Armstrong falls for the spin
July 24th, 2008 at 7:21 am by David FarrarI’m a big fan of John Armstrong but he should not fall for Clark’s spin:
It didn’t help Key that his colleague Nick Smith made the mistake of responding to Clark’s taunts about the “Freedom of Speech” Trust set up to help pay Smith’s legal bills. Smith replied that he had sought advice from the registrar of pecuniary interest as to what disclosure requirements he should follow. He was told he only needed to declare a pecuniary interest in a trust.
Quick as a flash, Helen Clark retorted that if Smith did not have to declare either debts or gifts, “then nor does Mr Peters”.
She is wrong. The Freedom of Speech Trust is a legal entity and Nick Smith has declared in his register he is a beneficiary of it.
The so called legal fund that Peters has is not a legally constituted trust with Trustees and its own legal personality. It is either a solictor’s trust account (not the same as a trust) or the money went straight to debtors. In both cases it is paying off debts directly on behalf of Peters. And this is not my assertion – this is what Brian Henry said.
Clark’s statement is wrong – simple as that. Smith has declared the beneficial interest in the Trust.
John Armstrong does note some welcome strong language from Gerry Brownlee:
Brownlee accused Peters of touting himself as “one of the great parliamentarians of our age” when his failure to disclose the $100,000 donation from wealthy expatriate Owen Glenn actually displayed Peters’ “utter and complete contempt” for Parliament.
Peters’ claims about what he knew or rather did not know about the donation were “unbelievable”, “irresponsible” and were “destroying the credibility of Parliament” as an institution.
I was on National Radio’s “The Panel” briefly yesterday along with Michelle Boag and David Slack. Jim Mora asked us why National and Labour did not simply get together and agree neither party would do a deal with Winston after the election, hence excluding them from weilding all the power on their 5% (if they make it).
I responded, noting that Michelle and I had both worked for National PMs, and David S for a Labour PM – and that on behalf of the three of us I was sure we would all be willing to represent National and Labour in negotiating such an agreement 
Sadly it isn’t quite that simple, as if a party gets seats in Parliament they are a reality to deal with as they get to vote on every proposed law and budget etc. But I would observer enthusiasm in both Labour and National is waning for dealing with Peters – not just on the actual allegations – but more so on his response to them – his absolute inability to apologise or admit any wrong doing – such as continuing to insist the NZ Herald Editor and Political Editor should apologise to him and resign.
Tags: anonymous donations, David Slack, Gerry Brownlee, Jim Mora, John Armstrong, Michelle Boag, MPs Register of Pecuniary Interests, Nick Smith, The Panel, Winston First
July 24th, 2008 at 7:40 am
If I may – Winston is an anachronism, he is slighly ahead of the curve with respect Hulun and Mikhael and the PC commie brigade, only slightly though.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
The Queen of Spin
Vote:What a duplicitous opportunist and fabricator of spin Helen Clark is. “I would love to do away with anonymous donations” says the create of some of the worst legislation this country has ever seen.
One phrase for you Helen: Electoral Finance Act
You would think that Nation was the government and that they created the Electoral Finance Act from the way she talks. That and she must think we are daft. But the the media are easily lead!
July 24th, 2008 at 8:00 am
While Helen might have been wrong about Smiths gifts, the public thinks she is right since there was no objection to her statement. Perception is everything, truth is irrelevant.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:04 am
I reckon the public dont see smith in this picture, its winston treading water in shit that they see.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:04 am
`Clark’s statement is wrong’.
Since when has being correct been a requirement of anything Clark says when it comes to trying to put a National MP down.
Assuming your definitions of the difference between Smith’s Trust and Henry’s Solicitors Trust account are correct should someone be taking Clark to task for misleading Parliament – once again?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Surely things will heat up now that the pugilist knight is involved?
Vote:Sir Bob has already expressed his anger about the EFA, Peter’s was a front runner in cheerleading this disgusting piece of legislation and all of a sudden donations are revealed and allegations are made it was not declared.
Clark needs to stop digging and fill the hole in with the dead poodle.
Hilarious to see the greens getting agitated, they really are the most naive bunch of numpties.
David why do you think the Vela’s gave money? You suggested in another post that you believed peter’s would not be influenced by donations. Well I wonder whether the Vela’s thought that too. If so why donate? And of course the big issue… Did all that money go to NZF?
July 24th, 2008 at 8:11 am
John Armstrong is the sort of columnist that views a poll success as a big loss for labour rather than a big win for National. And Winston Peters problems as a big worry for Helen Clark rather than a big opportunity for National.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Speaking of Sir Bob I see Winnie has pissed away $25,000 from him as well without it making it to the books.
I admire the strength of will of these many wealthy people that they will hand over wads of cash to this spendthrift seemingly without caring if they get any bag for their buck.
Or are we about to see a rather long queue of really pissed off left wing “rich pricks” asking for reciepts?
Peters for Minister of Finance!
Of Zimbabwe.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Peters is probably the victim of a well organised campaign that has mobilised all the people he has f*cked over and taken cash off over the last 20+ years. Shame.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Big government needs big office space.
Vote:The premise that large donations are made from some public spirited urge is naive at best and delusional at worst.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Honestly David – I don’t see what yo see in John Hamstrung – is it his ‘puppy-dog eyes’? My reading of him is that he is mostly an apologist for Clerk and co. Occasionally, when you would have to be working for the VDS not to be spinning the party line, he veers into damning Labour with fainst praise, but largely, if Helen throws him a crumb of comfort, he is all over it like a distant relative at a posh wedding reception.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Good shot Lee.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:37 am
OK, it is early in the morning so maybe I’m missing a nuance but my brief read of hansard in your other post was that Nick Smith said, to paraphrase: I took advice on what I had to declare and I declared an interest.
To which Clark responded: If Nick Smith doesn’t have to declare why should Peters.
That seems to completely turning on its head what Nