. Don’t think for one moment they’re not tapping this phone. They know this. The issue is here. We’re talking about a providential, sovereign God who wishes to move, using second causes, men, just as the Devil does.
The Devil always uses second causes, men. So, it’s one group of men vs. another group of men, and one path leads to evil, and the true, almighty God leads to goodness.
The problem is, with us, there are very few men who want to believe God anymore. Nobody believes He can deliver anymore. It’s just a handful of us who say: “Well, we’re going to do His Will; we’re going to trust Him in His Power.”
And like the Hebrews getting ready to be thrown into the fiery furnace of Nebuchadnezzar, our God is able to deliver us. We’re going to tell the truth!
Martin: Let’s see here. I can throw away a lot of these questions. So much of it seems, in a way, irrelevant to our current times because there’s so much going on now. But, good grief! I was just stunned to read in your book of all the historical things that have happened as a result of these evil people. You dedicated the book to four Roman Catholics who, I’m sure, no one has ever heard of: Charles Chiniquy, Jeremiah Crowley, Emmett McLaughlin, and Alberto Rivera. Why them?
Phelps: Because those Roman Catholic men were priests; they left the priesthood and told the truth about what was really happening. And all four of them, except one, I think Emmett McLaughlin, paid with their life. Chiniquy was the great exposer of the Jesuit assassination of President Lincoln, when he wrote his masterpiece Fifty Years In The Church Of Rome in 1886. He proves that Lincoln was assassinated by the Jesuits, and that it was covered-up by our government at the time.
Jeremiah Crowley: that priest was a great Irishman who came here and, seeing the corruption of the Archdiocese in Chicago, that it was so corrupt, he left it and exposed it. And, of course, he later came to Christ and became a Bible-believer, which they would call a Protestant. Protestants today don’t believe the Bible. Protestantism of today is an empty shell, it’s nothing. But, back then, in 1912, they believed the Bible.
Crowley, then, exposed many things, and one of the things he exposed, that helped me with this, was that he warned that the Jesuits, with their Knights of Columbus–which, he says, the Knights of Columbus, named after Columbus, who he tells us was a Spanish Jew and a pirate and a deflowerer of young girls–that Columbus was no Christian.
He has a tremendous section in his book on Columbus. That the purpose of the Knights of Columbus was to fulfill Jesuitical politics, and part of those politics was to restore the temporal power of the Pope because, you remember, the Pope had lost that in 1870 and they wanted to get it back. And they got it back with Mussolini in 1929.
Well, in the book that Crowley wrote in 1912, he says that Taft and Teddy Roosevelt were all cow-towing to the Pope and the Cardinals of New York. And he said they’re going to use our military to restore the Pope’s temporal power around the world.
And THAT was absolutely correct. That is American foreign policy. And the Council of Trent is the American foreign policy of today. That’s what’s going on in Serbia and Bosnia. It’s the Council of Trent–the Jesuits using the American Air Force to bomb those orthodox people to smithereens. But, that was Crowley’s great contribution.
Next, Emmett McLaughlin wrote several books. He wrote The People’s Padre; he wrote Crime And Immorality In The Catholic Church, showing that Catholic nations are more lawless and more criminal than Protestant nations, and he proved it with statistics from the jails.
Emmett McLaughlin also wrote another book called The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln, where he, again, shows that Lincoln was assassinated by the Jesuits. So, Emmett McLaughlin came out of the Catholic Church. To my knowledge, he never was born again. He never was saved, but he did tell the truth. He married a nun, and lived a virtuous and honorable life after he left.
The last one was, of course, Alberto Rivera, who was greatly hated by the Vatican because he was a very high Jesuit who came out and, in the late ’60s, about 1969, exposed the power of Rome in the ecumenical movement, that Rome controlled Kathryn Kuhlman; that Rome controlled Billy Graham; that Rome controlled, virtually, our government–Ronald Reagan.
Reagan, when he took the Oath of Office, faced the obelisk, indicating that this country will ultimately have a concordat. So, Alberto Rivera converted to Christ, wonderfully, and he started a ministry called The Anti-Christ Information Center, out of Los Angeles.
They tried to kill him five times. A dentist jammed a needle up between his teeth, trying to give him an infection in the brain. When he passed out, about a year or so later, they couldn’t figure it out. Everybody was praying for him. And this was discovered when he went to another dentist. He had it removed.
He was pushed in front of a subway train. They tried five times to kill the man, and finally he died, I believe, of cancer, in a hospital, about three years ago. But these four wonderful, great, Catholic priests did their best to expose the power of Rome and its attempts to destroy our sovereign, Protestant, Bible-believing nation. And so, to them, I dedicate it.
Martin: What compelled you to write this book? What started it for you?
Phelps: I was always taught to be a patriot, a patriot first and foremost–America first, and everybody else second. Later, when I came to know the Lord, at 17, I realized the Bible taught the same thing–that the Lord had instituted nations. The Lord never instituted world governments; that’s always the result of the Devil’s working.
So, being a patriot and a nationalist–believing in national sovereignty–I was saved at 17, went into the Air Force, was garrisoned in a nuclear weapons area for three years in Germany, came back and started to go to Bible college.
When I went to Bible college, the issue of the King James came up, as far as it being an archaic version. And that’s what I used and I had never given it a thought. Well, some were using NIV, some NASB, and I thought: “Well, maybe it’s just a modern version of what I have here.” And I thought: “Well, if they want to use that, that’s fine, but I’ll use the King James.”
I found that the underlying Greek text for the King James, the Textus Receptus, was the Greek text of the Reformation. It represents 95% of the existing manuscripts that we have today. The Greek text that underlies all these other versions–there’s a Westcott and Hort Greek text, which I then discovered was really a conspiracy to adulterate the Textus Receptus in England, led by Brooke Foss Westcott and Anthony Hort, who were Maryolitors, Mary-worshippers.
Later, I found out that they had invited Cardinal Newman to sit in on the revision committee. Well, Cardinal Newman was a traitor to the Anglican Church, with his Track 90, which blew-off the Anglican Church. He then left England and he was then a Cardinal by Pius IX.
So, here we have Cardinal Newman, and E. B. Pusey, had been invited to sit on this revision committee, the end result being a Greek text that had been produced that was pro-Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is the basis for the Jesuit’s Reheims-Douay text, that was put out in 1582, that was attempting to rival William Tyndale’s English text, which later became the King James Version of 1611.
So now I see this awful Jesuit hand in my Bible college, attempting to deprive me of the Word of God, the authorized version of 1611, in it’s present edition of 1769. Now I thought “Well, here the Jesuits are, what else have they done?” And the next thing I was led to was the Lincoln assassination. And I can remember reading Burke McCarty’s The Suppressed Truth About The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln, and weeping in the back room, when I was in college.
Martin: For me, one of the most compelling portions of your book was the series of revelations about Lincoln. I was stunned by that.
Phelps: That’s what they did. Remember, Lincoln was not going to go along with the 14th Amendment. He wanted those Southern states to re-enter the Union on the same footing that they had left, which would have left us with a federal Republic as Washington had established it. This the Jesuits would not allow. It would be converted into an Empire. The states would be subordinate provinces to Washington. And the 14th Amendment would accomplish this with the reversion of citizenship. And Lincoln was re-elected, and he was ready to end this, and that’s why they killed him. Kennedy was ready to implement his things; they would not let him be re-elected.
Martin: This is a total aside. Have you ever come across The Jefferson Bible?
Phelps: The Jefferson Bible–and maybe you know this–is Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And Thomas Jefferson, being the Deist, being the pagan that he was, cut out all the supernatural from those three gospels. Jefferson was a Deist; he was involved with the French Freemasons who were involved in the French Revolution, and he was not here at the writing of our Protestant Constitution. So, the Lord put him out of the picture. Jefferson was just used to help with the Revolution–because the Lord does use the unGodly for good things. But Jefferson copied much of the Declaration Of Independence from the Mechlenburg Declaration, written by Calvinistic Presbyterians of North Carolina, when they seceded, when that county of Mechlenburg seceded from the Colonies.
Martin: Never heard of it.
Phelps: Yes, you’ll find it in Presbyterian writings. You can find it from D. James Kennedy; he has a thing on it. And Jefferson copied, at the end: “…and to this end we devote our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
That was copied directly from the Mechlenburg Declaration. Jefferson was a plagiarist; he was a high Freemason; and he was out of here at the time of the writing of our Constitution. And the reason why the people of Virginia did elect him to office was because he was a State’s Rights man. He wanted limited powers in Washington, and that was a good thing. And when Jefferson was elected, he undid everything the king-president John Adams did, with his Alien & Sedition Laws, because John Adams wanted to be a king, and Jefferson undid it, and Jefferson got two terms for that.
Martin: I’m looking at some things that are a little further back now. The Secreta Monita. What’s the significance of that?
Phelps: The Secret Instructions [excerpts at the end of this interview] are the handbooks that are given to the professed Jesuits, those under extreme oath. [The oath is presented in full at the end of this interview.] And it tells them how to conduct their plans, subjugating peoples and nations to the Jesuit General, and thus, to the temporal power of the Pope. It tells how they are to deceive. It shows how they are to swindle rich widows out of their fortunes, like they did with Astor’s second wife who survived the Titanic catastrophe. It shows their general approach on how to do things.
This particular book cannot be known, and if it’s ever published, they will deny it’s existence. But when you see the works that the Jesuits have done, it’s in complete agreement with the Secreta Monita.
There is a very interesting section in Edwin R. Sherwin’s book The Engineer Core Of Hell, written in 1886 I believe–another suppressed work. It’s usually in the archives of all the older libraries back here. And he shows how this Secreta Monita was discovered in South America by a Mason, and the Mason managed to escape to a lodge after being shot. He turned the Secreta Monita over to the lodge, and then these certain Freemasons saw the Secreta Monita. There are certain low-level Freemasons who believe that the Jesuit Order is their enemy, so that’s why it was taken to the lodge and then published. But the high-level Masons, of course, work with them. The Secreta Monita was discovered once that way. It was published in Holland. Then, in 1857, reprinted by England.
Martin: Pascal’s Provincial Letters had a devastating impact on exposing the Jesuits. Why?
Phelps: Blaise Pascal was a Huguenot, a French Calvinist. So here we have another fearless man. He doesn’t fear death; he’s going to tell the truth. So Blaise Pascal wrote a series of letters that were written to and from provincials, and he wrote them in a satirical manner, that of course excited that wonderful French mind. The French, of course, came to the conclusion that this was absolutely the truth, and then they moved to suppress the Jesuits again. But his Provincial Letters are considered a classic. Blaise Pascal also wrote some other great works, too.
Martin: Pope Ganganelli-Clement XIV abolished the Order entirely in 1773, and was murdered as a result.
Phelps: Correct; he was poisoned.
Martin: The Order was similarly abolished 39 times from different kingdoms throughout Europe. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that something was terribly wrong with this group!
Phelps: Right. Are all those people bigots? Are all those people brainwashed bigots and fanatical Protestants who abolished the Jesuit Order?
You find the greatest resistance to the Jesuits in Catholic countries, by Catholic monarchs. And that’s why the Roman Catholic monarchs and nobility of today don’t dare resist them. The Kennedys won’t touch them. The monarchs of Europe won’t touch them. The Hapsburgs won’t touch them, because the Jesuits have vindicated their power in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars–well, then they went to suppress the Jesuits again in Europe and they were, for the most part, kicked-out of Europe in the 1800s. All the nations of Europe banned them. Germany banned them in 1872. And so, World War I and II, the second Thirty Years War, was pay-back for this. And ever since then, nobody touches them.
Pope Ganganelli abolished the Jesuits with a Papal Bull; the Jesuits call it a “brief”. It is not a brief; it is in the Library of the Bulls, and it is called Dominic Ac Redemptor Nostor. That is the name of a bull. And when he abolished them, he abolished them forever–that they were not to talk about their abolition, that they were not to teach. He confiscated all of their wealth and land and property. For the most part, the Dominicans took it over, which is why the Dominicans had their penis cut off during the French Revolution. That’s what the Jacobins did to them. It was payback by the Jesuits: “You don’t dare take our property from us, boy. And you don’t dare take Inquisition from us.” Jacobins killed nearly every Dominican in France.
Martin: Why was the assassination of William of Orange so significant?
Phelps: Williams of Orange was the father of religious liberty. William of Orange is the man who gave the Jews the freedom to come to Amsterdam. And the Jews called Amsterdam, “the new Jerusalem”. William of Orange was a Catholic to begin with. Remember when he was in the forest, hunting with the king of France, and the king of France lay bare to him their plans to destroy all the Protestants in Holland, William kept silent. And that’s why he was called “William the taciturn” or “William the silent”.
So, he harbored all of this in his heart, and he went back to Holland determined that he would deliver the Calvinists and the Protestants from this annihilation. William went to Germany with his German wife, and he, according to Motley in his The Dutch Republic, raised an army of Germans and they did not succeed in liberating Holland. And so, it was the Dutch themselves who joined William of Orange in an attempt to liberate the country, which they ultimately did as the “wild beggars of the sea”.
So, William was a great inspiration. He delivered flight from the seige of the fanatical Roman Catholic Spanish, lead by the Jesuits, when the Lord providentially delivered and sent a strong wind over the dikes, and flooded the whole area, and flooded the Spanish soldiers.
And then, after that happened, He sent another strong West wind and blew the water back over the dikes. This is a historical fact! Why don’t we hear this in history? For the same reason we don’t hear when Louis XIV brought his army across the river into Holland to kill all those Dutch, in 1672, right around there, that the river, right where the army was crossing, thawed out, and the whole French army went to the bottom of the river, as a result of the prayers of those Protestants of Holland. We’re not taught that either!
The assassination of William of Orange was probably the second most significant act of Jesuit dominance, next to the murder of Coligny at St. Bartholomew’s Massacre. Because it was first St. Bartholomew’s massacre, and then the murder of William of Orange. And, of course, William of Orange was shot by a Jesuit-controlled assassin, Balthazar Girard, in his own house. And the last words of William, of course, were: “God be merciful to these poor people.”
Martin: What is the Royal Institute of International Affairs?
Phelps: The Royal Institute of International Affairs is the same as the American Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The Royal Institute runs England and the British Empire, what was once the extension of the British, just as the CFR runs our country. They’re sister organizations.
Martin: Where are they based?
Phelps: They’re based in London.
Martin: And who is their head; do you know?
Phelps: I don’t know right n
August 20th, 2007 at 11:43 am
perhaps if the legal systems did not have to consistently contend with the likes of you Wenzel the nation may have a little more resources to spend on those that are deserving of assistance and would not be in so much debt
We all know that we have an imperfect system, but at least it only takes a percentage of what we earn not a wenzel share which leaves nothing and takes all of what was brought to the table
August 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Who gives a F**k why the Dept of Justice changed to the Ministry of Justice you fat fool, whats in a name? What we all want to know is WHY you ripped off so many people and think you are hard done by because you now have to pay for your crimes? The law of the land is to be obeyed dickhead – you choose to live here so live by the rules if you cant then piss off back to Aus or better still top urself no loss and you reincarnate or whatever the f**k you think you can do and talk about this experience as your past life to you next victims ha ha ha!!!!!!! see how ludicrus you sound
August 20th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Omg is this guy a fat waste of space or what??????????????
August 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
You seem surprised Shane to realise that the earth is ruled by the most rich and powerful organisation on earth. This is best know as the Roman Catholic Church and is identified in Revelation as the Beast and the Little Horn to name a few. The Beast is identified as being the number of a man. Revelation was written at a time (Roman) that giving numbers to names was popular. This was done by giving the letters in the name the same value as the roman number it represented ie I V C etc. The bible identifies the beast and having the number 666, using this name number practice we can identify the Man spoken about in Revelation. The Pope has two official names in Latin. One a long one and one a short one. Both using the Roman name number system add up to 666.
So this “discovery” of yours was written down some 1900 years ago by the Disciple John. The control of the earth was given to Lucifer, later called the devil by God. It is He, through Jesus that will return to reclaim from it those that are His. One thousand years later the earth and the balance of humanity will be raised and torched
Your choice Shane is to decide if you wish to live with God for ever or be for ever separated from Him. The indications are that you wish to be apart from God for ever. This state is immediately changed Shane by accepting Jesus as your personal saviour and into your life. That is all that is needed to secure a life everlasting. You, unlike your teachings, can not work your way there. It is given freely as a gift to you and every one. No mater what you have done it is your to accept. It is given freely, it can not be earned and it is yours
The list of people above that you have apparently abused will weigh heavily on you conscience, I know this because at the end of the day you are still human. You have the ability to turn your life around. It will never occur doing what you are doing because you put self first and take from others. But Jesus first in you life and see his power and all else will be added to you
August 20th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Can ANYONE please tell me what exactly the current situation is with this little arsehole? He was supposed to go to court with his dodgy lawyer on the 23rd July. What happened? And please don;t give me govt links and search details that don’t work. ANYONE fill in the CURRENT facts ie charges, results, postponements etc. Thank you.
August 20th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
As per usual as soon as people get to the truth it gets too hard for Shane and he does a cut and paste, don’t believe for a second that he reads the shit he posts. “I KNOW SHANE TOO” obviously knows Shane well as his/her posts are so accurate and on the ball.
What is interesting is he spins the same old shit over and over again, thats because people can see through him all the time and leave. He never has to come up with anything new. I knew him years ago and he is still saying the same things, pity he hasn’t learnt to spell them after all these years.
Robyn and Josie must be of little brain as well to keep listening to it, mind you it just gives Robyn another opportunity to pull out her sob stories to put onto someone new and try and gather up more sympathy. Bring out the violins.
August 20th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
DDP – “Your Right to Choose”
7 Steps towards ‘Direct Democracy’
The establishment of a written New Zealand Constitution.
The introduction of “Binding Citizen Initiated Referendum”.
An overhaul of the taxation system, ensuring a fair and equitable Taxation Policy for all citizens.
A review of the purpose of MMP, to determine whether the role of coalition and/or confidence and supply arrangements are in conflict with the actual representative intent of an MMP Electoral system.
A Royal Commission of Enquiry into New Zealand Government Department corruption and dysfunction, with appropriate terms of reference.
Fortified crime legislation and enforcement, including full sentence served, abolishment of Parole, and punishment-focussed incarceration, coupled with “Real Rehabilitation”.
A review of, and option to repeal legislation that, if there had been a Binding Citizens Initiated Referendum on this proposed legislation at the time, the legislation (that is now law) would have been defeated by a majority of New Zealand voters opposing the legislation. This may include (but is not restricted to) the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill (a.k.a the “Anti-Smacking” Bill); the Trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products & Medicines Bill; the Foreshore & Seabed Bill; the Prostitution Law Reform Bill; and the Supreme Court Bill (removing right of appeal to the Privy Council).
Please click on the “Read more” below to read the ‘Open Letter to the New Zealand People’
OPEN LETTER TO THE NEW ZEALAND PEOPLE
Let’s face FACTS!
We have, for a long time, advocated the need for real reform of the current ‘debt-based monetary system’ operated by the New Zealand Government at the behest of the many vested interests that have sought to use economics as a weapon to dispossess us of our lands, freedoms and wealth. I have read with interest the many articles and summaries put forward by those that wish to inform the people as to the true nature of the modern day banking menace and its disastrous consequences for us all. However, I have not as yet seen a satisfactory remedy to this issue and I believe that the structure and use of the current monetary system is the root from which so many of the public ills stem.
There are those that would rather have people attack the messenger, than have the people pay attention to the message. If you (the people of New Zealand) had a clear understanding of the real economics and mechanisms behind the current banking system, you would certainly not sit idly by and watch as our country is slowly and meticulously stripped away from beneath us while being plunged into irredeemable debt.
Throughout history there have been warnings as to the true evil of the current banking system and its ultimate slavery of the people. It is no surprise that countries like New Zealand (approx. $NZ135+ Billion in debt), Australia (approx. $A500+ Billion in debt) the United States (approx. $US 7+ Trillion in debt) among the majority of other nations, are so far in debt, that payment of those debts are an impossibility.
Now we shall discover why:
All money that comes into existence is “borrowed” into existence at a certain rate of “interest”. The problem with this is the fact that the “interest” component of these loans, is not created at the time of the loan, and therefore impossible to pay. Let us suppose the New Zealand Government borrowed $1Billion at a mere 2 percent interest rate from the Reserve Bank; they would then be liable for a total of $1 Billion plus the $20 Million in “interest” payments. In other words, the Government that had only been loaned the initial $1 Billion, will then have a shortfall of $20 Million on the due payment dates. That $20 Million does not exist and therefore will never be able to be paid. Usually the Government is forced to undertake certain “reforms” to satisfy the lenders (ultimately the World Bank, IMF and Bank of International Settlements).
That is not the end of the problem. Due to the Government’s inability to be able to pay the “interest” component of the loan, it then becomes liable for “penalty interest” on top of that “interest” and therefore further debt arises. How can a country so rich in resources, wealth, and ability worth hundreds of billions of dollars be so broke? –”Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!” – Mayer Anselm Rothschild, Banker -1743 – 1812. This statement is very telling indeed.
Many so-called economic experts will tell you that New Zealand can trade its way out of debt and all we need is to have exports outperform imports and all will be rosy, yet this is another false statement. Most of the countries in the world operate the same banking system (debt-money) and have to compete with other nations to capture resources and market share that is all too often, becoming scarce; this ultimately leads to conflict with other nations, as they try to open new markets to service a debt that can never be paid. It is simple mathematics.
Have you ever wondered why a house that cost you $200,000.00 one year suddenly costs you approx. $450,000.00 five years later? Some will tell you that the housing market is experiencing a boom and prices are going up due to demand or some such (always some excuse other than the truth). The simple fact of the matter is that our currency is becoming devalued at a rapid rate as time goes on and therefore, you require more of our currency to purchase that same house. This is also true with everything else you purchase. After all, it took a certain amount of timber and other materials, labour and time, to build that house – so in actual fact that house will forever be worth what was needed at the time to build that house, and no more. The rise in prices is due to nothing more than the systematic manipulation of our currency.
Before people start to chant the old line about labour and materials costing more now than previously, that is easily dismissed, because again, this problem is due solely to the requirement of more money to service debt and living costs associated with the banking fiasco.
Let’s look now, at a few other aspects of this issue that adequately depicts the utter stupidity of those in the current and former Governments in this country. For example; Michael Cullen once told us that all we as a nation, had to do, was save our money for the future and rent in place of buying a home. There are two problems associated with this advice:
1.The more we save from the very little that we have left, after the wholesale extortion by the Government (both local and national), means there is that much less money flowing through the economy and therefore, the demand for products and services from the many businesses in New Zealand would cease and lead to more bankruptcies, closures, and losses of jobs. Less purchasing power for the people in this country means less demand, pretty simple really.
2. Renting a home as opposed to buying one, means that any money we spend on the rent would effectively be dead money and not have any major economic benefit for this country. Mr. Cullen may say that the rent paid will be flowing through the economy, but when we look at the facts without his misleading and distorted opinion, we would see that the majority of those renting out their properties do so in order to afford the loan repayments made on the purchase of that property. Again, the only benefactors of this model are the bankers themselves.
Have you ever wondered why there seems to be an ever increasing necessity to tax and levy, or in some other way extort tribute from us to the point where we are barely living day to day? This is becoming commonplace for so many New Zealanders, yet denied by the very people that continue to push an agenda that is certainly not within the best interest of our nation. This is simply due to the position that the Government has placed itself in, that of course being one of servitude to irredeemable debt through borrowings from privately run/owned/controlled financial institutions.
When the New Zealand Government wishes to borrow money, the Treasury issues a “government bond” (I.O.U) to the RBNZ (Reserve Bank of New Zealand). Those bonds are then used by the Reserve Bank as security for the loans that are provided by the foreign private banking and financial institutions (the RBNZ beneficiaries). Anyone that has ever borrowed money from a Bank will know that you need “security” in order to borrow money. The Government is no different. The security used as a guarantee for those loans is the Government’s ability to tax you, the New Zealand people, for repayment, i.e. through the imposition of “income tax”. In other words they use you and your potential earning capacity as collateral.
Contrary to popular belief, the “income tax” component of the taxation we pay in this country does not get spent on beneficiaries, hospitals, roads, education or the like. It all gets paid on the loans that the government has borrowed in our name via the “Inland Revenue Department”.
Now surely, commonsense dictates that if a Government can issue a bond, then it can issue a dollar bill without being debt-based at the point of creation. However, enter the hoards of so-called economic and banking experts that then try to create the illusion that by doing this, we will plunge the nation into uncontrollable inflation. Of course many people have bought into this outlandish claim, but under scrutiny it rapidly becomes apparent to all that this claim holds no merit at all.
I have always wondered if countries like ours are so keen to help other nations that they deem to be economic basket cases, why they do not first, reform the monetary system in those countries as opposed to forcing economic reforms and subject them to irredeemable debt through loans. For any country in so much debt, to advise other nations how to undertake economic reform is laughable and borders on complete madness.
The following illustration will comically show what a fruitless exercise our application of banking has become (leaving the interest component out of the equation until the end);
We all decide we are going to sit around a table and play cards, so we all borrow $1000.00 from our friendly banker and set our sights on striking it rich by out witting our opponents with our refined skills and poker-face. At the opening of each hand, we of course each place $1.00 into the centre of the table for the banker that loaned us the money and then the cards are dealt. As the game progresses some of us will be up in our money count and some will be down. However, every hand we play, we are giving the banker the $1.00 so if we continue to apply this method of cards, it will not matter how lucky any particular player is, because at the end of that game, the banker will end up with it all. He risked nothing in the game and did not even play a hand, yet there he is holding all of the money and to make matters worse, we are now all in debt to him with no way to pay because of the interest he charged at the time we borrowed that money.
So how do we pay the banker that which he says we owe when we have no means by which to satisfy the debt? Simple we must forfeit assets, property, or some other form of wealth to discharge the debt. Now imagine our Government playing such a game of cards using us as collateral for those loans. Not a pretty scenario, yet here we are, all in debt because we forgot how to count and relied on the so-called experts to take control.
But how could this continue to happen, surely the people would do something about it if what I am saying is correct, right? Wrong! The best way to ensure that there is no opposition with the ability to challenge the authority of those that control the finances of our nation, is to make any opposition dependent on that very mechanism for their survival, thus eliminating any possibility of an organised challenge to the status quo.
The problems with the current debt-monetary system is well known by many, yet very few have come up with viable solutions to this problem and those that have, are publicly ridiculed, in the hope that no one will listen to them for fear of being branded as a conspiracy theorist or some other quaintly termed phrase designed to silence voices and deafen ears.
Now, you would be forgiven for thinking that if we could only take care of that “interest” problem of the current monetary system, that all will be well. It won’t! You see there is yet another very damaging component of this sordid saga that needs to be covered and understood by all, and that is the issue of “foreign exchange”. We have all seen the market manipulators hard at work as the value of our dollar in comparison to all of the other controlled currencies goes up and down like a yo-yo. Of course they tell us that the reason for this is simply due to market forces and upcoming announcements of “Reserve Bank interest rates” – it is at this time I think the application of the famous Tui advert is relevant.
Many of us will have experienced this “foreign exchange” rort first hand, whether we travel abroad or seek to purchase goods and services from another country. We go into our local bank or other “foreign exchange” outlet and ask to convert our New Zealand currency to that of the country we are heading, or purchasing from.
Let us suppose for a moment, that we are wanting United States Dollars in exchange for our New Zealand Dollars; we hand them $NZ1000.00 and after the miraculous conversion process takes place with any applied “cash handling” fee, we receive on a good day say, $US670.00 – many will say at this point, yes but the US Dollar is worth more than ours. My reply to that is, how? When the US is more than $US7 Trillion in debt and New Zealand is only $NZ135 Billion in debt, how can their currency hold more purchasing power than ours? After all they haven’t got enough trees to make the notes to pay that debt; but that aside for a moment. If we then said, I have changed my mind, could I have my New Zealand Dollars back please, they would say, sure you can and after the applied fees, you will then receive less than you would have had should they not have charged you the fees in the first place.
So where did the money go when you didn’t actually use that currency to travel or purchase? Simple, they stole it! If you were then to continue that process and convert backwards and forwards between those currencies, you would end up with nothing left, and nothing to show for it. So I guess that is yet another problem we have to fix right? Right!
So, is that the end of the problems then? No! They are however, the major contributing factors.
OK, so here I am telling you some of the same things that many others have told you in the past, yet many of you didn’t want to know, or decided that the problem was either too big or too difficult to do anything about and besides, no one has come up with a way to address every aspect of this issue right? Wrong! There is a solution and put simply that solution is as follows;
Here is the solution that those “evil doers” (excuse the pun) do not want you to know;
1. We must take control of issuing of our own coin, credit and currency. These will no longer be subject to usury by foreign-controlled banking and financial institutions with vested interests in the manipulation of our currency (i.e. currency trading, foreign exchange and loan frauds). When we stop using ‘Crown’ issued currency our nation will achieve its financial freedom. To achieve this we must strip the Reserve Bank of New Zealand of its autonomy and run the affairs of the public purse from the New Zealand Treasury.
2. In order for our currency to have value, there must of course be a demand for it. To address this need, we simply make our new currency the lawful medium of exchange for all goods and services within the country. To stimulate growth within the economy and add further economically driven demand, the public Treasury can issue loans (at lower interest rates) to industry and individuals. Unlike the current system however, the interest component is created and paid out at the time the loan is issued and spent into the economy, via government public works and expenditure (roads, health, education etc). This means that the amount of money owed is equivalent to that within circulation so it is able to be repaid without ill-effect, and ensures inflation plays no part. This will mean an end to the forfeiture of our nation’s real wealth for imaginary and ultimately fraudulent debt.
3. We will no longer allow the international trade of our currency to avoid deliberate exploitation through devaluation and manipulation. This will ensure our nation’s future and wealth remains with the people, without the fear of the monetary system being used as a weapon to dispossess us of our land, resources, assets and wealth under the pretence of economic forces beyond our control, so often attributed to the theft.
4. A simple 1% Transaction Tax would easily replace ALL other taxes and levies and will ensure that businesses within our nation have the ability to compete on the world stage free from the concerns of high taxation, foreign exchange rate and market manipulation. It will also serve as a tool by which the economy can be stimulated in targeted areas to correct any shortfall, or held back if there may be a chance that too much is within the system.
I challenge any so-called expert in banking or economics in New Zealand to prove that what I am saying about the current banking system is false and to then provide evidence to back that claim. I will bet that none will be heard from, and if they are, they will try to use language that only serves to confuse people rather than establish any fact in which to base their claims. Watch your nightly news business ramblings when they speak of global economics and its effects. Once you comprehend this information, the truth is apparent for all to see.
Who am I to think that I have the qualifications to speak about such things? I am one that has applied the most fundamental principle when requiring logical reasoning, and that is commonsense. I believe that we have a puppet New Zealand Government that is carrying out an agenda for their handlers and seek to destabilise society and divide it along certain lines to keep us focused on worthless issues when the real issue is so damaging to us, that to leave it unaddressed would be fiscal suicide.
Make no mistake about it, “money” has become the new international God, the banks its disciples and they care nothing about the needs of humanity. This corruption is reinforced by our Politicians, Judges, Lawyers and Police as they seek to remove our rights, liberties and freedoms and replace them with what they deem to be licensed “privileges” that can just as easily be taken if we dare to challenge their authority.
Money was only ever meant to be the medium of exchange for goods and services at an agreed value, it was never meant to be the product itself, nor the tool by which we were all to be thrown into despair. Until we master and control the money, we will forever be enslaved to it and therefore those that control it.
Like it or not, we do not have a democracy in New Zealand, we have a CON-ocracy and it matters not who gets into Parliament from the mainstream parties, because the same issues arise time and time again, yet are never remedied, why? Because they do not have the ability, the guts, or the commonsense to challenge the status-quo; if they did we would all be enjoying a quality of life where hard work, production, innovation and creativity are all rewarded and not penalised. I charge this and past governments with treason against the people of New Zealand for willingly allowing the enslavement of so many to the greed and vested interests of the select few.
I will leave you with a quote that bears thinking about as you digest what I have just revealed to you and that is: “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is The People vs. the Banks.” – Lord Acton, Historian, 1834 – 1902 – NOW is that time!
A 47min video clip that shows why our ‘Monetary Reform’ will work – http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=Money+and+Debt
Kelvyn Alp
Party Leader
Direct Democracy Party – DDP
leader@ddp.co.nzThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
http://www.ddp.co.nz/
August 20th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Re; Robyn Case & Shane Wenzel , MAKING A DIFFERENCE!.
Hi , my name is Matiu Ranapia aka (Bull) aka (JEE) , I have been a active member of the Mangu Kaha (chairman) for the last twenty years, I had joined the crew when I was 16 years old and in that time I had experienced everything you could think of to do with the that kind of life style, from robberies to drugs , prostitution and a whole range criminal activities (excluding rape & child molestation), I had been to jail a couple of times with my last sentence being five years for drugs, it was during my last sentence I had made a deep rooted decision to make changes ,not only to myself but changes to others around me that are needing new directions, I was even willing to give up on the crew but then I thought to myself that if I really wanted to make changes what better place than from within the crew , we have had a lot of members leave the crew and make their participation wrong and judge the life style but at the end of the day they never really looked at the cause of the destruction (themselves) and tried to do something about it, leaving to me would had been a easy way out but the real challenge is to stay with in the wound and heal it from the inside out, through what ever means and resources I can work with.
While I was in jail I had done every course ,program, rehab available ,thinking these will help me get a job and restart my life, I was released in 2003 , the reality was I spent the first 3 months constantly looking for employment , every interview & phone call I made, they asked if I had a criminal conviction and I replied honestly ,only to be told they will call me back , it never happened, so I started looking for any course I could do on the outside just to keep me occupied IE first aid, truck & fork hoist license and more, still no job and the old life was tempting me.
I was fortunate enough to meet Shane Wenzel (Business coach) & Robyn Case (Mentor) , since then I have learnt how to start companies , marketing , managing , building construction , sub divisions, project managing and a whole lot more ,now I own three companies and have a number of investment properties with Shane’s and Robyn’s support and total guidance I have managed to turn my life and some of my bros life’s around ,one for example Pou hepi (vice chairman) he has come from the same back ground as me and has the same vision as Shane and Robyn’s to help make a difference, he is also the manager for NZ Maintenance, this company is our franchise company we have started and are slowly growing , our main focus is labour hire but we do have a lawn mowing division, property maintenance division and a warehouse logistics division. Even though all these titles seem great and we have changed our lives it is only through the opened hearts , minds and souls of Robyn and Shane, two of the most genuine people I have ever meet dedicated to the dream of making differences.
Just to give you another example of their dedication , two months ago I had a meeting with the mayor of Papakura John Robertson over providing opportunities to the youth gangs in our community , immediately Shane &
Robyn offered their support of knowledge and networks, even though they had other major issues going on for them , they still had the heart to throw me in the car with them and drive around the most poverty stricken neighbourhood in south Auckland and asked the youth on the streets (even though sum were drinking) what they would like to see happen in their neighbourhood, the response was great, not even I would have thought of just driving around and asking them what they would want to change their hood, It made me wonder how many of the community leaders or pillars of society would have even attempted this task.
To this day I still look to Robyn & Shane for their support and have grown to love them as family, it is very heart wrenching to see the hassles they are going through in their battle for justice in a very unjust world where people live off the proper gander of what others say and how a simple contractor hired by the courts can manipulate the system and use the same old tools of society (IE media and perceptive truths) to play the same old game of point the finger and cry witch as a smoke screen to cover their own hidden agendas and crimes,( just as gang members were targeted for high rape & murder crimes in the mid to late eighties while the police had free range (Stowers killing), it is common knowledge now, that the truth of the truth there is no truth.
But all in all this is only a rain drop in a waterfall of changes shane wenzel and Robyn case has made to my life and others and the question must be asked , what is change ? and who is really MAKING A DIFFERENCE ?
For any further information please don’t hesitate to call me.
Kind Regards
Jee
NZ Maintenance t/a DLS 2006 Ltd
Ph: (09) 9742153
Fx: (09) 299 9829
Mb: (021) 1275139
August 20th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Jee has left you
Pou has left you
Abe has thrashed you
A taste of what awaits you at Mt Eden and in Oz. They can’t wait to be introduced to you. The have names and photographs and the guards will turn a blind eye
All arranged for you
The courts find you guilty 10 counts now with 32 to follow
You are back in the Papakura court 12 September with the SFO
YOU ARE ALL ALONE SHANE/CHRISTOPHER WENSEL
KARMA TIME
August 20th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Interesting Pengu. So all three have gone? And Abe gave him a hiding? Fantastic. Can you please keep us up to date re convictions and appearances. What ten counts was he found guilty of and what was his sentence? Thanks.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Just more cut and paste, pulling out previous postings, now Shane has forgotten what he has already posted, can’t stay ahead or remember what he has done. You are catching yourself out Shane just like our judicial system has.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am
How uniform you really are ?
More allegations That are not true!!
Still NO name Clowns?
What are you affraid of ?
Surly NOT me ?
Have you book for the seminars Yet?
Jee has left you …….has he?
Pou has left you…….. Has he
Abe has thrashed you…….. did he?
You do do Know me then do you?
Is that why you hide your name ?
They are are doing what they are train to do ?
NOT sell P make a difference and work for a living ?
1000.00 a Ticket love to see you there?
August 21st, 2007 at 9:02 am
Yes he has
Yes he has
and yes he did
It is you, you are the one hiding Wenzel. Hiding behind the words you cut and paste to avoid answering the questions asked of you, to avoid the accountability that is being demanded from. Hiding behind false names and other people to allow you to continue ripping people off
Convictions of opperating businesses while a bankrupt are a little harder to hide though arent they Wenzel. The Serious Fraud Charges like wise will be a little harder to ignor as well as will the ones to follow
Seems the publishers of Kapai the Kiwi are more than a little bit nervious about your past and present behaviour. Fool, this is the last form of income you have and now you are destroying that as well
You have a very low opinion of yourself, this is evidenced by your false provado and constant threats every time you are challenged, all clear intecators of the insecure little boy with in. Parasites are always needing their next meal of someone else.
Honk honk honk feed me feed me
Seek some help man and get over it, change from being a small time crook into something usefull
When you accept what you have done and how you have affected people then you will see the change that you need to make. Stay above the line Wenzel, enough of the BEDS, Change.
Tap tap, tap tap, mack truck
All very below the line Wenzel
August 21st, 2007 at 9:36 am
Knowing that you don’t know who I am and seem to be a little frustrated is satisfying for me, just a little getting my own back for what you have done to others and the stupid shit I had to sit through whilst you boosted yourself listening to your own voice. I so wish I had taped some of that crap so I could use it now as evidence – doesn’t look like its needed anyway.
Do you really think calling people ‘CLOWNS’ has any effect on, enough to think oh, I had better put my name on my posting to stop Shane calling me a clown.
Maybe it’s a little unnerving when you aren’t controlling all the strings.
$1000, thats laughable especially as it will be the same old same old, just ring me anyone thats considering going and I can atleast give you the information without having to look at that revolting face and body or listen to that voice. By the way I never paid to see or hear the fat guy.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:54 am
$1000?? I wouldn’t pay 10c to listen to that idiot. I really hope there aren’t any people out there who would consider paying that moron. Besides , I thought , him being bankrupt , what he is doing is illegal. Mind you he could pay people to listen to him spout on how to rip people off. We were forced to listen to his shit years ago and by the way is there anybody out there whos was made to stare in someones eyes for 20 Minutes!!! I kid you not- it was the most ridiculous thing ever – if one laughed etc the Hitler made you do it again- but guess what – didn’t work with us and he gave up – what a laugh- and Robyn believed in this shit as well- unbeleivable.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Do you really think we don’t know the truth Shane, we live in the real world not in hiding behind a computer man! Jee wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Frightened of YOU? what a laugh. Not in control r u who is???? WE ARE – pulling the strings and ur dancing like a gud little fat puppet! but nothing original just other peoples words you probably can’t read half of it you moron. get used to it ur a joke and your keeping us all amused.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Very amused. Try cut and pasting your past and see if you can make some sense of it you illiterate little fuck. And the more you try and use all the anti govt stuff the more it shows you up for doing the same thing. Taking advantage of people. And the seminars, well I will put money on it that they won’t happen and if they did all you would get is a storm of protest. Talk about delusions of grandeur. Good to see you keep coming back here though you little weasel. It definitely means we ARE getting at you. And Jee, Abe and Pou if you are reading this then get on here and tell us what happened. I know the postings that look like you are not but just the fat little prick’s bullshit. Jail, gaol, time,OZ, vaseline and a few good beatings await the little creep. Going to piss your pants again this time? LMAO.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:52 pm
So you want to know who we all are Wenzel using the psychic ability you claim to have you should know, but wait theres more, you also claim to be able to see into the future, put us out of our misery and tell us what your sentance is. hey here’s a thought to ponder………
maybe we are all the same person under many alias’s? you know like you!
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
STILL no name ???
Cowards Live behind False IDs??
How was your childhood did you get picked on a lot ?
Have you got ID problem?
Are wanting to be something that your NOT?
Did read super hero stories?
I hope that all this release is giving you healing
I bit like confession, the inner mirror of your self venting?
I see now your NOT coming to the seminars?
Afraid that you may LEARN something?
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:51 am
Funn y how the first 6 lines represent YOU shane mirror mirror (your favorite cliche)
There are no seminars you fat fool, just a lunatic raving on in his own self ritousness. You talk so much shit you have a permanant brown stain on your chin mate. All I have learned off you is to avoid short, fat, sweaty ugly little arseholes like YOU
I will answer your questions because unlike you Im not afraid to;
I have a name – choose not to share it with you
Cowards aye not me – but is that why you used so many false IDs
I had a great childhood – unlike yours that was sad and pathetic
I have no ID problems I know who I am – You?
I am happy with who I am – Are you?
Na mate super hero stories were never my thing but i bet they were yours always trying to inflate your own ego to compensate for you inferior complex
Your turn now mate, you answer some of the questions asked on here to you – oh but no your too much of a COWARD to do that instead you will hide behind others words – idiot!
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Wow this guy Wenzel really is a piece work – unbelievable
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Funn y how the first 6 lines represent YOU shane mirror mirror (your favorite cliche)
There are no seminars you fat fool, just a lunatic raving on in his own self ritousness. O really You talk so much shit you have a permanant brown stain on your chin mate. MIRROR All I have learned off you is to avoid short, fat, sweaty ugly little arseholes like YOU That is NOt answering any thing of substance
I will answer your questions because unlike you Im not afraid to; Will see
I have a name – choose not to share it with you Why NOT if your NOT Coward!!!!
Cowards aye not me – Well it would look like IT???? but is that why you used so many false IDs Mirror my Name is there is it not
I had a great childhood – Says who a maori boy like you ha unlike yours that was sad and pathetic You weren t there Mirror
I have no ID problems I know who I am – You? Demo Not to tell your name contra’s that does it NOT??
I am happy with who I am O really?? – Are you? Hell ya
Na mate super hero stories were never my thing but i bet they were yours No remember I couldn t read ? I was living life always trying to inflate your own ego Latin for SELF Thanks for the complinment to compensate for you inferior complex Compared to what??YOU
Your turn now mate, you answer some of the questions asked on here to you – oh but no your too much of a COWARD to do that instead you will hide behind others words – idiot! Mirror What is your pain Is nt confession great Dont you feel great Now???!!!
You like decepition dont you your addicted to it
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
DDP is laaaaaame.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
When Shane is not doing a cut and paste once again I have heard all his words before and that was a few years ago now, so not a lot of progress or education in that time obviously. In keeping up with new teaching and learning practices all good research is evidence based. To go by Shane’s evidence the man is a hopeless teacher, hence why NZQA shut down CBA.
His evidence of:
high staff turnover,
poor record keeping,
changing records,
selecting students who never had a chance of passing a level 3 qualification,
scamming tax system by having self employed contractors,
bullying tutors,
sexual harrassment,
sleeping with the boss and the list could go on.
A great business and concept has gone belly up because of one greedy, control freak of a man.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Kids. Let this be a lesson to you all. DO NOT DO DRUGS.
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
This is great folks … he keeps replying so we have got him exactly where we want him. Paranoid, conspiracy theories, getting afraid of who is REALLY out there. His ego will FORCE him to respond! Can’t help laughing at that. That is what is driving him. I don’t mind giving him the attention on here because it will at least keep his tiny mind busy and keep him away from unsuspecting adults and innocent children. Can’t resist can you Weasel? You will HAVE to reply you complete sucker. SUCKER! What a complete fool you are. Clang! The sound of the prison doors closing! How fantastic this is going to be. You think your ex-wife might visit you? Won’t be long now!
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:22 pm
three hundred and thirtieth!
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Awwwww Shane you ran out of literature to cut and paste in your hiding place? your so desperate to respond that you cut and paste my post – you fat fool
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
anon- great observation, the dick head HAS TO respond so funny!
So interesting – Gross about the sleeping with the boss *barf* its a wonder Robyn, josie and Dianna aren’t walking around armless! Omg if I was a woman who woke up next to that thing I would chew my arm off rather than disturb it!
God Wenzel you are the most nauseating, repulsive and ugly dude I have ever seen *shudder*
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Sept 12th Draws closer Wenzel
You may need to produce the false records and fraudulent documents a little faster.
Can you keep up now that no one is there Shane
Cunning plan of yours…………..get ignorant people and new migrants to falsify and produce fraudulent documents for you
But it’s the result that is important isn’t Wenzel, how it is obtained is not important to you is it
It is however to any one else…………..and they are coming to get you
Just think Wenzel of the people that you abused. One of them is a prison guard in Mt Eden Jail, now wasn’t that a stupid move Wenzel???
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Very interesting reading. Seems you guys are right in what you have been saying. You go guys….get this scumbag!!!
Denis Wood is the guy to chat to about CBA on 3063354
David Fisher for Wenzel 021 347154
Serious Fruad Office for Wenzel
Vernon Tamatea property maters 3561760
NZ Police for fraud, abuse and assault maters
CYF for child abuse
WINZ for benifit abuse
Looks like he and his organisation is on the ropes, put in haymaker now you that are in the know ans make sure that this scum bag does not get up again
Thanks for the blog guys this is better than Shortland St any day
FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ) LIMITED V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN
LIQUIDATION) And Anor HC AK CIV 2006-404-004391 [22 August 2007]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV 2006-404-004391
IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Act 1993
BETWEEN FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ)
LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED
(IN LIQUIDATION)
First Defendant
AND CASE BOREHAM ASSOCIATES
LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Defendant
Hearing: 21 and 22 May 2007
Appearances: G P Denholm for Applicant
S O McAnally for Plaintiff
W G Manning for the Liquidators
Judgment: 22 August 2007
JUDGMENT OF COOPER J
This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on
22 August 2007 at 11.45 a.m., pursuant to
r 540(4) of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:
Solicitors:
Foy & Halse, PO Box 26 218, Epsom
Keegan Alexander, PO Box 999, Auckland
Christopher Taylor, PO Box 109731, Newmarket, Auckland
Copy to:
G P Denholm, PO Box 5080, Wellesley Street, Auckland
W G Manning, PO Box 5844, Wellesley Street, Auckland
Introduction
[1] On 27 July 2006, the plaintiff, Foundation Securities (NZ) Ltd, filed an
application for an order appointing liquidators of the first and second defendants.
[2] It alleged in its statement of claim that each of the defendants owed debts of
$25,000 pursuant to term loan contracts dated 24 August 2005, and further
substantial sums in respect of GST payable on property transactions between the
parties. It alleged that statutory demands had been served on both defendants on
3 July 2006, but not responded to. Without taking any steps to set aside the statutory
demands, the first and second defendants filed statements of defence on 11 August
2006. The statements of defence admitted that the statutory demands had been
served on them, but denied any indebtedness to the plaintiff.
[3] In a judgment dated 12 February 2007, Doogue AJ held that both defendants
had failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption of insolvency that
arose on their failure to respond to the statutory demands. He held that there were no
discretionary considerations that would justify withholding the orders sought by the
plaintiff. Accordingly, he appointed liquidators under s 241(4) of the Companies
Act 1993.
[4] On 28 February 2007 Robyn Marie Case, who was the sole director of the
second defendant when it was placed in liquidation, made application to the Court
pursuant to s 250 of the Companies Act for an order terminating the second
defendant’s liquidation. This judgment follows the hearing of that application on 28
and 29 May 2007.
[5] The main issues that fall to be decided are, broadly, whether the company is
now solvent, or whether it can be brought to that condition by the injection of funds
which the applicant says are available.
Background
[6] The plaintiff, Foundation Securities (NZ) Ltd, alleged against the defendants
that it was owed by each of them the sum of $25,000 pursuant to term loan contracts
dated 24 August 2005, together with interest pursuant to the agreements.
[7] The agreements arose out of the purchase by the defendants, from the
plaintiffs, of land and units situated at numbers 11 and 13 Clarice Place, Takanini
(purchased by the first defendant) and 20 and 22 Clarice Place (purchased by the
second defendant). The agreements for sale and purchase did not provide for
payment of a deposit. However, the plaintiff alleged that, contemporaneously with
execution of the agreements for sale and purchase, the parties had entered into term
loan agreements. Pursuant to the term loan agreements, each defendant borrowed
the sum of $25,000 from the plaintiff, to be secured against the Clarice Place
properties.
[8] The term loan contracts contained a provision, clause 10, that was in the
following terms:
10. In addition to the Principal Sum, the Borrower acknowledges
liability under this agreement to the Lender for any such Goods and
Services Tax (“GST”) that is determined by the Inland Revenue
Department (“IRD”) to be payable on the sale of the secured
property from the Lender to the Borrower together with all “Default
GST” as defined in the Auckland District Law Society Agreement
for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate Seventh Edition (2) July 1999
form. Any such GST and Default GST paid by the Lender to the
IRD shall form part of the Principal Sum and bear interest
accordingly from the date of payment by the Lender and shall be due
and payable immediately.
The Borrower warrants and undertakes to the Lender that the
Borrower shall not dispose of the secured properties until the GST
returns for both Lender and Borrower have been finalised and
approved by IRD.
[9] Apart from seeking the recovery of the principal amounts of $25,000, the
plaintiff alleged that the further sums of $98,784 and $104,575.43 were owed to it
respectively by the first defendant, and the second defendant, pursuant to clause 10
of each of the term loan agreements. That sum represented GST, including penalties
and interest that had been determined to be payable by the Inland Revenue
Department on the sale of the properties. In an affidavit that he swore for the
purposes of the hearing before Doogue AJ, Mr Holmes, a director of the plaintiff,
explained that each of the agreements for sale and purchase of the Clarice Road
properties (there were four such agreements) had provided for the purchase price to
be plus GST, if any. He continued:
The purpose of clause 10 of both of the term loan contracts was to provide
for the event of the Inland Revenue Department assessing GST as being
payable on the four sales. It was the plaintiff’s wish to charge GST on the
sales but the defendants’ agent (a Shane Wenzel, subsequently found to be a
man of questionable integrity) resisted this. Clause 10 of the term loan
contracts was the compromise reached.
It will be necessary to refer to Mr Wenzel again, later in this judgment.
[10] The statements of defence effectively amounted to bare denials of the alleged
indebtedness of each defendant to the plaintiff. However, in an affidavit that she
swore for the purposes of the hearing before Doogue AJ, Ms Case, the present
applicant, set out the matters that were relied on by the second defendant. In
substance they were first, that the term loan contracts had not been executed by the
defendant and second, that the certificate of title references given for the land at 20
and 22 Clarice Place in the term loan contracts were incorrect. The certificates of
title had been stated to be, respectively, NA 80C/903 and NA 80C/902. Ms Chase
knew that to be wrong: to her knowledge those two certificates of title related to the
properties at 11 and 13 Clarice Place. “Therefore”, she deposed, “the second
defendant denies any monies are owed to the plaintiff”.
[11] An affidavit filed by one Matiu Ranapia, on behalf of the first defendant,
made the same point about the term loan contracts concerning 11 and 13 Clarice
Place: the certificate of title references having been described as NA 80C/900 and
NA 80C/901 respectively for those properties. However, he also made another
allegation, namely that the term loan agreements had never proceeded and asserted
that to his knowledge the first defendant had never borrowed any moneys from the
plaintiff. It is to be noted that Ms Case had not made a similar allegation on behalf
of the second defendant.
[12] In his affidavit of 9 November 2006 Mr Holmes responded to the two
affidavits that had been filed, by Ms Case and Mr Ranapia. He pointed out that the
purchase of the properties by the first and second defendants had in fact proceeded
and he attached certificates of title showing that in each case the relevant transfer had
been completed on 8 August 2005. What had happened had been a misdescription of
the certificates of title in part of the term loan documentation with the result that the
certificates of title for the land at 11 and 13 Clarice Place had been referred to in the
term loan agreements with the second defendant, and the certificates of title for 20
and 22 Clarice Place had been referred to in the term loan agreements between the
plaintiff and the first defendant.
[13] His affidavit also attached copies of the settlement statements which had
passed between solicitors for the parties showing that GST exclusive prices had been
paid, and of the notice that had been received from the Commissioner of Inland
Revenue requiring payment of GST. In response to Ms Case’s allegation concerning
non-execution by the second defendant of the term loan contract, Mr Holmes pointed
out that she had not attached the entire document to her affidavit. He attached a
complete copy to his affidavit from which it appeared that the document consisted of
a mortgage with attached term loan contract. The former apparently bore Ms Case’s
signature, but there was no signature on the attached term loan contract. He recorded
his understanding that, insofar as the amounts of $25,000 claimed against each
defendant were concerned, the “defendants did not pay the entire deposits required, it
having been agreed that $25,000 (in each case) would be secured and paid later in
accordance with the two term loan contracts”.
[14] In his judgment of 12 February 2007, Doogue AJ approached the matter on
the basis that a defendant which fails to apply to set aside a statutory demand on the
ground that the debt is disputed will need to show some exceptional factor to justify
the failure to apply, such factor being likely to reflect the existence of a genuine
dispute. He referred to Balmoral Marketing v Karapiro Spa Ltd HC AK CIV 2005-
404-6396 3 October 2006, Abbott AJ, as authority for that approach. He rejected the
first defendant’s assertion that the money had never been advanced, pointing out that
Mr Ranapia had not stated directly that the first defendant was never indebted to the
plaintiff for the amounts now claimed and noting that the plaintiff’s case was based
on the fact that it had taken a debt in lieu of a deposit. Turning to the point raised
about the misdescription of the titles, he described it as meritless, and one that
should never have been taken. It was obvious that there had been a transposition of
the titles sold to the second defendant with those sold to the first defendant, and vice
versa.
[15] He did note, however, that there was what he described as a “mismatch
between other aspects of the evidence and the plaintiff’s assertion that the term loan
was designed to secure $25,000 by way of part of the deposit.” That was because the
agreements for sale and purchase in fact contained no provision for the payment of
deposits, although the settlement statements in respect of the two properties
purchased by the first defendant had given a credit for $120,000. The Judge did not
discuss this issue in respect of the second defendant, probably because Ms Case had
not made an assertion, such as that made by Mr Ranapia, that the term loan
agreement had not proceeded. The settlement statements attached to the affidavit of
Mr Holmes, however, indicated that the same approach had been taken with a credit
given for $132,000 in respect of deposits on the properties purchased by the second
defendants.
[16] Doogue AJ referred next to the evidence that had been given by a Mr Mercer,
a chartered accountant retained to provide accounting services to both defendants.
The explanation given for failure to act in response to the statutory demands was
simply that those on whom they had been served omitted to hand them to the legal
advisors of the companies in sufficient time to enable an application to be made to
the High Court for the demands to be set aside, under s 290 of the Companies Act.
He considered that the explanation given fell a long way short of establishing that
this was an extraordinary case where the Court should depart from the “normal
approach” so as to permit the defendants to dispute the debts even though they had
taken no steps to set aside the statutory demands. He then asked whether he should
exercise a residual discretion in favour of the companies, but held that the lack of
detail in Mr Mercer’s affidavit could not found any suggestion that the application
was unfair or otherwise an abuse of the Court’s process. He concluded by stating
that he declined to go into the alleged disputes concerning the debt which the
plaintiff claimed against the first defendant and he took the same approach with
respect to the second defendant.
[17] He then addressed the evidence concerning the solvency of the companies,
concluding that neither defendant had proved its solvency on the balance of
probabilities. He made the orders appointing liquidators accordingly. It should be
noted that he did not directly address the issue that the second defendant had raised
about non-signature of the term loan agreement. However, given that Ms Case had
signed the mortgage to which the term loan was attached, I do not regard that as a
significant issue.
[18] The only other matter that I mention by way of background is that the second
defendant was a registered provider of tertiary education services, funded by the
Tertiary Education Commission. It received monthly payments by way of funding
from the Commission. For some years it appears to have functioned without
problems concerning its liquidity. Its base was in Auckland but there were eight
other branches throughout the North Island. The properties that it purchased in
Clarice Place were evidently simply bought for the purposes of investment.
Legal principles
[19] So far as is relevant, s 250 of the Companies Act 1993 provides as follows:
250 Court may terminate liquidation
(1) The Court may, at any time after the appointment of a liquidator of a
company, if it is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so, make an order
terminating the liquidation of the company.
(2) An application under this section may be made by the liquidator, or a
director or shareholder of the company, or any other entitled person, or a
creditor of the company, or the Registrar.
[20] The discretion given by s 250(1) is broad and turns on the Court’s view as to
whether it will be just and equitable to order the termination of the liquidatioin.
Both Mr Manning and Mr McAnally referred me to Re Bell Block Lumber Limited
(1992) 6 NZCLC 67,690 in which Tipping J held that the discretion to order the stay
of a liquidation should not be exercised unless the following three matters had been
established:
a) All creditors had been paid in full or satisfactory provision has been
made for them to be paid in full or they consent to the application.
b) The liquidators’ costs have been fully paid or secured.
c) All shareholders consent or would be no worse off than if the
liquidation had proceeded to its conclusion.
[21] It is to be noted that that decision was made under s 250 of the Companies
Act 1955, which did not contain power to terminate the liquidation of a company.
The latter power was introduced for the first time by s 250 of the Companies Act
1993. I am content to proceed, in the absence of any submission to the contrary, on
the basis that the considerations held to be relevant under s 250 of the 1955 Act will
also be matters about which the Court will wish to be satisfied before it will grant an
order for termination under s 250 of the 1993 Act. However, I think that the Court
should avoid any suggestion that they are an exclusive set of criteria for the exercise
of what is a very broadly expressed power, which the legislature contemplated
should be exercised wherever it is just and equitable to do so. It might not,
invariably, be just and equitable that the liquidator’s costs be paid in full (what if
they were manifestly excessive?) and situations might arise where it could be said
that it should be sufficient if all but a small minority of shareholders agreed. I agree
with the observation of Paterson J in Kiwi Steel NZ Limited v Insulated Building
Systems Limited (In receivership and Liquidation) HC AK M 380/98 18 August
1998 that “the s 250 power should not … be circumscribed by the rules which
applied to permanent stays under the previous statutory provisions.”
[22] As Winkelmann J observed in an interlocutory judgment delivered at an
earlier stage of the present proceeding, while proof of the three matters identified by
Tipping J might be necessary pre-conditions to the termination of a liquidation, the
Court will not be constrained to a consideration of those matters only, in determining
whether or not it is just and equitable to terminate a liquidation. The Court will also
have regard to the public interest, and be concerned to protect the interests of the
present creditors of the company, as well as the interests of those parties who would,
in future, have dealings with it if the liquidation were terminated. (see Foundation
Securities (NZ) Ltd v Direct Labour Services Ltd (In Liquidation) and Case Boreham
Associates Ltd (In Liquidation) HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391, 19 March 2007) at [19-
20]. Winkelmann J quoted the observations of Buckley J in Re Telescriptor
Syndicate Limited [1903] 2 Ch 174, 180:
Where application is made in bankruptcy to rescind a receiving order or to
annul an adjudication, the Court refuses to act upon the mere assent of the
creditors in the matter, and considers not only whether what is proposed is
for the benefit of the creditors, but also whether it is conducive or
detrimental to commercial morality and to the interests of the public at large.
The mere consent of the creditors is but an element in the case. In re Hester
(1989) 22 Q.B.D 632, at 641 some trenchant observations of Fry LJ will be
found on the idle notion that the Court is bound by the consents of the
creditors. The Court has to exercise a discretion. It is bound to regard not
merely the interest of the creditors. It has a duty with regard to the
commercial morality of the country [sic]: …I am here asked to exercise an
analogous jurisdiction, and I may say that it is in my opinion desirable that
so far as possible the Court should not assume a different attitude or act upon
a different principle in the winding up of a company and in the bankruptcy
of an individual.
[23] Both Mr Manning and Mr McAnally submitted that these cases accurately
stated the law, and I did not understand Mr Denholm to submit to the contrary. In
one respect, Mr McAnally adopted a different stance to that of Mr Manning and
Mr Denholm. He contended that it is not possible, on an application such as this, for
the Court to enquire into the reasons held to have justified the original order placing
a company into liquidation. Mr Denholm maintained, to the contrary, that in
considering whether or not it is just and equitable to make an order terminating the
liquidation it is open to the Court to consider the reasons given for placing the
company in liquidation. If that consideration showed, for example, that the Court
had been wrong to conclude that the company was insolvent, or that it had had a
valid defence to the debts claimed against it, it should be open to the Court to take
that into account under the “just and equitable” test.
[24] For his part Mr Manning submitted that the discretion given by s 250 is wide
and should not be read down. However, he argued that it should not be sufficient for
an applicant merely to assert some error or problem affecting the decision to place a
company in liquidation. Rather, the applicant would need to adduce cogent evidence
in support of that assertion. He submitted also, by analogy to the approach taken in
cases where it is sought to set aside a judgment, that it will be appropriate for the
Court to consider the ability of the company to give security for the judgment
creditors and the materiality of the judgment debt in the context of the company’s
overall insolvency.
[25] Mr McAnally did not refer me to any authority for his proposition, and I am
not able to accept it. As I have already said, a broadly expressed statutory power
exercisable where it is just and equitable to do so should not in principle be read
down. However, the questions arising under s 250 are not exactly the same as those
needing to be considered on an application for an order appointing liquidators, and
the enquiry is potentially more wide-ranging under the former. Even if it appeared,
on the consideration of an application under s 250, that the order placing the
company in liquidation may have been tainted by some error, that would not
necessarily be decisive. The other issues outlined earlier would still need to be
considered. That might result in a decision to decline the application, if the Court
was not able to conclude, in the circumstances as they then existed, that it would not
be just and equitable to terminate the liquidation.
[26] In the present case, it is not necessary to prolong the discussion of these
matters because the resolution of the application follows in a quite straightforward
way from the direct application of the relevant considerations under s 250,
principally the question of whether the company is solvent or could be made to be by
the injection of funds that the applicant claims are available for that purpose. Before
turning to consider those issues, I mention again that the Court must be satisfied that
it is just and equitable before it can make an order terminating the liquidation under
s 250. The applicant for the order must, I think, have the burden of satisfying the
Court as to the existence of facts that would justify that conclusion. Here, the
liquidators sought leave to cross-examine the second defendant’s deponents, and
leave to do so was granted by Winkelman J in her judgment of 19 March. However,
there was no corresponding application by the second defendant in respect of the
affidavits on which the liquidators and the plaintiff relied.
The second defendant’s insolvency
[27] Ms Case relied on the evidence of an accountant, Mr Mawdsley, and her own
evidence, to assert that the second defendant is solvent. Mr Mawdsley swore two
affidavits, on 27 February and 23 March 2007. In the first, he deposed to having
prepared, on the instructions of Ms Case, a balance sheet for the second defendant
(“the company”) as at 31 December 2006. The balance sheet had been based on a
trial balance that had been prepared by Mr Mercer, who, as already mentioned, had
previously provided professional accounting services to the company. Subsequently,
Mr Mawdsley prepared a revised balance sheet, which he said was based on
information that he had obtained from a report prepared by the liquidators. The first
balance sheet showed total assets of $2,121,848 and total liabilities of $1,781,126,
giving a net asset position of $340,721. The revised balance sheet showed a net
asset position of $197,995.
[28] Mr Mawdsley was cross-examined by Mr Manning, and confirmed that the
exercise that he had carried out had been one simply involving the compilation and
arrangement of information that had been provided to him by Ms Case and
Mr Wenzel. His evidence was that:
They requested me to prepare a balance sheet and asked me to offer my
opinion as to whether they were solvent, I wasn’t instructed to make sure
that they were solvent.
[29] Consistently with that approach, when he forwarded the accounts to
Ms Chase under cover of a letter dated 12 February, Mr Mawdsley wrote:
12 February 2007
The Director
Case Boreham Associates Limited
15 Oakleigh Avenue
Takanini
Auckland
Dear Robin
Solvency of Case Boreham Associates Limited
After my review of the attached Statement of Financial Position (Pages 1 & 2),
which formed part of the Management Accounts for the year ending 31 December
2006, I am satisfied that the assets exceed the liabilities at that date. Please note that
I have not verified these balances and have placed reliance on the balances as
presented to me.
Therefore, providing that you are satisfied with substance of the accounts, I see no
reason why you as sole director cannot sign the Director’s Solvency certificate as
required by Section 108 of the Companies Act 1993.
Yours Faithfully
Butch Mawdsley
RES Business Development Ltd
The Director
[30] Further, in a statement of disclaimer that also accompanied the accounts,
Mr Mawdsley stated, over his firm’s name:
We have compiled the Special Purpose financial statements of CASE
BOREHAM ASSOCIATES LIMITED for the year ended 31 December
2006.
This compilation is limited primarily to the collection, classification and
summarisation of financial information supplied by CASE BOREHAM
ASSOCIATES LIMITED and does not involve the verification of that
information. We have not performed an audit or review on the financial
statements and therefore neither we nor any of our employees accept any
responsibility for the accuracy of the material from which the financial
statements have been prepared.
Further, the statements have been prepared at the request of and for the
purpose of CASE BOREHAM ASSOCIATES LIMITED and neither we nor
any of our employees accept any responsibility on any ground whatsoever,
including liability in negligence, to any other person.
[31] It is somewhat surprising that Mr Mawdsley was willing to prepare what he
termed “Special Accounts” on this basis, knowing (because he had been told by Ms
Case) that they were intended to be used “for a judgment”, as he conceded to
Mr Manning. He explained further, however, that he had not been sure that the
reference to a judgment had been in the context of court proceedings. For the
purposes of the exercise that he carried out Mr Mawdsley had been given a trial
balance for the period 1 January to 31 December 2006 completed by Mr Mercer, but
he conceded to Mr Manning that he had no access to the company’s primary
accounting records, had been very dependent on the accuracy of the information
given to him and had taken no steps to verify it.
[32] The liquidators were critical of the inclusion in the accounts of two credit
card balances as assets. The sums involved were a balance of $54,370.26 on an
Amex credit card, and $32,463.89 on a Visa credit card. Mr Mawdsley explained
that he had said to Ms Case that he had been a little concerned about some of the
assets and that further work would have to be done to verify some of the balances
because they were “clearly of a questionable nature”. Ms Case had responded in
relation to the two credit card balances that she doubted that there were amounts of
money in the credit cards “to that extent”. Apart from that, he had not asked to see
the relevant credit account statements. In his affidavit of 27 February, Mr Mawdsley
accepted that those amounts should be removed as current assets.
[33] However, Mr Mawdsley’s revised balance sheet was also subjected to
extensive criticism by the liquidators. Mr Mawdsley had included as assets the sums
of $316,027.04, lent to SCI Finance Limited, $35,400 lent to the CBA Family Trust
and $4,200 lent to two other companies (collectively referred to by Mr Mawdsley as
the “inter-company loans”). In the revised balance sheet, the debts owed by SCI
Finance Ltd and CBA Family Trust were listed with other items under a heading
“Effective Shareholder Equity”. In an affidavit sworn on 8 March 2007,
Mr Horrocks, a chartered accountant employed by the liquidators’ firm as a forensic
accountant, deposed that it was a misrepresentation to treat the loans in that manner:
the debtors had not exchanged debt for equity, and the debts did not represent
subrogated liabilities. Consequently, the proper approach was to show the items as
current assets debts due. However, he attached a copy of a bank statement for SCI
Finance Ltd, showing that as at 7 January 2007 it was overdrawn in the sum of
$74.91. Further, he stated that, after inquiry, the liquidators were of the view that
neither SCI Finance Ltd nor the CBA Family Trust had assets or any other means of
satisfying their indebtedness to the company. He stated that the liquidators
considered the amounts to be uncollectible, and that they should not be treated as
current assets. Mr Horrocks was not cross-examined.
[34] In his second affidavit, sworn on 23 March, Mr Mawdsley simply stated (at
paragraph 5.9) that the debit balance of $355,627.04 should in fact be shown as a
current asset in accordance with “generally accepted accounting practice.” In
relation to Mr Horrocks’ evidence about the likely inability to recover those debts, he
asserted that Mr Horrocks had confirmed that the liquidators had not been able to
determine whether SCI Finance or CBA Family Trust had any assets. He then said
that, since the liquidators had not been able to verify the details, any opinion on the
matter was “purely conjecture.” This was, of course, to misstate Mr Horrocks’,
evidence, which I have summarised above. Mr Mawdsley accepted under crossexamination
that he himself had made no inquiry about the ability of SCI Finance or,
the CBA Family Trust to repay their debts. The liquidators, by contrast, reached
their position after making appropriate inquiry.
[35] Among the steps that had been taken was the sending of letters demanding
payment of the “inter-company loans”. The letters, dated 19 April 2007, were sent
to the registered office of the companies, in both cases 15 Oakleigh Avenue,
Takanini, and also to Ms Case personally. On 23 April 2007 she sent an e-mail to
Mr Wood which read:
Dear Mr Wood,
Can you please provide evidence as the following amounts:
Rongotai Holdings $3,000.00
CBA Family Trust $35,400.00
SCI Finance $316,027.04
APD $1,200.00
Kind regards,
Robyn Case
[36] Then, on 27 April 2007 she sent a further e-mail to Mr Wood, headed “Re:
Case Boreham and Associates Ltd (In Liquidation) Inter-Company debtors”. The email
stated:
Please be advised I am comprising [sic] a reply in relation to these entities
on Monday.
[37] However, nothing further was received, and no payment was made by the
debtors.
[38] In all the circumstances, I consider on the balance of probabilities that the
inter-company loans are unlikely to be recoverable and should not be treated as
assets for the purpose of assessing the second defendant’s solvency.
[39] Mr Mawdsley had also included as assets of the company an amount of
$82,800.61 referable to an anticipated GST refund. However, in cross-examination
Mr Manning put to him a letter dated 27 March 2007 from the Department of Inland
Revenue, in which it was indicated that rather than there being a refund of GST
owing, GST of over $9,900 was likely to be owed. The letter had, of course, been
received by the liquidator after Mr Mawdsley had prepared his accounts, but Mr
Mawdsley properly conceded, in view of the letter, that the prudent accounting
treatment of the GST refund would have been to delete it, and substitute the
indebtedness mentioned in the IRD’s letter.
[40] The liquidators were also critical of Mr Mawdsley’s inclusion of the sum of
$76,472.33 as a current asset, representing “accounts receivable”. In his affidavit of
8 March 2007, Mr Horrocks recorded advice that he had received from Mr Mercer
that the debtor’s figure of $76,472.33 represented invoices issued by the company to
former staff for training services at or after the time they left the company’s employ.
It was Mr Horrocks’ assessment that there was no realistic prospect of the amount
being paid, and that they should be written off accordingly. Once again, I note that
Mr Horrocks was not cross-examined.
[41] Mr Mawdsley, in his affidavit of 27 February 2007, suggested that the
invoices would indeed be paid based on a review of “subsequent receipts as per
Westpac bank account”. However, Mr Horrocks gave evidence that the “subsequent
receipts” were in fact sums received from the Tertiary Education Commission, in
respect of which funding invoices were never raised. Consequently, the receipts
upon which Mr Mawdsley relied, bore no logical relationship to the sum of
$76,472.33 claimed to represent accounts receivable. I have no reason to doubt
Mr Horrocks’ evidence to that effect. Again, on the balance of probabilities, I
conclude that it is most unlikely that the items shown in Mr Mawdsley’s balance
sheet for “accounts receivable” are unlikely to be recovered.
[42] Putting these various criticisms together, Mr Manning submitted that
Mr Mawdsley’s special purpose balance sheet had overstated the current assets of the
company by at least $500,000. That submission was justified on the facts that I have
found. Given that, under the revised balance sheet, the company was shown as
having a net asset position of $197,995, an overstatement of current assets by
$500,000 so as to produce that net position would clearly indicate that as at
31 December 2006, the company was insolvent. There is no suggestion that its
position had materially improved by 12 February 2007, when Doogue AJ placed the
company in liquidation. Moreover, there are other criticisms that can justly be made
of Mr Mawdsley’s special purpose balance sheet.
[43] Mr Mawdsley assigned a value of $57,076.18 for fax machines and
photocopiers located in schools. Mr Horrocks in his affidavit of 8 March 2007
expressed the view that those machines would have little or no realisable value in a
“sell down situation”. Whether or not that view is correct, there appears to have
been no depreciation allowed in respect of those items, nor in respect of another sum,
of $47,549, for plant and equipment.
[44] Further, and significantly, there was no mention in the accounts prepared by
Mr Mawdsley of the debts owing to the plaintiff. In fact, Mr Wood attached to his
fifth affidavit a schedule of creditors’ claims in three parts. The first concerned
claims which prima facie appeared to be payable. Those claims totalled
$1,272,332.75. In a second category, claims which were provisionally accepted, but
on which further information was being sought from the claimant, were items
totalling $1,013,218.26.
[45] In her fourth and fifth affidavits, sworn on 16 April and 25 May 2007
respectively, Ms Case disputed many of the debts which in the opinion of the
liquidator, are prima facie payable. It is I think, for present purposes, unnecessary to
resolve the dispute, in view of the conclusions that I have already set out above. It is
relevant to mention again in this context, however, that Mr Wood was not crossexamined,
while Ms Case, who was cross-examined, did not acquit herself with
distinction in the witness box. For reasons that I will address shortly, I did not
regard her as a credible witness.
[46] Finally, I note that as at 9 May 2007, the liquidators’ costs and legal expenses
stood at $144,373. It is alleged by Ms Case that the fees are excessive. However,
even if they were substantially less than they are, it is plain that the company would
not be able to pay anything towards them. These further considerations simply
underline the conclusion already reached that the company is insolvent. In terms of
the relevant considerations under s 250 of the Act, summarised earlier, I am not in a
position to decide that all creditors have been paid in full or that satisfactory
provision has been made for them to be paid in full. Plainly, it also cannot be said
that all creditors consent to the application (both the plaintiff, and another creditor,
Ascent Business Directions Ltd, are opposed to it) and neither have the liquidator’s
costs been fully paid or secured.
[47] That being the case, an order under s 250 could not properly be made, unless
there were a substantial injection of new capital into the company. A proposal for
such a recapitalisation was in fact advanced by the applicant, and I now turn to
discuss it.
Recapitalisation
[48] In the written submissions that he handed up at the hearing, Mr Denholm
addressed the proposed injection of capital into the company under a heading
“Capital Fund”. He submitted:
23. It is confirmed that the Applicant has arranged moneys from private
sources in the sum of $244,000 and $108,000 respectively
($352,000.00) to be provided to the Liquidators.
24. It is submitted the capital sum accumulated by the Applicant
together with the balance of monies in the company’s account at the
date of liquidation plus the moneys available from the sale of the
Clarice Place units will be more than sufficient to repay all creditors
and secure payment of the Liquidators’ costs so an Order
Terminating Liquidation of the Second Defendant may be made by
the Court.
[49] I record that a similar proposal was mentioned when the present application
was before the Court on 30 March 2007. Courtney J was due to hear the application
on that day. However, at the commencement of the hearing, she had been advised
that Ms Case had, that morning, tendered a bank cheque to the liquidators in the sum
of $108,000, and provided a notice requiring a creditors’ meeting for the purpose of
appointing new liquidators. In addition, attached to Mr Denholm’s submissions on
that day was a letter from solicitors acting for a trust confirming that, following the
settlement of certain property transactions, it was anticipated that there would be a
further $244,000 available. Mr Denholm advised Courtney J that Ms Case intended
to apply that money towards the liquidators’ costs and the debts of the company.
[50] Courtney J regarded these events as significant developments from the
company’s view and Mr Manning then expressed concern about proceeding with the
application on that day. For those reasons, and because she thought that the matter
might not be able to be dealt with in any event within the one day that had been set
aside for the purpose, Courtney J adjourned the matter for further hearing in a twoday
fixture commencing on a date to be fixed.
[51] She recorded what had transpired in a minute that she issued on that day. At
[3] of her minute she said:
These are significant developments from the company’s point of view and
Mr Manning expressed concern about proceeding with the application today.
First, there is no evidence on which the liquidators could be certain that the
money referred to in the solicitor’s letter would in fact be made available to
the company. Secondly, it is very unclear as to the manner in which the
funds would be made available. Mr Manning points out that, unless the
money is made available by way of a recapitalisation of the company, then
the solvency of the company will still be in issue because the advances
would simply constitute further debt.
[52] In the written submissions that he handed to Courtney J on that day,
Mr Denholm wrote:
Capital Fund
20. It is confirmed that the Applicant is arranging moneys from private
sources in the sum of $240,000.00 and $118,000.00 respectively
($362,000.00) to be provided to the Liquidators. Annexed as
Schedule 2 is a copy of a letter from GD Conveyancing Shop
confirming the availability of net funds in the sum of $244,000 to be
disbursed at the direction of the Robins Family Trust.
[53] The letter that was annexed to his submission, evidently from lawyers trading
as the “Conveyancing Shop”, confirmed that they were acting for the trustees of the
Robins Family Trust, that they were obtaining a mortgage over properties comprised
in three titles at Ngatea, that the mortgage would be for advances in the sum of
$319,585 (less costs and disbursements), that a mortgage over one of the properties
at Ngatea in the sum of $60,000 would be discharged but that the other two
properties were unencumbered. It was said that upon settlement of the various
transactions referred to in the letter there would be approximately $244,000 to
disburse from the settlement proceeds at the direction of the Robins Family Trust.
[54] As I have already noted, Ms Case was called for cross-examination at the
hearing on 21 May, and Mr Denholm took the opportunity of asking her some
questions about the funds that were now proposed be provided to the company.
First, she referred to an amount of $108,000 currently held in the trust account of
Foy and Hulse, Mr Denholm’s instructing solicitors. I infer from Mr Woods’ fifth
affidavit that the cheque in that amount to which Courtney J referred was not in fact
tendered unconditionally, and not banked, the money remaining in the applicant’s
solicitors’ trust account. Ms Case said that the balance of $244,000 was “held in a
bank account to which I have direct access”. The moneys were “cleared funds”, and
they could be drawn down within a day if she so desired. Further, the funds would
simply be paid to the company, and would not be secured by way of mortgage or any
other kind of charge. On the other hand, there was a qualification: she was not
prepared to pay the moneys into the company whilst it was in the hands of the
current liquidators. She explained:
I would foresee those funds would be paid by me to the company on the
company being taken out of liquidation by this Court or if the Court saw fit
to transfer this liquidation to another liquidator or if the Court saw fit to have
an independent accounting review take place. And in the event that the
funds given would show that the company would be solvent as a result of
those funds.
[55] Ms Case was then cross-examined by Mr Manning. To Mr Manning, she
said that the sum of $352,000 had already been gifted to her. The gift had come
from friends and family members who supported her in the present application.
When asked who had donated the sum of $108,000, she said simply that it had been
a family member, and she declined to say who. The gift was not the subject of a
Deed of Gift, or documented in any way. However, she had a trust account receipt
for that sum.
[56] As to the $244,000 her evidence in cross-examination was that it had come
from a range of sources. As to $100,000 it was an inheritance from her father’s
estate. She said that that money was held in a bank account that she had “access to”
and it was at either the Westpac Bank in Tauranga or Whakatane. However, the
account was not in her name. Rather, it was in the name of the ICU Trust.
Mr Manning asked her whether it was the trust that had been the beneficiary under
her father’s will, but she said that that was not the case. Mr Manning then asked
whether the moneys had been distributed by the executors of her father’s estate and
she replied in the affirmative. They had paid it to her, and she had paid it into the
bank account of the ICU Trust.
[57] She could not recall who the trustees of the ICU trust were, nor whether she
was one of the trustees. Mr Manning pressed her as to the date on which the ICU
Trust had been established, but she said she did not know. Mr Manning asked her
next whether she was a discretionary beneficiary of the trust and again she said that
she did not know. He asked her whether Mr Wenzel was a beneficiary of the trust
and again she said she did know. In summary, it was her evidence that the $100,000
was held in a bank account in the name of the ICU Trust, she did not know who the
trustees were, or who had appointed the trust, or who the beneficiaries of the trust
were. However, she had “signing rights” on the bank account. Pressed on that point,
she said that she had given herself the signing authority on the account. Next,
Mr Manning asked her whether the balance of $144,000 was also held in the same
bank account and she confirmed that it was. Then Mr Manning reminded her that
after she had said in her fourth affidavit (sworn on 16 April 2007) deposing to the
existence of the capital sum of $352,000, Mr Manning had written to Mr Denholm
requesting provision of the information that had been the subject of his questions in
cross-examination.
[58] The substantive part of Mr Manning’s letter, dated 18 April 2007, read as
follows:
The proceeding was adjourned on 30 March to allow your client to explain
precisely the source of the funds, the manner in which they would be made
available to the company, and to provide certainty that that would in fact
occur. (Refer para 3 of Courtney J’s minute of 30 March). Far from doing
that, your client’s affidavit simply asserts the existence of a “capital fund” of
$352,000 “in cleared funds to be deposited in a solicitor’s trust account …
over which [your client] has jurisdiction”. It fails to provide any
documentary evidence as to the existence of the fund, or as to the certainty
of its availability to the company for the purposes of recapitalisation.
Further, it fails to provide any detail whatsoever as to the source or sources
of the fund.
In order that the Liquidators may assess the proposal (and respond to your
client’s affidavit), would you please provide those details by faxed return. In
doing so, please advise whether and to what extent the capital fund is
derived from the financing arrangements described in the letter from Thada
Inglin dated 30 March 2007, which you tendered to the Court on that day.
[59] The reference to Thada Inglin was to the author of the Conveyancing Shop
letter. Mr Denholm replied on 23 April 2007, essentially referring to paragraphs 2
and 3 of Ms Chase’s fourth affidavit and indicating that she was reluctant to provide
any further particulars because of “interference which occurred with the source of
funds she raised via the Robins Family Trust”. His reference was to inquiries that
the liquidator had caused to be made independently of a Mr Nigel Robins, who had
established the Robins Family Trust. The Robins Family Trust had been identified
by Ms Case as a source of funding for the second defendant early in March 2007, but
enquiries made of Mr Robins established that Mr Robins had been unaware that the
funds were to be used for the recapitalisation of the second defendant.
[60] Other questions asked by Mr Manning procured confirmation by Ms Case
that the money would be paid simply by way of gift to the company, although she
had made no inquiry as to the gift duty that might be payable. Mr Manning also
questioned her about the letter, dated 30 March 2007 that Mr Denholm had placed
before Courtney J. In response to his questions, she adopted the stance that although
the letter stated that $244,000 would be available at the conclusion of the
conveyancing transactions referred to in the letter to disburse “at the direction of the
Robins Family Trust”, it did not actually state that that money would be paid to Case
Boreham Associates Ltd and that, at the time the letter had been written, the Robins
Family Trust had not made any decision about the use of the funds. Pressed about
the basis upon which the letter had been put before the Court, Ms Case essentially
fenced and would not give Mr Manning’s questions a direct answer.
[61] Ms Case’s cross-examination had not been completed by the end of the first
day of the hearing, and it was due to re-commence the following morning. In the
meantime, following a discussion between counsel and me, it was agreed that
Ms Case would endeavour to obtain a bank statement showing the deposit of the
funds into which the $244,000 had been paid and also a copy of the ICU Trust
document.
[62] What happened when the Court resumed on 29 May 2007 is best recounted if
I reproduce a copy of the record that I caused to be made in the notes of evidence:
THE COURT.-
This morning’s hearing commenced with Ms Case who is currently being
cross-examined by Mr Manning, asking me a number of questions, focussing
on counsels’ right to ask her questions not related to documents submitted in
affidavit evidence. I responded by indicating that counsel was able to crossexamine
on any relevant matter whether or not it concerned a document that
was in evidence. I then explained to her that her role was to answer
questions and not to question either counsel or me. At that stage, a
gentleman by the name of Wenzel rose to his feet to assert that a document
had been illegally placed before the Court. I pointed out that he had no right
to address the Court at that point and asked him to desist. I also referred to
the fact that yesterday he had been the source of a number of comments,
which although indistinct were nevertheless audible from the back of the
Court and if he wished to remain he would need to do so in silence. On his
appearing to wish to continue to debate matters I adjourned, requiring the
Registrar to summons the police so that Mr Wenzel could be removed from
the Court. I have now returned to the Court at 10.29 a.m. and I have dictated
this record in the presence of counsel and the parties.
[63] When able to resume his cross-examination, Mr Manning asked Ms Case for
a copy of the relevant bank statement, but she indicated that she had not had time to
obtain it. She then confirmed that she had a copy of the trust deed for the ICU Trust
but she declined to show it to Mr Manning. She then advised me of her belief that
Mr Manning had a copy of “an ICU Trust that has been illegally obtained and that is
not a copy of the Trust that I have access to the bank account upon”.
[64] Mr Manning explained that his questions concerned the ICU Trust into whose
account the moneys had been paid. She confirmed that she had the relevant trust
deed with her, but again declined to show it to Mr Manning. I then ordered her to
produce it at which stage she sought an adjournment. I inquired of her as to the basis
upon which she had sought an adjournment and she said that it was because
Mr Manning had produced an “illegal document”. I explained to her that no
document had been produced by Mr Manning and that there was no proper basis
upon which the hearing could be adjourned. I required her to produce the document
that Mr Manning had asked her to produce. She declined again to do so.
[65] At that point, I discussed the position further with counsel. Although
Ms Case was under cross-examination, I considered it important that she be able to
receive legal advice as to her position. Somewhat reluctantly, Mr Manning agreed
and I adjourned so that Ms Case could confer with Mr Denholm about the
implications of her refusal to produce the document.
[66] After the adjournment, Mr Manning asked Ms Case whether Mr Wenzel had
been present during her discussions with Mr Denholm and she confirmed that he had
been. He again asked her to produce the deed of trust to the Court and she declined.
I then asked for submissions as to what should occur. Having heard counsel I made
the following ruling:
THE COURT.-
The previous adjournment was afforded to enable Ms Case to take advice
from counsel, Mr Denholm, notwithstanding that she was under crossexamination
at the time. That process having taken place over about 20
minutes, the hearing has resumed and continued to this point where
Mr Manning has again asked the witness to produce a document which the
witness admits to having in her possession.
Mr Manning maintains that her continued refusal to produce that document
in accordance with her request is a contempt of Court. Mr Denholm has
questioned the relevance of the document, saying that all the Court should be
interested in is as to whether or not the funds are available. The context of
this argument is that it is part of the applicant’s case that there is a sum of
$352,000 available to recapitalise the second defendant. It is sought to
terminate the liquidation of that company on the basis that the sum able to be
made available in that amount would be more than sufficient to meet any
valid debts of the company.
The trust document, which Mr Manning has sought to have produced
concerns an ICU trust into whose bank account has been paid the sum of
$244,000. That is, a substantial part of the $352,000 on which the applicant
relies. Whether or not that money could be used for the purpose of
recapitalising the company must depend upon the terms of the deed of trust
covering, as they undoubtedly will, the permitted objects on which trust
moneys may be expended.
Mr Denholm concedes that the availability of the money is a relevant issue.
Whether or not the money is available as the witness asserts must depend
upon the terms of the trust deed which Mr Manning seeks to have produced.
I do not see in the circumstances how it can credibly be argued that the
document is not relevant. Indeed, it was because of that view that some 40
minutes ago I think, I initially ordered the witness to produce it. She has
declined to do so.
I now formally hold her in contempt of Court.
[67] As a consequence of Ms Case’s refusal to produce the trust deed,
Mr Manning was effectively left unable to inquire into whether expenditure of the
funds by effectively making a gift to the second defendant company would have
been in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. Given Ms Case’s stance that the
money would not be made available until after the liquidation was terminated, her
lack of candour concerning the terms of the trust was untenable. The Court could
not be confident, in the circumstances, that the money would indeed be made
available.
[68] The other source of funds that had been mentioned by Mr Denholm was the
proceeds of the sale of the units at 20 and 22 Clarice Place. Mr Denholm did not
descend into any detail in respect of this aspect of his argument, other than to assert
that after the sale of the properties there would be a net profit of $270,000. I have
not been able to ascertain where the figure of $270,000 comes from. In her fourth
affidavit, sworn on 16 April 2007, Ms Case deposed that the properties had a current
“Government Valuation Assessment” of $360,000, in each case, giving a total of
$720,000. She said that the valuations demonstrated that there was a net value, after
deduction of the mortgage sum, of $194,968.82. That would give a total
indebtedness on the properties of $260,000. Mr Wood attached to his fifth affidavit
a letter from the mortgagee, Australian Mortgage Securities (NZ) Ltd, in which it
was stated that the principal owing and secured against the properties was $517,000,
with interest and fees taking the amount required to settle at 26 April 2007 (the date
of the letter) to $526,419.90. That would give a figure for the second defendant’s
equity in the property close to that given by Ms Case in her affidavit. However,
there are a number of problems with treating that as an achievable outcome at the
present time.
[69] First, the properties have been developed by the erection in each case of two
units and the subdivision necessary to place the units on separate titles has not been
completed. Fees and levies due to the Papakura District Council, so that process can
be completed, will exceed $26,000. Moreover, there are outstanding agreements for
sale and purchase of the properties from the second defendant to SCI Finance Ltd
and/or nominee in which the two existing titles are to be sold, in each case for the
sum of $265,000. The total proceeds of that sale, $530,000, would be barely enough
to cover the indebtedness under the mortgages. SCI Finance is owned by a company
called Business Advisory Trust Services Ltd. That company in turn is owned by
ICU Trustees Ltd. Ms Case declined to answer questions directed as to whether or
not she had been a trustee of the ICU Trust in 2006 when the directors of ICU
Trustees Ltd had been appointed. She asserted that she was unable to respond,
because Mr Manning had been asking her questions on the basis of an unlawfully
obtained document. In effect, it was another wilful refusal on her part to be candid
with the Court.
[70] Be that as it may, I could not be satisfied on the basis of the evidence that
there would be a significant amount of capital available to the second defendant from
any sale of properties at Clarice Place. I observe also that it is surprising that, having
purchased the properties from the plaintiff in 2005 under contracts which provided
for a purchase price of $330,000 plus GST, in each case, the properties should be the
subject of agreements for sale and purchase entered into on a rising market for
$265,000, in each case. Evidently, however, Ms Case as the second defendant’s sole
director decided that that should occur.
[71] In his closing address Mr Denholm indicated with respect to the “fund” of
$352,000, upon which reliance had previously been placed, that the applicant no
longer suggested that the money would be made available to the company by way of
gift. This was a remarkable volte-face in the applicant’s argument. It was left
unclear as to how the money could be provided to the company, without simply
increasing its indebtedness.
Conclusion
[72] I have earlier set out my conclusion that the company was insolvent, when
Doogue AJ appointed the liquidators. On the basis of the evidence I have discussed
above, it remains insolvent, with no prospect of there being any injection of funds so
as to improve its position.
[73] In the circumstances, I have concluded that it would be neither just nor
equitable to make an order terminating the liquidation of the company, and the
application must fail.
[74] It is unnecessary for me to deal with various other issues which were raised
by Mr Manning, including his argument that it would be undesirable in the public
interest for the application to be granted, based on the extent to which, on the
evidence, Mr Wenzel (an undischarged bankrupt facing various charges brought
against him by the Official Assignee and by the Serious Fraud Office) had been
involved in the affairs of the company and might be again if the application were
granted. Further, I do not need to resolve his public interest argument based on
Ms Case’s conduct as a director of the second defendant, and on her allowing (as I
am satisfied she did) inaccurate accounting material to be placed before the Court for
the purposes of the present application.
[75] Nor do I need to take into account (and I have not done so in reaching the
conclusions set out above) the advice that has been tendered by Mr Manning, in a
memorandum dated 26 June 2007, that on 31 May 2007 the Deputy Registrar for
Companies had made an order pursuant to s 385(3) of the Companies Act prohibiting
Ms Case from being a director or promoter of a company, or being concerned in or
taking part, whether directly or indirectly, in the management of a company, for a
period of three years and ten months commencing 1 June 2007.
[76] The application is dismissed. The plaintiff and the liquidators are entitled to
their costs on the application. If costs cannot be agreed, counsel seeking costs may
file memoranda within 15 working days of the delivery of this judgment. The
applicant may respond within 10 working days of receipt of those memoranda.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 am
Facinating Guys
Been researching. You need to contact the list below to finish this scumbag off. Seems lots of government departments hav an interest in him too. His passport has been confiscated. A sure sign to start with that he has a serious problem that the Corrections Department will no doubt be assisting him with
Take you information to the relevant organisation below
Imigration
WINZ
REINZ
CYF
Police
SFO
McDonald Vague
Herald On Sunday
FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ) LIMITED V DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED (IN
LIQUIDATION) And Anor HC AK CIV 2006-404-004391 [22 August 2007]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV 2006-404-004391
IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Act 1993
BETWEEN FOUNDATION SECURITIES (NZ)
LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND DIRECT LABOUR SERVICES LIMITED
(IN LIQUIDATION)
First Defendant
AND CASE BOREHAM ASSOCIATES
LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Defendant
Hearing: 21 and 22 May 2007
Appearances: G P Denholm for Applicant
S O McAnally for Plaintiff
W G Manning for the Liquidators
Judgment: 22 August 2007
JUDGMENT OF COOPER J
This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on
22 August 2007 at 11.45 a.m., pursuant to
r 540(4) of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:
Solicitors:
Foy & Halse, PO Box 26 218, Epsom
Keegan Alexander, PO Box 999, Auckland
Christopher Taylor, PO Box 109731, Newmarket, Auckland
Copy to:
G P Denholm, PO Box 5080, Wellesley Street, Auckland
W G Manning, PO Box 5844, Wellesley Street, Auckland
Introduction
[1] On 27 July 2006, the plaintiff, Foundation Securities (NZ) Ltd, filed an
application for an order appointing liquidators of the first and second defendants.
[2] It alleged in its statement of claim that each of the defendants owed debts of
$25,000 pursuant to term loan contracts dated 24 August 2005, and further
substantial sums in respect of GST payable on property transactions between the
parties. It alleged that statutory demands had been served on both defendants on
3 July 2006, but not responded to. Without taking any steps to set aside the statutory
demands, the first and second defendants filed statements of defence on 11 August
2006. The statements of defence admitted that the statutory demands had been
served on them, but denied any indebtedness to the plaintiff.
[3] In a judgment dated 12 February 2007, Doogue AJ held that both defendants
had failed to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption of insolvency that
arose on their failure to respond to the statutory demands. He held that there were no
discretionary considerations that would justify withholding the orders sought by the
plaintiff. Accordingly, he appointed liquidators under s 241(4) of the Companies
Act 1993.
[4] On 28 February 2007 Robyn Marie Case, who was the sole director of the
second defendant when it was placed in liquidation, made application to the Court
pursuant to s 250 of the Companies Act for an order terminating the second
defendant’s liquidation. This judgment follows the hearing of that application on 28
and 29 May 2007.
[5] The main issues that fall to be decided are, broadly, whether the company is
now solvent, or whether it can be brought to that condition by the injection of funds
which the applicant says are available.
Background
[6] The plaintiff, Foundation Securities (NZ) Ltd, alleged against the defendants
that it was owed by each of them the sum of $25,000 pursuant to term loan contracts
dated 24 August 2005, together with interest pursuant to the agreements.
[7] The agreements arose out of the purchase by the defendants, from the
plaintiffs, of land and units situated at numbers 11 and 13 Clarice Place, Takanini
(purchased by the first defendant) and 20 and 22 Clarice Place (purchased by the
second defendant). The agreements for sale and purchase did not provide for
payment of a deposit. However, the plaintiff alleged that, contemporaneously with
execution of the agreements for sale and purchase, the parties had entered into term
loan agreements. Pursuant to the term loan agreements, each defendant borrowed
the sum of $25,000 from the plaintiff, to be secured against the Clarice Place
properties.
[8] The term loan contracts contained a provision, clause 10, that was in the
following terms:
10. In addition to the Principal Sum, the Borrower acknowledges
liability under this agreement to the Lender for any such Goods and
Services Tax (“GST”) that is determined by the Inland Revenue
Department (“IRD”) to be payable on the sale of the secured
property from the Lender to the Borrower together with all “Default
GST” as defined in the Auckland District Law Society Agreement
for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate Seventh Edition (2) July 1999
form. Any such GST and Default GST paid by the Lender to the
IRD shall form part of the Principal Sum and bear interest
accordingly from the date of payment by the Lender and shall be due
and payable immediately.
The Borrower warrants and undertakes to the Lender that the
Borrower shall not dispose of the secured properties until the GST
returns for both Lender and Borrower have been finalised and
approved by IRD.
[9] Apart from seeking the recovery of the principal amounts of $25,000, the
plaintiff alleged that the further sums of $98,784 and $104,575.43 were owed to it
respectively by the first defendant, and the second defendant, pursuant to clause 10
of each of the term loan agreements. That sum represented GST, including penalties
and interest that had been determined to be payable by the Inland Revenue
Department on the sale of the properties. In an affidavit that he swore for the
purposes of the hearing before Doogue AJ, Mr Holmes, a director of the plaintiff,
explained that each of the agreements for sale and purchase of the Clarice Road
properties (there were four such agreements) had provided for the purchase price to
be plus GST, if any. He continued:
The purpose of clause 10 of both of the term loan contracts was to provide
for the event of the Inland Revenue Department assessing GST as being
payable on the four sales. It was the plaintiff’s wish to charge GST on the
sales but the defendants’ agent (a Shane Wenzel, subsequently found to be a
man of questionable integrity) resisted this. Clause 10 of the term loan
contracts was the compromise reached.
It will be necessary to refer to Mr Wenzel again, later in this judgment.
[10] The statements of defence effectively amounted to bare denials of the alleged
indebtedness of each defendant to the plaintiff. However, in an affidavit that she
swore for the purposes of the hearing before Doogue AJ, Ms Case, the present
applicant, set out the matters that were relied on by the second defendant. In
substance they were first, that the term loan contracts had not been executed by the
defendant and second, that the certificate of title references given for the land at 20
and 22 Clarice Place in the term loan contracts were incorrect. The certificates of
title had been stated to be, respectively, NA 80C/903 and NA 80C/902. Ms Chase
knew that to be wrong: to her knowledge those two certificates of title related to the
properties at 11 and 13 Clarice Place. “Therefore”, she deposed, “the second
defendant denies any monies are owed to the plaintiff”.
[11] An affidavit filed by one Matiu Ranapia, on behalf of the first defendant,
made the same point about the term loan contracts concerning 11 and 13 Clarice
Place: the certificate of title references having been described as NA 80C/900 and
NA 80C/901 respectively for those properties. However, he also made another
allegation, namely that the term loan agreements had never proceeded and asserted
that to his knowledge the first defendant had never borrowed any moneys from the
plaintiff. It is to be noted that Ms Case had not made a similar allegation on behalf
of the second defendant.
[12] In his affidavit of 9 November 2006 Mr Holmes responded to the two
affidavits that had been filed, by Ms Case and Mr Ranapia. He pointed out that the
purchase of the properties by the first and second defendants had in fact proceeded
and he attached certificates of title showing that in each case the relevant transfer had
been completed on 8 August 2005. What had happened had been a misdescription of
the certificates of title in part of the term loan documentation with the result that the
certificates of title for the land at 11 and 13 Clarice Place had been referred to in the
term loan agreements with the second defendant, and the certificates of title for 20
and 22 Clarice Place had been referred to in the term loan agreements between the
plaintiff and the first defendant.
[13] His affidavit also attached copies of the settlement statements which had
passed between solicitors for the parties showing that GST exclusive prices had been
paid, and of the notice that had been received from the Commissioner of Inland
Revenue requiring payment of GST. In response to Ms Case’s allegation concerning
non-execution by the second defendant of the term loan contract, Mr Holmes pointed
out that she had not attached the entire document to her affidavit. He attached a
complete copy to his affidavit from which it appeared that the document consisted of
a mortgage with attached term loan contract. The former apparently bore Ms Case’s
signature, but there was no signature on the attached term loan contract. He recorded
his understanding that, insofar as the amounts of $25,000 claimed against each
defendant were concerned, the “defendants did not pay the entire deposits required, it
having been agreed that $25,000 (in each case) would be secured and paid later in
accordance with the two term loan contracts”.
[14] In his judgment of 12 February 2007, Doogue AJ approached the matter on
the basis that a defendant which fails to apply to set aside a statutory demand on the
ground that the debt is disputed will need to show some exceptional factor to justify
the failure to apply, such factor being likely to reflect the existence of a genuine
dispute. He referred to Balmoral Marketing v Karapiro Spa Ltd HC AK CIV 2005-
404-6396 3 October 2006, Abbott AJ, as authority for that approach. He rejected the
first defendant’s assertion that the money had never been advanced, pointing out that
Mr Ranapia had not stated directly that the first defendant was never indebted to the
plaintiff for the amounts now claimed and noting that the plaintiff’s case was based
on the fact that it had taken a debt in lieu of a deposit. Turning to the point raised
about the misdescription of the titles, he described it as meritless, and one that
should never have been taken. It was obvious that there had been a transposition of
the titles sold to the second defendant with those sold to the first defendant, and vice
versa.
[15] He did note, however, that there was what he described as a “mismatch
between other aspects of the evidence and the plaintiff’s assertion that the term loan
was designed to secure $25,000 by way of part of the deposit.” That was because the
agreements for sale and purchase in fact contained no provision for the payment of
deposits, although the settlement statements in respect of the two properties
purchased by the first defendant had given a credit for $120,000. The Judge did not
discuss this issue in respect of the second defendant, probably because Ms Case had
not made an assertion, such as that made by Mr Ranapia, that the term loan
agreement had not proceeded. The settlement statements attached to the affidavit of
Mr Holmes, however, indicated that the same approach had been taken with a credit
given for $132,000 in respect of deposits on the properties purchased by the second
defendants.
[16] Doogue AJ referred next to the evidence that had been given by a Mr Mercer,
a chartered accountant retained to provide accounting services to both defendants.
The explanation given for failure to act in response to the statutory demands was
simply that those on whom they had been served omitted to hand them to the legal
advisors of the companies in sufficient time to enable an application to be made to
the High Court for the demands to be set aside, under s 290 of the Companies Act.
He considered that the explanation given fell a long way short of establishing that
this was an extraordinary case where the Court should depart from the “normal
approach” so as to permit the defendants to dispute the debts even though they had
taken no steps to set aside the statutory demands. He then asked whether he should
exercise a residual discretion in favour of the companies, but held that the lack of
detail in Mr Mercer’s affidavit could not found any suggestion that the application
was unfair or otherwise an abuse of the Court’s process. He concluded by stating
that he declined to go into the alleged disputes concerning the debt which the
plaintiff claimed against the first defendant and he took the same approach with
respect to the second defendant.
[17] He then addressed the evidence concerning the solvency of the companies,
concluding that neither defendant had proved its solvency on the balance of
probabilities. He made the orders appointing liquidators accordingly. It should be
noted that he did not directly address the issue that the second defendant had raised
about non-signature of the term loan agreement. However, given that Ms Case had
signed the mortgage to which the term loan was attached, I do not regard that as a
significant issue.
[18] The only other matter that I mention by way of background is that the second
defendant was a registered provider of tertiary education services, funded by the
Tertiary Education Commission. It received monthly payments by way of funding
from the Commission. For some years it appears to have functioned without
problems concerning its liquidity. Its base was in Auckland but there were eight
other branches throughout the North Island. The properties that it purchased in
Clarice Place were evidently simply bought for the purposes of investment.
Legal principles
[19] So far as is relevant, s 250 of the Companies Act 1993 provides as follows:
250 Court may terminate liquidation
(1) The Court may, at any time after the appointment of a liquidator of a
company, if it is satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so, make an order
terminating the liquidation of the company.
(2) An application under this section may be made by the liquidator, or a
director or shareholder of the company, or any other entitled person, or a
creditor of the company, or the Registrar.
[20] The discretion given by s 250(1) is broad and turns on the Court’s view as to
whether it will be just and equitable to order the termination of the liquidatioin.
Both Mr Manning and Mr McAnally referred me to Re Bell Block Lumber Limited
(1992) 6 NZCLC 67,690 in which Tipping J held that the discretion to order the stay
of a liquidation should not be exercised unless the following three matters had been
established:
a) All creditors had been paid in full or satisfactory provision has been
made for them to be paid in full or they consent to the application.
b) The liquidators’ costs have been fully paid or secured.
c) All shareholders consent or would be no worse off than if the
liquidation had proceeded to its conclusion.
[21] It is to be noted that that decision was made under s 250 of the Companies
Act 1955, which did not contain power to terminate the liquidation of a company.
The latter power was introduced for the first time by s 250 of the Companies Act
1993. I am content to proceed, in the absence of any submission to the contrary, on
the basis that the considerations held to be relevant under s 250 of the 1955 Act will
also be matters about which the Court will wish to be satisfied before it will grant an
order for termination under s 250 of the 1993 Act. However, I think that the Court
should avoid any suggestion that they are an exclusive set of criteria for the exercise
of what is a very broadly expressed power, which the legislature contemplated
should be exercised wherever it is just and equitable to do so. It might not,
invariably, be just and equitable that the liquidator’s costs be paid in full (what if
they were manifestly excessive?) and situations might arise where it could be said
that it should be sufficient if all but a small minority of shareholders agreed. I agree
with the observation of Paterson J in Kiwi Steel NZ Limited v Insulated Building
Systems Limited (In receivership and Liquidation) HC AK M 380/98 18 August
1998 that “the s 250 power should not … be circumscribed by the rules which
applied to permanent stays under the previous statutory provisions.”
[22] As Winkelmann J observed in an interlocutory judgment delivered at an
earlier stage of the present proceeding, while proof of the three matters identified by
Tipping J might be necessary pre-conditions to the termination of a liquidation, the
Court will not be constrained to a consideration of those matters only, in determining
whether or not it is just and equitable to terminate a liquidation. The Court will also
have regard to the public interest, and be concerned to protect the interests of the
present creditors of the company, as well as the interests of those parties who would,
in future, have dealings with it if the liquidation were terminated. (see Foundation
Securities (NZ) Ltd v Direct Labour Services Ltd (In Liquidation) and Case Boreham
Associates Ltd (In Liquidation) HC AK CIV 2006-404-4391, 19 March 2007) at [19-
20]. Winkelmann J quoted the observations of Buckley J in Re Telescriptor
Syndicate Limited [1903] 2 Ch 174, 180:
Where application is made in bankruptcy to rescind a receiving order or to
annul an adjudication, the Court refuses to act upon the mere assent of the
creditors in the matter, and considers not only whether what is proposed is
for the benefit of the creditors, but also whether it is conducive or
detrimental to commercial morality and to the interests of the public at large.
The mere consent of the creditors is but an element in the case. In re Hester
(1989) 22 Q.B.D 632, at 641 some trenchant observations of Fry LJ will be
found on the idle notion that the Court is bound by the consents of the
creditors. The Court has to exercise a discretion. It is bound to regard not
merely the interest of the creditors. It has a duty with regard to the
commercial morality of the country [sic]: …I am here asked to exercise an
analogous jurisdiction, and I may say that it is in my opinion desirable that
so far as possible the Court should not assume a different attitude or act upon
a different principle in the winding up of a company and in the bankruptcy
of an individual.
[23] Both Mr Manning and Mr McAnally submitted that these cases accurately
stated the law, and I did not understand Mr Denholm to submit to the contrary. In
one respect, Mr McAnally adopted a different stance to that of Mr Manning and
Mr Denholm. He contended that it is not possible, on an application such as this, for
the Court to enquire into the reasons held to have justified the original order placing
a company into liquidation. Mr Denholm maintained, to the contrary, that in
considering whether or not it is just and equitable to make an order terminating the
liquidation it is open to the Court to consider the reasons given for placing the
company in liquidation. If that consideration showed, for example, that the Court
had been wrong to conclude that the company was insolvent, or that it had had a
valid defence to the debts claimed against it, it should be open to the Court to take
that into account under the “just and equitable” test.
[24] For his part Mr Manning submitted that the discretion given by s 250 is wide
and should not be read down. However, he argued that it should not be sufficient for
an applicant merely to assert some error or problem affecting the decision to place a
company in liquidation. Rather, the applicant would need to adduce cogent evidence
in support of that assertion. He submitted also, by analogy to the approach taken in
cases where it is sought to set aside a judgment, that it will be appropriate for the
Court to consider the ability of the company to give security for the judgment
creditors and the materiality of the judgment debt in the context of the company’s
overall insolvency.
[25] Mr McAnally did not refer me to any authority for his proposition, and I am
not able to accept it. As I have already said, a broadly expressed statutory power
exercisable where it is just and equitable to do so should not in principle be read
down. However, the questions arising under s 250 are not exactly the same as those
needing to be considered on an application for an order appointing liquidators, and
the enquiry is potentially more wide-ranging under the former. Even if it appeared,
on the consideration of an application under s 250, that the order placing the
company in liquidation may have been tainted by some error, that would not
necessarily be decisive. The other issues outlined earlier would still need to be
considered. That might result in a decision to decline the application, if the Court
was not able to conclude, in the circumstances as they then existed, that it would not
be just and equitable to terminate the liquidation.
[26] In the present case, it is not necessary to prolong the discussion of these
matters because the resolution of the application follows in a quite straightforward
way from the direct application of the relevant considerations under s 250,
principally the question of whether the company is solvent or could be made to be by
the injection of funds that the applicant claims are available for that purpose. Before
turning to consider those issues, I mention again that the Court must be satisfied that
it is just and equitable before it can make an order terminating the liquidation under
s 250. The applicant for the order must, I think, have the burden of satisfying the
Court as to the existence of facts that would justify that conclusion. Here, the
liquidators sought leave to cross-examine the second defendant’s deponents, and
leave to do so was granted by Winkelman J in her judgment of 19 March. However,
there was no corresponding application by the second defendant in respect of the
affidavits on which the liquidators and the plaintiff relied.
The second defendant’s insolvency
[27] Ms Case relied on the evidence of an accountant, Mr Mawdsley, and her own
evidence, to assert that the second defendant is solvent. Mr Mawdsley swore two
affidavits, on 27 February and 23 March 2007. In the first, he deposed to having
prepared, on the instructions of Ms Case, a balance sheet for the second defendant
(“the company”) as at 31 December 2006. The balance sheet had been based on a
trial balance that had been prepared by Mr Mercer, who, as already mentioned, had
previously provided professional accounting services to the company. Subsequently,
Mr Mawdsley prepared a revised balance sheet, which he said was based on
information that he had obtained from a report prepared by the liquidators. The first
balance sheet showed total assets of $2,121,848 and total liabilities of $1,781,126,
giving a net asset position of $340,721. The revised balance sheet showed a net
asset position of $197,995.
[28] Mr Mawdsley was cross-examined by Mr Manning, and confirmed that the
exercise that he had carried out had been one simply involving the compilation and
arrangement of information that had been provided to him by Ms Case and
Mr Wenzel. His evidence was that:
They requested me to prepare a balance sheet and asked me to offer my
opinion as to whether they were solvent, I wasn’t instructed to make sure
that they were solvent.
[29] Consistently with that approach, when he forwarded the accounts to
Ms Chase under cover of a letter dated 12 February, Mr Mawdsley wrote:
12 February 2007
The Director
Case Boreham Associates Limited
15 Oakleigh Avenue
Takanini
Auckland
Dear Robin
Solvency of Case Boreham Associates Limited
After my review of the attached Statement of Financial Position (Pages 1 & 2),
which formed part of the Management Accounts for the year ending 31 December
2006, I am satisfied that the assets exceed the liabilities at that date. Please note that
I have not verified these balances and have placed reliance on the balances as
presented to me.
Therefore, providing that you are satisfied with substance of the accounts, I see no
reason why you as sole director cannot sign the Director’s Solvency certificate as
required by Section 108 of the Companies Act 1993.
Yours Faithfully
Butch Mawdsley
RES Business Development Ltd
The Director
[30] Further, in a statement of disclaimer that also accompanied the accounts,
Mr Mawdsley stated, over his firm’s name:
We have compiled the Special Purpose financial statements of CASE
BOREHAM ASSOCIATES LIMITED for the year ended 31 December
2006.
This compilation is limited primarily to the collection, classification and
summarisation of financial information supplied by CASE BOREHAM
ASSOCIATES LIMITED and does not involve the verification of that
information. We have not performed an audit or review on the financial
statements and therefore neither we nor any of our employees accept any
responsibility for the accuracy of the material from which the financial
statements have been prepared.
Further, the statements have been prepared at the request of and for the
purpose of CASE BOREHAM ASSOCIATES LIMITED and neither we nor
any of our employees accept any responsibility on any ground whatsoever,
including liability in negligence, to any other person.
[31] It is somewhat surprising that Mr Mawdsley was willing to prepare what he
termed “Special Accounts” on this basis, knowing (because he had been told by Ms
Case) that they were intended to be used “for a judgment”, as he conceded to
Mr Manning. He explained further, however, that he had not been sure that the
reference to a judgment had been in the context of court proceedings. For the
purposes of the exercise that he carried out Mr Mawdsley had been given a trial
balance for the period 1 January to 31 December 2006 completed by Mr Mercer, but
he conceded to Mr Manning that he had no access to the company’s primary
accounting records, had been very dependent on the accuracy of the information
given to him and had taken no steps to verify it.
[32] The liquidators were critical of the inclusion in the accounts of two credit
card balances as assets. The sums involved were a balance of $54,370.26 on an
Amex credit card, and $32,463.89 on a Visa credit card. Mr Mawdsley explained
that he had said to Ms Case that he had been a little concerned about some of the
assets and that further work would have to be done to verify some of the balances
because they were “clearly of a questionable nature”. Ms Case had responded in
relation to the two credit card balances that she doubted that there were amounts of
money in the credit cards “to that extent”. Apart from that, he had not asked to see
the relevant credit account statements. In his affidavit of 27 February, Mr Mawdsley
accepted that those amounts should be removed as current assets.
[33] However, Mr Mawdsley’s revised balance sheet was also subjected to
extensive criticism by the liquidators. Mr Mawdsley had included as assets the sums
of $316,027.04, lent to SCI Finance Limited, $35,400 lent to the CBA Family Trust
and $4,200 lent to two other companies (collectively referred to by Mr Mawdsley as
the “inter-company loans”). In the revised balance sheet, the debts owed by SCI
Finance Ltd and CBA Family Trust were listed with other items under a heading
“Effective Shareholder Equity”. In an affidavit sworn on 8 March 2007,
Mr Horrocks, a chartered accountant employed by the liquidators’ firm as a forensic
accountant, deposed that it was a misrepresentation to treat the loans in that manner:
the debtors had not exchanged debt for equity, and the debts did not represent
subrogated liabilities. Consequently, the proper approach was to show the items as
current assets debts due. However, he attached a copy of a bank statement for SCI
Finance Ltd, showing that as at 7 January 2007 it was overdrawn in the sum of
$74.91. Further, he stated that, after inquiry, the liquidators were of the view that
neither SCI Finance Ltd nor the CBA Family Trust had assets or any other means of
satisfying their indebtedness to the company. He stated that the liquidators
considered the amounts to be uncollectible, and that they should not be treated as
current assets. Mr Horrocks was not cross-examined.
[34] In his second affidavit, sworn on 23 March, Mr Mawdsley simply stated (at
paragraph 5.9) that the debit balance of $355,627.04 should in fact be shown as a
current asset in accordance with “generally accepted accounting practice.” In
relation to Mr Horrocks’ evidence about the likely inability to recover those debts, he
asserted that Mr Horrocks had confirmed that the liquidators had not been able to
determine whether SCI Finance or CBA Family Trust had any assets. He then said
that, since the liquidators had not been able to verify the details, any opinion on the
matter was “purely conjecture.” This was, of course, to misstate Mr Horrocks’,
evidence, which I have summarised above. Mr Mawdsley accepted under crossexamination
that he himself had made no inquiry about the ability of SCI Finance or,
the CBA Family Trust to repay their debts. The liquidators, by contrast, reached
their position after making appropriate inquiry.
[35] Among the steps that had been taken was the sending of letters demanding
payment of the “inter-company loans”. The letters, dated 19 April 2007, were sent
to the registered office of the companies, in both cases 15 Oakleigh Avenue,
Takanini, and also to Ms Case personally. On 23 April 2007 she sent an e-mail to
Mr Wood which read:
Dear Mr Wood,
Can you please provide evidence as the following amounts:
Rongotai Holdings $3,000.00
CBA Family Trust $35,400.00
SCI Finance $316,027.04
APD $1,200.00
Kind regards,
Robyn Case
[36] Then, on 27 April 2007 she sent a further e-mail to Mr Wood, headed “Re:
Case Boreham and Associates Ltd (In Liquidation) Inter-Company debtors”. The email
stated:
Please be advised I am comprising [sic] a reply in relation to these entities
on Monday.
[37] However, nothing further was received, and no payment was made by the
debtors.
[38] In all the circumstances, I consider on the balance of probabilities that the
inter-company loans are unlikely to be recoverable and should not be treated as
assets for the purpose of assessing the second defendant’s solvency.
[39] Mr Mawdsley had also included as assets of the company an amount of
$82,800.61 referable to an anticipated GST refund. However, in cross-examination
Mr Manning put to him a letter dated 27 March 2007 from the Department of Inland
Revenue, in which it was indicated that rather than there being a refund of GST
owing, GST of over $9,900 was likely to be owed. The letter had, of course, been
received by the liquidator after Mr Mawdsley had prepared his accounts, but Mr
Mawdsley properly conceded, in view of the letter, that the prudent accounting
treatment of the GST refund would have been to delete it, and substitute the
indebtedness mentioned in the IRD’s letter.
[40] The liquidators were also critical of Mr Mawdsley’s inclusion of the sum of
$76,472.33 as a current asset, representing “accounts receivable”. In his affidavit of
8 March 2007, Mr Horrocks recorded advice that he had received from Mr Mercer
that the debtor’s figure of $76,472.33 represented invoices issued by the company to
former staff for training services at or after the time they left the company’s employ.
It was Mr Horrocks’ assessment that there was no realistic prospect of the amount
being paid, and that they should be written off accordingly. Once again, I note that
Mr Horrocks was not cross-examined.
[41] Mr Mawdsley, in his affidavit of 27 February 2007, suggested that the
invoices would indeed be paid based on a review of “subsequent receipts as per
Westpac bank account”. However, Mr Horrocks gave evidence that the “subsequent
receipts” were in fact sums received from the Tertiary Education Commission, in
respect of which funding invoices were never raised. Consequently, the receipts
upon which Mr Mawdsley relied, bore no logical relationship to the sum of
$76,472.33 claimed to represent accounts receivable. I have no reason to doubt
Mr Horrocks’ evidence to that effect. Again, on the balance of probabilities, I
conclude that it is most unlikely that the items shown in Mr Mawdsley’s balance
sheet for “accounts receivable” are unlikely to be recovered.
[42] Putting these various criticisms together, Mr Manning submitted that
Mr Mawdsley’s special purpose balance sheet had overstated the current assets of the
company by at least $500,000. That submission was justified on the facts that I have
found. Given that, under the revised balance sheet, the company was shown as
having a net asset position of $197,995, an overstatement of current assets by
$500,000 so as to produce that net position would clearly indicate that as at
31 December 2006, the company was insolvent. There is no suggestion that its
position had materially improved by 12 February 2007, when Doogue AJ placed the
company in liquidation. Moreover, there are other criticisms that can justly be made
of Mr Mawdsley’s special purpose balance sheet.
[43] Mr Mawdsley assigned a value of $57,076.18 for fax machines and
photocopiers located in schools. Mr Horrocks in his affidavit of 8 March 2007
expressed the view that those machines would have little or no realisable value in a
“sell down situation”. Whether or not that view is correct, there appears to have
been no depreciation allowed in respect of those items, nor in respect of another sum,
of $47,549, for plant and equipment.
[44] Further, and significantly, there was no mention in the accounts prepared by
Mr Mawdsley of the debts owing to the plaintiff. In fact, Mr Wood attached to his
fifth affidavit a schedule of creditors’ claims in three parts. The first concerned
claims which prima facie appeared to be payable. Those claims totalled
$1,272,332.75. In a second category, claims which were provisionally accepted, but
on which further information was being sought from the claimant, were items
totalling $1,013,218.26.
[45] In her fourth and fifth affidavits, sworn on 16 April and 25 May 2007
respectively, Ms Case disputed many of the debts which in the opinion of the
liquidator, are prima facie payable. It is I think, for present purposes, unnecessary to
resolve the dispute, in view of the conclusions that I have already set out above. It is
relevant to mention again in this context, however, that Mr Wood was not crossexamined,
while Ms Case, who was cross-examined, did not acquit herself with
distinction in the witness box. For reasons that I will address shortly, I did not
regard her as a credible witness.
[46] Finally, I note that as at 9 May 2007, the liquidators’ costs and legal expenses
stood at $144,373. It is alleged by Ms Case that the fees are excessive. However,
even if they were substantially less than they are, it is plain that the company would
not be able to pay anything towards them. These further considerations simply
underline the conclusion already reached that the company is insolvent. In terms of
the relevant considerations under s 250 of the Act, summarised earlier, I am not in a
position to decide that all creditors have been paid in full or that satisfactory
provision has been made for them to be paid in full. Plainly, it also cannot be said
that all creditors consent to the application (both the plaintiff, and another creditor,
Ascent Business Directions Ltd, are opposed to it) and neither have the liquidator’s
costs been fully paid or secured.
[47] That being the case, an order under s 250 could not properly be made, unless
there were a substantial injection of new capital into the company. A proposal for
such a recapitalisation was in fact advanced by the applicant, and I now turn to
discuss it.
Recapitalisation
[48] In the written submissions that he handed up at the hearing, Mr Denholm
addressed the proposed injection of capital into the company under a heading
“Capital Fund”. He submitted:
23. It is confirmed that the Applicant has arranged moneys from private
sources in the sum of $244,000 and $108,000 respectively
($352,000.00) to be provided to the Liquidators.
24. It is submitted the capital sum accumulated by the Applicant
together with the balance of monies in the company’s account at the
date of liquidation plus the moneys available from the sale of the
Clarice Place units will be more than sufficient to repay all creditors
and secure payment of the Liquidators’ costs so an Order
Terminating Liquidation of the Second Defendant may be made by
the Court.
[49] I record that a similar proposal was mentioned when the present application
was before the Court on 30 March 2007. Courtney J was due to hear the application
on that day. However, at the commencement of the hearing, she had been advised
that Ms Case had, that morning, tendered a bank cheque to the liquidators in the sum
of $108,000, and provided a notice requiring a creditors’ meeting for the purpose of
appointing new liquidators. In addition, attached to Mr Denholm’s submissions on
that day was a letter from solicitors acting for a trust confirming that, following the
settlement of certain property transactions, it was anticipated that there would be a
further $244,000 available. Mr Denholm advised Courtney J that Ms Case intended
to apply that money towards the liquidators’ costs and the debts of the company.
[50] Courtney J regarded these events as significant developments from the
company’s view and Mr Manning then expressed concern about proceeding with the
application on that day. For those reasons, and because she thought that the matter
might not be able to be dealt with in any event within the one day that had been set
aside for the purpose, Courtney J adjourned the matter for further hearing in a twoday
fixture commencing on a date to be fixed.
[51] She recorded what had transpired in a minute that she issued on that day. At
[3] of her minute she said:
These are significant developments from the company’s point of view and
Mr Manning expressed concern about proceeding with the application today.
First, there is no evidence on which the liquidators could be certain that the
money referred to in the solicitor’s letter would in fact be made available to
the company. Secondly, it is very unclear as to the manner in which the
funds would be made available. Mr Manning points out that, unless the
money is made available by way of a recapitalisation of the company, then
the solvency of the company will still be in issue because the advances
would simply constitute further debt.
[52] In the written submissions that he handed to Courtney J on that day,
Mr Denholm wrote:
Capital Fund
20. It is confirmed that the Applicant is arranging moneys from private
sources in the sum of $240,000.00 and $118,000.00 respectively
($362,000.00) to be provided to the Liquidators. Annexed as
Schedule 2 is a copy of a letter from GD Conveyancing Shop
confirming the availability of net funds in the sum of $244,000 to be
disbursed at the direction of the Robins Family Trust.
[53] The letter that was annexed to his submission, evidently from lawyers trading
as the “Conveyancing Shop”, confirmed that they were acting for the trustees of the
Robins Family Trust, that they were obtaining a mortgage over properties comprised
in three titles at Ngatea, that the mortgage would be for advances in the sum of
$319,585 (less costs and disbursements), that a mortgage over one of the properties
at Ngatea in the sum of $60,000 would be discharged but that the other two
properties were unencumbered. It was said that upon settlement of the various
transactions referred to in the letter there would be approximately $244,000 to
disburse from the settlement proceeds at the direction of the Robins Family Trust.
[54] As I have already noted, Ms Case was called for cross-examination at the
hearing on 21 May, and Mr Denholm took the opportunity of asking her some
questions about the funds that were now proposed be provided to the company.
First, she referred to an amount of $108,000 currently held in the trust account of
Foy and Hulse, Mr Denholm’s instructing solicitors. I infer from Mr Woods’ fifth
affidavit that the cheque in that amount to which Courtney J referred was not in fact
tendered unconditionally, and not banked, the money remaining in the applicant’s
solicitors’ trust account. Ms Case said that the balance of $244,000 was “held in a
bank account to which I have direct access”. The moneys were “cleared funds”, and
they could be drawn down within a day if she so desired. Further, the funds would
simply be paid to the company, and would not be secured by way of mortgage or any
other kind of charge. On the other hand, there was a qualification: she was not
prepared to pay the moneys into the company whilst it was in the hands of the
current liquidators. She explained:
I would foresee those funds would be paid by me to the company on the
company being taken out of liquidation by this Court or if the Court saw fit
to transfer this liquidation to another liquidator or if the Court saw fit to have
an independent accounting review take place. And in the event that the
funds given would show that the company would be solvent as a result of
those funds.
[55] Ms Case was then cross-examined by Mr Manning. To Mr Manning, she
said that the sum of $352,000 had already been gifted to her. The gift had come
from friends and family members who supported her in the present application.
When asked who had donated the sum of $108,000, she said simply that it had been
a family member, and she declined to say who. The gift was not the subject of a
Deed of Gift, or documented in any way. However, she had a trust account receipt
for that sum.
[56] As to the $244,000 her evidence in cross-examination was that it had come
from a range of sources. As to $100,000 it was an inheritance from her father’s
estate. She said that that money was held in a bank account that she had “access to”
and it was at either the Westpac Bank in Tauranga or Whakatane. However, the
account was not in her name. Rather, it was in the name of the ICU Trust.
Mr Manning asked her whether it was the trust that had been the beneficiary under
her father’s will, but she said that that was not the case. Mr Manning then asked
whether the moneys had been distributed by the executors of her father’s estate and
she replied in the affirmative. They had paid it to her, and she had paid it into the
bank account of the ICU Trust.
[57] She could not recall who the trustees of the ICU trust were, nor whether she
was one of the trustees. Mr Manning pressed her as to the date on which the ICU
Trust had been established, but she said she did not know. Mr Manning asked her
next whether she was a discretionary beneficiary of the trust and again she said that
she did not know. He asked her whether Mr Wenzel was a beneficiary of the trust
and again she said she did know. In summary, it was her evidence that the $100,000
was held in a bank account in the name of the ICU Trust, she did not know who the
trustees were, or who had appointed the trust, or who the beneficiaries of the trust
were. However, she had “signing rights” on the bank account. Pressed on that point,
she said that she had given herself the signing authority on the account. Next,
Mr Manning asked her whether the balance of $144,000 was also held in the same
bank account and she confirmed that it was. Then Mr Manning reminded her that
after she had said in her fourth affidavit (sworn on 16 April 2007) deposing to the
existence of the capital sum of $352,000, Mr Manning had written to Mr Denholm
requesting provision of the information that had been the subject of his questions in
cross-examination.
[58] The substantive part of Mr Manning’s letter, dated 18 April 2007, read as
follows:
The proceeding was adjourned on 30 March to allow your client to explain
precisely the source of the funds, the manner in which they would be made
available to the company, and to provide certainty that that would in fact
occur. (Refer para 3 of Courtney J’s minute of 30 March). Far from doing
that, your client’s affidavit simply asserts the existence of a “capital fund” of
$352,000 “in cleared funds to be deposited in a solicitor’s trust account …
over which [your client] has jurisdiction”. It fails to provide any
documentary evidence as to the existence of the fund, or as to the certainty
of its availability to the company for the purposes of recapitalisation.
Further, it fails to provide any detail whatsoever as to the source or sources
of the fund.
In order that the Liquidators may assess the proposal (and respond to your
client’s affidavit), would you please provide those details by faxed return. In
doing so, please advise whether and to what extent the capital fund is
derived from the financing arrangements described in the letter from Thada
Inglin dated 30 March 2007, which you tendered to the Court on that day.
[59] The reference to Thada Inglin was to the author of the Conveyancing Shop
letter. Mr Denholm replied on 23 April 2007, essentially referring to paragraphs 2
and 3 of Ms Chase’s fourth affidavit and indicating that she was reluctant to provide
any further particulars because of “interference which occurred with the source of
funds she raised via the Robins Family Trust”. His reference was to inquiries that
the liquidator had caused to be made independently of a Mr Nigel Robins, who had
established the Robins Family Trust. The Robins Family Trust had been identified
by Ms Case as a source of funding for the second defendant early in March 2007, but
enquiries made of Mr Robins established that Mr Robins had been unaware that the
funds were to be used for the recapitalisation of the second defendant.
[60] Other questions asked by Mr Manning procured confirmation by Ms Case
that the money would be paid simply by way of gift to the company, although she
had made no inquiry as to the gift duty that might be payable. Mr Manning also
questioned her about the letter, dated 30 March 2007 that Mr Denholm had placed
before Courtney J. In response to his questions, she adopted the stance that although
the letter stated that $244,000 would be available at the conclusion of the
conveyancing transactions referred to in the letter to disburse “at the direction of the
Robins Family Trust”, it did not actually state that that money would be paid to Case
Boreham Associates Ltd and that, at the time the letter had been written, the Robins
Family Trust had not made any decision about the use of the funds. Pressed about
the basis upon which the letter had been put before the Court, Ms Case essentially
fenced and would not give Mr Manning’s questions a direct answer.
[61] Ms Case’s cross-examination had not been completed by the end of the first
day of the hearing, and it was due to re-commence the following morning. In the
meantime, following a discussion between counsel and me, it was agreed that
Ms Case would endeavour to obtain a bank statement showing the deposit of the
funds into which the $244,000 had been paid and also a copy of the ICU Trust
document.
[62] What happened when the Court resumed on 29 May 2007 is best recounted if
I reproduce a copy of the record that I caused to be made in the notes of evidence:
THE COURT.-
This morning’s hearing commenced with Ms Case who is currently being
cross-examined by Mr Manning, asking me a number of questions, focussing
on counsels’ right to ask her questions not related to documents submitted in
affidavit evidence. I responded by indicating that counsel was able to crossexamine
on any relevant matter whether or not it concerned a document that
was in evidence. I then explained to her that her role was to answer
questions and not to question either counsel or me. At that stage, a
gentleman by the name of Wenzel rose to his feet to assert that a document
had been illegally placed before the Court. I pointed out that he had no right
to address the Court at that point and asked him to desist. I also referred to
the fact that yesterday he had been the source of a number of comments,
which although indistinct were nevertheless audible from the back of the
Court and if he wished to remain he would need to do so in silence. On his
appearing to wish to continue to debate matters I adjourned, requiring the
Registrar to summons the police so that Mr Wenzel could be removed from
the Court. I have now returned to the Court at 10.29 a.m. and I have dictated
this record in the presence of counsel and the parties.
[63] When able to resume his cross-examination, Mr Manning asked Ms Case for
a copy of the relevant bank statement, but she indicated that she had not had time to
obtain it. She then confirmed that she had a copy of the trust deed for the ICU Trust
but she declined to show it to Mr Manning. She then advised me of her belief that
Mr Manning had a copy of “an ICU Trust that has been illegally obtained and that is
not a copy of the Trust that I have access to the bank account upon”.
[64] Mr Manning explained that his questions concerned the ICU Trust into whose
account the moneys had been paid. She confirmed that she had the relevant trust
deed with her, but again declined to show it to Mr Manning. I then ordered her to
produce it at which stage she sought an adjournment. I inquired of her as to the basis
upon which she had sought an adjournment and she said that it was because
Mr Manning had produced an “illegal document”. I explained to her that no
document had been produced by Mr Manning and that there was no proper basis
upon which the hearing could be adjourned. I required her to produce the document
that Mr Manning had asked her to produce. She declined again to do so.
[65] At that point, I discussed the position further with counsel. Although
Ms Case was under cross-examination, I considered it important that she be able to
receive legal advice as to her position. Somewhat reluctantly, Mr Manning agreed
and I adjourned so that Ms Case could confer with Mr Denholm about the
implications of her refusal to produce the document.
[66] After the adjournment, Mr Manning asked Ms Case whether Mr Wenzel had
been present during her discussions with Mr Denholm and she confirmed that he had
been. He again asked her to produce the deed of trust to the Court and she declined.
I then asked for submissions as to what should occur. Having heard counsel I made
the following ruling:
THE COURT.-
The previous adjournment was afforded to enable Ms Case to take advice
from counsel, Mr Denholm, notwithstanding that she was under crossexamination
at the time. That process having taken place over about 20
minutes, the hearing has resumed and continued to this point where
Mr Manning has again asked the witness to produce a document which the
witness admits to having in her possession.
Mr Manning maintains that her continued refusal to produce that document
in accordance with her request is a contempt of Court. Mr Denholm has
questioned the relevance of the document, saying that all the Court should be
interested in is as to whether or not the funds are available. The context of
this argument is that it is part of the applicant’s case that there is a sum of
$352,000 available to recapitalise the second defendant. It is sought to
terminate the liquidation of that company on the basis that the sum able to be
made available in that amount would be more than sufficient to meet any
valid debts of the company.
The trust document, which Mr Manning has sought to have produced
concerns an ICU trust into whose bank account has been paid the sum of
$244,000. That is, a substantial part of the $352,000 on which the applicant
relies. Whether or not that money could be used for the purpose of
recapitalising the company must depend upon the terms of the deed of trust
covering, as they undoubtedly will, the permitted objects on which trust
moneys may be expended.
Mr Denholm concedes that the availability of the money is a relevant issue.
Whether or not the money is available as the witness asserts must depend
upon the terms of the trust deed which Mr Manning seeks to have produced.
I do not see in the circumstances how it can credibly be argued that the
document is not relevant. Indeed, it was because of that view that some 40
minutes ago I think, I initially ordered the witness to produce it. She has
declined to do so.
I now formally hold her in contempt of Court.
[67] As a consequence of Ms Case’s refusal to produce the trust deed,
Mr Manning was effectively left unable to inquire into whether expenditure of the
funds by effectively making a gift to the second defendant company would have
been in accordance with the terms of the trust deed. Given Ms Case’s stance that the
money would not be made available until after the liquidation was terminated, her
lack of candour concerning the terms of the trust was untenable. The Court could
not be confident, in the circumstances, that the money would indeed be made
available.
[68] The other source of funds that had been mentioned by Mr Denholm was the
proceeds of the sale of the units at 20 and 22 Clarice Place. Mr Denholm did not
descend into any detail in respect of this aspect of his argument, other than to assert
that after the sale of the properties there would be a net profit of $270,000. I have
not been able to ascertain where the figure of $270,000 comes from. In her fourth
affidavit, sworn on 16 April 2007, Ms Case deposed that the properties had a current
“Government Valuation Assessment” of $360,000, in each case, giving a total of
$720,000. She said that the valuations demonstrated that there was a net value, after
deduction of the mortgage sum, of $194,968.82. That would give a total
indebtedness on the properties of $260,000. Mr Wood attached to his fifth affidavit
a letter from the mortgagee, Australian Mortgage Securities (NZ) Ltd, in which it
was stated that the principal owing and secured against the properties was $517,000,
with interest and fees taking the amount required to settle at 26 April 2007 (the date
of the letter) to $526,419.90. That would give a figure for the second defendant’s
equity in the property close to that given by Ms Case in her affidavit. However,
there are a number of problems with treating that as an achievable outcome at the
present time.
[69] First, the properties have been developed by the erection in each case of two
units and the subdivision necessary to place the units on separate titles has not been
completed. Fees and levies due to the Papakura District Council, so that process can
be completed, will exceed $26,000. Moreover, there are outstanding agreements for
sale and purchase of the properties from the second defendant to SCI Finance Ltd
and/or nominee in which the two existing titles are to be sold, in each case for the
sum of $265,000. The total proceeds of that sale, $530,000, would be barely enough
to cover the indebtedness under the mortgages. SCI Finance is owned by a company
called Business Advisory Trust Services Ltd. That company in turn is owned by
ICU Trustees Ltd. Ms Case declined to answer questions directed as to whether or
not she had been a trustee of the ICU Trust in 2006 when the directors of ICU
Trustees Ltd had been appointed. She asserted that she was unable to respond,
because Mr Manning had been asking her questions on the basis of an unlawfully
obtained document. In effect, it was another wilful refusal on her part to be candid
with the Court.
[70] Be that as it may, I could not be satisfied on the basis of the evidence that
there would be a significant amount of capital available to the second defendant from
any sale of properties at Clarice Place. I observe also that it is surprising that, having
purchased the properties from the plaintiff in 2005 under contracts which provided
for a purchase price of $330,000 plus GST, in each case, the properties should be the
subject of agreements for sale and purchase entered into on a rising market for
$265,000, in each case. Evidently, however, Ms Case as the second defendant’s sole
director decided that that should occur.
[71] In his closing address Mr Denholm indicated with respect to the “fund” of
$352,000, upon which reliance had previously been placed, that the applicant no
longer suggested that the money would be made available to the company by way of
gift. This was a remarkable volte-face in the applicant’s argument. It was left
unclear as to how the money could be provided to the company, without simply
increasing its indebtedness.
Conclusion
[72] I have earlier set out my conclusion that the company was insolvent, when
Doogue AJ appointed the liquidators. On the basis of the evidence I have discussed
above, it remains insolvent, with no prospect of there being any injection of funds so
as to improve its position.
[73] In the circumstances, I have concluded that it would be neither just nor
equitable to make an order terminating the liquidation of the company, and the
application must fail.
[74] It is unnecessary for me to deal with various other issues which were raised
by Mr Manning, including his argument that it would be undesirable in the public
interest for the application to be granted, based on the extent to which, on the
evidence, Mr Wenzel (an undischarged bankrupt facing various charges brought
against him by the Official Assignee and by the Serious Fraud Office) had been
involved in the affairs of the company and might be again if the application were
granted. Further, I do not need to resolve his public interest argument based on
Ms Case’s conduct as a director of the second defendant, and on her allowing (as I
am satisfied she did) inaccurate accounting material to be placed before the Court for
the purposes of the present application.
[75] Nor do I need to take into account (and I have not done so in reaching the
conclusions set out above) the advice that has been tendered by Mr Manning, in a
memorandum dated 26 June 2007, that on 31 May 2007 the Deputy Registrar for
Companies had made an order pursuant to s 385(3) of the Companies Act prohibiting
Ms Case from being a director or promoter of a company, or being concerned in or
taking part, whether directly or indirectly, in the management of a company, for a
period of three years and ten months commencing 1 June 2007.
[76] The application is dismissed. The plaintiff and the liquidators are entitled to
their costs on the application. If costs cannot be agreed, counsel seeking costs may
file memoranda within 15 working days of the delivery of this judgment. The
applicant may respond within 10 working days of receipt of those memoranda.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Kimble Says:
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
DDP is laaaaaame.
Kimble: Just because information from the Direct Democracy Party [DDP] website was copied and posted in this thread, I fail to see how one can draw the conclusion that is it “laaaaaame” as you put it.
If you would like to debate the issues or proposed policies contained on the site, then I am open to such communication. I do however, object to the party being dragged into personal disputes such as this.
I have read through this entire thread and on the face of it, one would have casue to be greatly concerned about the Man at the centre of this exchange. Not knowing the circumstances myself I am not qualified to state a position either way on the matter.
I suspect all will be revealed once the evidence has been considered in the various Court cases referred too. It is at that time a determination can be made by others as a matter of public record. I do believe some people have been affected by associations with Mr. Wenzel and have issues relating to that involvement. I also believe, that there is in fact much information contained (copied and pasted) throughout this thread that does not belong, nor is it even relevant to the subject being debated.
As I said, I am hapy to respond to anything directly related to DDP or myself, but I do not wish the party nor myself to be drawn into this thread unless there is relevance for it. Thanks for your time.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
CBA still in liquidation thats PEOPLE 11 wenzel zit, zero, nothing, nil
Not looking too good for the main event is it Wenzel?
Link for the full judgement for Justice Cooper to be posted soon
Look out for this one, fantastic reading
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I have heard that robyn and Shanes lame attempts at having the CBA liquidation overturned has been rejected and CBA remains in liquidation (never to be reinstated) – thank goodness for small mercies aye.
Kelvyn Alp – you are very right to not have (your)? parties info dragged in here by Wenzel if you had the misfortune of knowing him you would have known that he lives his life using other peoples words – I have heard or read nothing orginal from this man so far……………………
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
me too I was told that CBA remains liquidated YAYYYYYYYY! Looking forward to reading the report Pengu – all that remains now is fo Wenzel to be locked up and we can all celebrate
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Kelvyn Alp wrote “As I said, I am hapy to respond to anything directly related to DDP or myself, but I do not wish the party nor myself to be drawn into this thread unless there is relevance for it. Thanks for your time.”
Ok – That fat National Front guy was #10 on the DDP list. Kelvyn was the self declared leader of the NZ Armed Intervention Force.
DDP is a joke. Shane W likes DDP. DDP is relevent to this thread as it help illustrate what a joke Shane W is.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
PERRY:
First of all – “That fat National Front guy” as you refer, was not leading the National Front at the time; I think you will find that Sid Wilson was. Besides, I agreed to provide the man with the chance to move on from previously attributed methods, I make no apology for that. I have since worn the criticism for it and I accept that people are not fond of what he had previously been involved in.
Secondly, I have never been a “self declared leader” of anything. I do not believe any person can be “self appointed” to a position where others are involved in an organisation without the consent of those people, therefore any such action would be agreed upon and make a “self declaration” a nonsensical notion.
Thirdly, you have failed in providing any evidence that DDP is a joke from the above post. In fact I do not see where Mr. Wenzel has stated that he “likes” DDP unless you can point me to those particular words in his post.
I realise in your haste to continue the attacks against him that you may be a little quick with your fingers, but surely if you have a problem with Mr. Wenzel, you should direct your enthusiastic postings towards him and not speak about things you know nothing of, unless you do the courteous thing and allow clarification on various points before you put the boot in.
As you can see, all I have done was ask not to be drawn into this unless it has relevance; you have not shown it to be relevant. You may of course hold opinions on many things, but it would be advisable to know what you are talking about before engaging those fingers of yours, wouldn’t you say?
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Thanks for biting Kelvyn.
I’m more than willing to concede that I’m not the person on the person on this chain who’s provided the best example of DDP’s comedy value.
August 24th, 2007 at 8:33 am
I must say Kelvyn I know nothing of your party nor want to but a very familiar phrase keeps coming up – the old finger pointing comment! Is it you that taught Mr Weasel that one? mate if your tangled up with this guy I would seriously watch your back – just a friendly warning K?
August 24th, 2007 at 8:55 am
JOHN KEY investigated by SFO?
Is nt that interesting?
Kelvyn what do you say to that?
What seperates you from the rest of the politicans?
August 24th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Kevin
how families benifit under DDP
How Business benifit under DDP
How Employment benifit under DDP
August 24th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Wenzel… (or is it Weasel as some suggest?) you unoriginal tinfoil-hat wearing nutter cunt.
I have just read through the entire DDP website which I bet is more than you have done, because if you did you would not have asked those dumb questions. All of those answers are on the bloody site.
I see that ‘Kelvyn Alp’ did not want to be dragged into this bullshit, but was regardless. Why did you copy and paste what they wrote? How does that in anyway remove the allegation or exonerate you from criminal activities?
My advice is to answer the fucken questions put to you and not try to drag others names down with you. At least one good thing was achieved, at least I know what party I will be voting for now.
PS, Its a shame my post won’t be at the very top of this blog, so to help people think twice about reading all this crap.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:53 am
You lying, gutless, insecure individual Wenzel
You are named here as the person responsible for the personal misery of many individuals including it seems your own daughter. You have clearly been personally responsible for the death of many businesses and companies through your deceitful and fraudulent activities
You guilt is clear for all see. You have consistently attempted to mislead and draw away from your activities by placing information that is irrelevant to the Court charges and personal comment that those you have abused are making about you
Political and Legal Systems as flawed as they may be are in place to offer a measure of protection against the Shane/Christopher Wenzel’s of this world
I look forward to the final posting here that you have been incarcerated in NZ and if and when you survive that, deported to Oz where by the sound of it you will not survive that intact
Ask not for whom the bell tolls………..it tolls for thee
August 24th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
You quotes here Wenzel will indeed be prophetic (see next) The truth ( SUN) will always rises over the LIES (moon) .Growth on (MAN)earth always happens as the effect
The truth will and does always come out in the end, lies will always be found out in the end and those that you have abused will grow through this experience
You are named as being evil, this is apt and covers the reasons behind all your activities. The personal growth of your bank account ( not in your name of course ). Speaking of hiding behind names Wenzel, why do you not proudly put yours on all of your business and other activities. We know why you are hiding. The legal and tax systems, slow as they are, are methodically piecing it all together
August 24th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Mr Mawdsley was cross-examined by Mr Manning, and confirmed that the
exercise that he had carried out had been one simply involving the compilation and arrangement of information that had been provided to him by Ms Case and Mr Wenzel. The sums involved were a balance of $54,370.26 on an Amex credit card, and $32,463.89 on a Visa credit card.Mr Mawdsley explained that he had said to Ms Case that he had been a little concerned about some of the assets and that further work would have to be done to verify some of the balances because they were “clearly of a questionable nature”. Ms Case had responded in
relation to the two credit card balances that she doubted that there were amounts of money in the credit cards “to that extent”.
The debtor’s figure of $76,472.33 represented invoices issued by the company to former staff for training services at or after the time they left the company’s employ.
THERE WILL BE MORE!
August 27th, 2007 at 3:31 am
Whoops Robin …. just were not taking enough notice were you? You actually thought that FATGUTS had your best interests at heart didn’t you? Feel screwed over yet darling? Oh, and there is more coming. The story is that you are also going to be locked up. And your kids? Well, my heart goes out to them. How could you have allowed such things to occur? Shane on you Shane on you!
August 28th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Sorry about the delay in reponses
Very Busy doing a Workshop Excellant turn out Thanks Guys
Interest Growing Overseas NOW
Appeal being lodge re Robyn’s case
SP1 Filed laying charges under section 240 crime act 1961
Its heating up Communication is only DR and CR We have DR enough NOW we fight back with evidence that has been lead Watch for casualities
Remember I was a unionist in Aussie and are aware of the games played
by fools Fools are easy to catch
August 28th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Go GO Go
Keepers Watch Ministry
Home Network Seven Site Today Tonight Journalists Suggest a Story Search Stories Favourite Stories Archived Stories Contact Us Discover
Today Tonight 6.30pm weekdays
Tue, Aug 28,2007
The citizen versus the State
Reporter: Graham Archer
Broadcast Date: 13 May 2007
This is the story of a 20 year battle that has left an Adelaide woman facing homelessness at the hands of the State and Federal governments despite being completely innocent of any wrong doing.
In the 1980’s Dawn Rowan and her colleagues were pioneers in the controversial and quite risky area of domestic violence. Independently they ran specialised women’s shelters aimed at providing safe houses, counselling and support for women and children fleeing violence at home. It was a silent crime which affected many.
It was highly controversial work and the state and federal governments which funded the shelters resented their independence and wanted to turn the facilities into general refuges for all-comers.
Dawn was an outspoken advocate for the cause and fell foul of the Minister of Community Welfare the irascible Dr John Cornwall. Having already threatened to withdraw funding Cornwall initiated a review of the shelters particularly targeting Dawn and her Christies Beach shelter. In August 1987 he used the protection of parliament to table the review “Shelters in the Storm” and make public a series of extremely damaging though baseless allegations about Dawn and her shelter. These included allegations of misappropriation of funds, professional negligence, sexual and physical harassment of clients and inappropriate counselling.
Despite a police investigation and enquiries by the Corporate Affairs Commission, the Ombudsman, and a Senate committee all finding no evidence of wrong doing, the government refused to apologise or make good the wrongs.
Dawn Rowan’s only option to reinstate her reputation was through court action. It was to be a 15 year battle during which all five government departments involved lost large portions of their files. In 2002 Justice Debelle found in Dawn’s favour awarding her around $500,000 plus costs.
However the State and Federal governments appealed to the full bench and a legal technicality meant Dawn had to pay the federal government costs for the entire case. It would run into millions of dollars. Dawn, despite having been the wronged party, would be made homeless and bankrupt.
On the 28th May 2007 the Commonwealth government will sue for bankruptcy and take possession of Dawn’s remaining asset, her home.
UPDATE: 24th August 2007
After an adjournment the matter came before the Federal Magistrates Court for a sequestration order for bankruptcy to be made on Friday the 24th August. This was ‘D’ day for Dawn Rowan.
After rejecting any argument for further adjournment the Registrar proclaimed that the Order would be made.
However something bizarre happened. Dawn rose to her feet and apologised to the court, said she had approached the matter in the entirely the wrong way and she wished to settle the matter privately and make any party who’d be damaged ‘whole again’.
Every time Dawn was addressed she recited two carefully worded phrases. The Registrar was obviously confused and adjourned the matter offering Dawn a chance to make written submissions before she made her Order for bankruptcy. It was a victory of sorts.
Outside the court Dawn’s ‘advisers’ said they had told her to revert to ‘scriptual law’ which means to settled a debt she must apologise and deal with it privately. Apparently by disengaging in the legal process Dawn had disenfranchised her creditors and was relieved of her debt. Game over!
We’ll see what happens!
Should you wish to voice your concern over the treatment of Dawn Rowan, you can write to the Federal Shadow Attorney General, Senator Joe Ludwig, C/O Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
ARE we NOT own by a pvt corp ?
Learn more Seminar coming to your town soon?
August 28th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Mr Wood what does this mean??
53 Defence of movable property with claim of right
(1) Every one in peaceable possession of any movable thing under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession by the use of reasonable force, even against a person entitled by law to possession, if he does not strike or do bodily harm to the other person.
54 Defence of movable property without claim of right
(1) Every one in peaceable possession of any movable thing, but neither claiming right thereto nor acting under the authority of a person claiming right thereto, is neither justified in nor protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person entitled by law to possession.
[claim of right, in relation to any act, means a belief that the act is lawful, although that belief may be based on ignorance or mistake of fact or of any matter of law other than the enactment against which the offence is alleged to have been committed]
August 28th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Why WADMO ?
During the first Inter-regional Conference on Debt Management organized by UNCTAD in December 1997, representatives of the Bureau of the Treasury of the Philippines tabled a proposal for the creation of a professional association of debt managers. A large number of countries supported the proposal and expressed the need for a regular exchange of experiences, know-how and information about debt management at the international level. The idea of an international association gathering debt professionals was born. In response, UNCTAD helped establish the World Association of Debt Management Offices (WADMO) which held its first general assembly on 6 April 2000, and during which the Treasurer of the Philippines was elected President. Currently, Mr. Omar T. Cruz assumes the functions of Treasurer of the Philippines and President of WADMO.
We would like to refer to the Statement made by Prof. Briones – former Treasurer of the Philippines – during the first general assembly. After highlighting the tremendous increase in the total debt stock of developing countries, particularly the severely indebted low- and middle-income countries; the blessings and risks of intensified globalization; the heart-rending human costs of intolerable debt burdens; and the expectations of civil society, she concluded:
“During the past three days, we have tackled the challenges and solutions of debt management in the new millennium. We have seen that many of these challenges cannot be met if individual countries act alone. What is called for is more information, more cooperation and more joint action between and among countries. Today, we are having our first inter-regional meeting. As we deliberate on WADMO’s possible role and discuss the draft statutes, let us not forget that debt management is not an end in itself. Let us not forget that beyond the daunting management issues, the challenge of predicting a volatile international environment, the heady excitement of information technology – the end of efficient debt management is to see to it that less lives will be wasted and lost, less jobs lost, and more opportunities created for total human development for the peoples of the world.”
WADMO Objectives
WADMO is an autonomous and non-profit making organization dedicated to the support and advancement of the following purposes:
to promote and develop understanding and cooperation amongst Debt Management Offices;
to strengthen information gathering systems and information exchange amongst Debt Management Offices;
to share country and regional experiences in effective debt management;
to assist Debt Management Offices to gain access to technical assistance and training through referrals to relevant agencies;
to facilitate access to funding and other assistance, through referrals to relevant bilateral and multilateral agencies, for the development and implementation of effective debt management programmes; and,
to assist Debt Management Offices in advising their respective governments in the formulation of appropriate debt policies and strategies.
The aims and purposes of WADMO shall be accomplished through meetings, seminars and congresses, through publication of regular periodicals and special reports, and through such other means as its General Assembly may determine.
According to its Statutes, membership of WADMO shall be open to all offices whose prime function is to manage a country’s public debt. Such offices may be autonomous government agencies or ministerial departments within the central government, very often within the Ministry of Finance, as well as a similar entities within the Central Bank. Membership is also open to all associations sharing similar objectives. Individuals whose major professional interest lies in the area of public debt management may become ‘friends’ of the association.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Welcome to the Bosses of the Govt !!!!! PuPPETS
Where our Taxes Go!!!!!
Police debt Collects
Judges Bankers Giving bills (orders)
Is it NOT True that Mr wood you work for a internationial PVT company?
And can be trialed Internationial?
Why WADMO ? They Issue bonds of which thru deception ( birth Cert) You pay the debt (Legal slavery)
During the first Inter-regional Conference on Debt Management organized by UNCTAD in December 1997, representatives of the Bureau of the Treasury of the Philippines tabled a proposal for the creation of a professional association of debt managers. A large number of countries supported the proposal and expressed the need for a regular exchange of experiences, know-how and information about debt management at the international level. The idea of an international association gathering debt professionals was born. In response, UNCTAD helped establish the World Association of Debt Management Offices (WADMO) which held its first general assembly on 6 April 2000, and during which the Treasurer of the Philippines was elected President. Currently, Mr. Omar T. Cruz assumes the functions of Treasurer of the Philippines and President of WADMO.
We would like to refer to the Statement made by Prof. Briones – former Treasurer of the Philippines – during the first general assembly. After highlighting the tremendous increase in the total debt stock of developing countries, particularly the severely indebted low- and middle-income countries; the blessings and risks of intensified globalization; the heart-rending human costs of intolerable debt burdens; and the expectations of civil society, she concluded:
“During the past three days, we have tackled the challenges and solutions of debt management in the new millennium. We have seen that many of these challenges cannot be met if individual countries act alone. What is called for is more information, more cooperation and more joint action between and among countries. Today, we are having our first inter-regional meeting. As we deliberate on WADMO’s possible role and discuss the draft statutes, let us not forget that debt management is not an end in itself. Let us not forget that beyond the daunting management issues, the challenge of predicting a volatile international environment, the heady excitement of information technology – the end of efficient debt management is to see to it that less lives will be wasted and lost, less jobs lost, and more opportunities created for total human development for the peoples of the world.”
WADMO Objectives
WADMO is an autonomous and non-profit making organization dedicated to the support and advancement of the following purposes:
to promote and develop understanding and cooperation amongst Debt Management Offices;
to strengthen information gathering systems and information exchange amongst Debt Management Offices;
to share country and regional experiences in effective debt management;
to assist Debt Management Offices to gain access to technical assistance and training through referrals to relevant agencies;
to facilitate access to funding and other assistance, through referrals to relevant bilateral and multilateral agencies, for the development and implementation of effective debt management programmes; and,
to assist Debt Management Offices in advising their respective governments in the formulation of appropriate debt policies and strategies.
The aims and purposes of WADMO shall be accomplished through meetings, seminars and congresses, through publication of regular periodicals and special reports, and through such other means as its General Assembly may determine.
According to its Statutes, membership of WADMO shall be open to all offices whose prime function is to manage a country’s public debt. Such offices may be autonomous government agencies or ministerial departments within the central government, very often within the Ministry of Finance, as well as a similar entities within the Central Bank. Membership is also open to all associations sharing similar objectives. Individuals whose major professional interest lies in the area of public debt management may become ‘friends’ of the association.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Welcome to our world Of debt slavery
Welcome to our World
Visit / Visitez: > WADMO Members / Membres de WADMO
Other debt management agencies or units / Autres agences de gestion de la dette
Country / Pays Office / Bureau Website
Argentina Undersecretariat of Financing, Ministry of Economy. (Spanish, English) visit website
Australia Australian Office of Financial Management. (English) visit website
Austria Austrian Federal Financing Agency. (English, French and German) visit website
Belgium Belgium Federal Public Debt Agency. (Dutch, English, French, German) visit website
Brazil National Treasury, Ministry of Finance (Brazilian) visit website
Canada Ministry of Finance. (English, French) visit website
Colombia Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. (Spanish) visit website
Denmark Central Bank. (Danish, English) visit website
Finland The State Treasury (English, Finish, Swedish) visit website
France French Trésor Agency, AFT. (English, French, German and Chinese) visit website
Germany German Federal Republic Finance Agency GmbH. (English, German) visit website
Greece Ministry of Finance.(Greek, English) visit website
Hungary Government Debt Management Agency, AKK (Hungarian, English) visit website
Iceland National Debt Management Agency (English, Islandic) visit website
Ireland National Treasury Management Agency (English) visit website
Israel Government Debt Management Unit, GDMU. (Arabic, English) visit website
Italy Ministry of Finance Public Debt. (Italian, English) visit website
Japan Ministry of Finance. (English, Japanese) visit website
Lithuania Ministry of Finance. (Lithuanian, English) visit website
Luxembourg Trésorerie de l’Etat (French) visit website
Mexico Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. (English, Spanish) visit website
Netherlands Dutch State Treasury Agency (Dutch, English) visit website
New Zealand Debt Management Office. (English) visit website
Peru Directorate of Public Credit. (English) visit website
Poland Ministry of Finance. (English, Polish) visit website
Portugal Portuguese Debt Agency, IGCP. (English, Portuguese) visit website
Slovenia Ministry of Finance. (English, Slovene) visit website
South Africa National Treasury. (English) visit website
Spain Public Treasury of Ministry of Economy. (English, Spanish) visit website
Sweden Swedish National Debt Office. (Swedish, English) visit website
Switzerland Swiss Federal Finance Administration. (French, German) visit website
Thailand Public Debt Management Office (English, Thai) visit website
Turkey Treasury. (Turkish, English) visit website
United Kingdom Debt Management Office (English) visit website
United States Bureau of the Public Debt, Department of the Treasury. (English) visit website
August 28th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
BEWARE
BEWARE
BEWARE OF MINISTERS PUPPETS FOR THE WORLD BANKERS
Return return return the debt instrument Birth cert
voting rights return to Natural man give up the person ( Straw person)
August 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
http://www.brasschecktv.com/index.php
Analysis by Scott Ritter
Israel’s Influence on
US Foreign Policy (3:14)
Who stands up for
real American values? (3:13)
Waging Peace (3:39)
In Humor, Truth
Stephen Cobert Fries Bush (24:10)
Where does Bush gets his staff? (3:00)
The Middle East
650,000 civilians killed in Iraq since the US invasion (6:25)
Three things about the Middle East you’ll never see on US TV (short clips)
Galloway on Iraq and Lebanon (short clips)
The nuclear threat in the Middle East (short clips)
Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land (1:19:14)
Sands of Sorrow – 1950 (28:32)
Americans have no idea (1:00:09)
Israel’s secret weapons program (44:45)
Wayne Madsen on the US/Israeli attack on Lebanon (39:24)
The Easiest Targets (12:49)
Jimmy Carter on Israel (3:29)
The Iraq War
Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (56:08)
The US News Media as Pro-War Cheerleader (28:41)
Inside the death squads (6:00)
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers (3:07)
Iraq: The Hidden War (48:40)
Iraq: The Women’s War (48:10)
Baghdad ER (1:04:07)
Iraq: The Continuous War (44:21)
Vietnam, Iraq (8:05)
Veterans Against the War (8:05)
George Galloway Dresses Down Congress (3:55)
Michael Moore at the Oscar’s 2003 (1:57)
An eyes-wide-open prayer for peace (4:29)
Who can stop the war? (11:40)
$3 Trillion Missing (8:56)
A very profitable war (4:36)
Who created the Iraqi insurgency? (30:00)
Understanding Saudi Arabia (2:00:00)
Treason (7:00)
The Prisoner (1:55)
War Crimes
Depleted Uranium – The Ultimate Dirty Bomb (9:52)
How the military poisons its own troops (8:46)
The US armed Saddam Hussein with chemical and biological weapons (9:56)
Loss of Liberty (51:53)
Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre (27:07)
Depleted Uranium in Hawaii (2:31)
Genocide in Burma
supported by the US ,
the UK, and France (1:00:00)
Energy
Oil and War (45:43)
Biofuels: Thinking Outside the Barrel (1:08:42)
New Orleans
New Orleans: Betrayed and Abandoned (audio clip)
Hurricane Katrina: A Year Later (15:58)
Emergency relief down the barrel of a gun (2:05)
Destroying Housing in New Orleans (20:22)
“George Bush Doesn’t Care About Black People” – Original (1:34)
“George Bush Doesn’t Care About Black People” – Remix (2:05)
How the city flooded (map)
Big Easy to Big Empty (9:53)
New Orleans Voices for Peace (9:11)
New Orleans – Two Years Later (7:00)
Levee failure…in Sacramento (20:00)
Food
Black Farmers in the US (10:00)
“Spin”
“Spin” by Brian Springer (57:26)
Edward Bernays: Assassin of Democracy (7:27)
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (48:55)
Jerry Falwell is dead – thank God (4:30)
Zeitgeist (1:56:23)
9/11: What you’re not being told
The Carlyle Group: Bush and Bin Laden in Business (short clips)
Why Afghanistan? (9:19)
Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus (27:47)
The Weekend Before 9/11 (6:52)
9/11 Mysteries (1:30:41)
“Today We Saw Evil” (7:00)
The Science of 9/11 (21:48)
The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (32:52)
9/11 American Scholars Symposium Panel Discussion (1:31:46)
“Loose Change” – A Documentary (1:21:50)
The 9/11 Solution – CENSORED by Google (9:40)
WTC 7 collapse reported 30 minutes before it happened (25:38)
Inside Job (10:23)
The 9/11 Solution – RESTORED (9:40)
God Bless St. Rosie (7:04)
Even Rosie knows (4:00)
September Clues (40:00)
9/11: Disappearing explosions (10:23)
Michael Moore breaks his silence (1:31)
Building 7 (10:36)
Aviation Reality on 9-11 (30:13)
The “War on Terror” is a Fraud
Bogus Terror Plots – I (short clips)
Bogus Terror Plots – II (10:57)
The Osama Bin Laden Hoax (8:09)
The 7/7 London Bombing (multiple)
Israeli Spying and 9/11 (multiple)
More Terror Fraud from Bush (8:48)
Rudy Giuliani – The Thug (8:12)
How to lead America (2:23)
Attacks on civil liberties
Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties (1:08:20)
The US Drug Enforcement Industry (1:32:29)
Politically motivated police violence in the US (2:35)
Why police states are a bad idea (2:33)
Bush’s Private Army (4:25)
Another strange school shooting (1:08)
LAPD assaults reporters (3:00)
The LA police riot – 5/1/07 (10:00)
Impeach Gonzales (1:59)
Impeach Gonzales – Part Two (1:59)
Humor: Incarcerex (1:32)
Coming to a police department near you (5:00)
Election Fraud in the USA
What we need to know (14:10)
Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election (49:50)
Designed to fail: Systemic flaws in electronic voting machines (35:44)
How the 2000 Presidential Election was Rigged and Who Did it (1:00:03)
Was your vote counted? (3:44)
How we got our president (9:28)
Health and Medical
The AMA at its worst (1:23:32)
“Sicko” (2:17)
Bush adminstration supports Nazi-style experiments
on US children (9:59)
Michael Moore Uncensored (10:47)
The Secret Government
Will we ever wake up? (10:00) NEW!
Meet the Bush Family (22:06)
The Murder of JFK: Bush Family Connections (1:03:27)
Secrets of the CIA – a revealing look at CIA covert operations (44:27)
The Robert Kennedy Assassination (12:48)
Martin Luther King Assassination (25:47)
A History of Regime Change (21:42)
Terrorism USA-style 1980s (1:00:00)
Torture: The Bush Legacy (2:34)
Money as debt (47:07)
Deeper in debt (2:15)
TV Gems
Jon Stewart Turns the Lights Off on Crossfire (14:13)
Jon Stewart Recounts his Crossfire Adventure (2:46)
Phil Donahue vs Bill O’Reilly (8:13)
Frank Zappa Against Censorship (21:17)
Market meltdown? (5:00)
August 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
http://WWW.KIWISFIRST.co.nz
Fair JUSTICE HA HA
August 31st, 2007 at 8:03 am
Where are you fish Farra wood The truth you finiall UNDERSTAND
The law is not fair
The law is a debt collecting machine for New Zealand DEBT Management Office Which is alledged own by Her majesty the Queen in the right( not the QUEEN OF LONDON)
which is then owned by US sercurities which is a part of ?????? who buy out debt and trade it As the PERSONS work to give the returns and pay the debt off
August 31st, 2007 at 8:06 am
BEWARE
BEWARE
BEWARE
BEWARE
PUBLIC SERVICE PROVIDERS JUDGES LAW SOCIETY
ICS WILL BE making charges
September 1st, 2007 at 8:05 am
Wenzel has now become a spammer so I am closing this thread and he is banned from commenting on this blog.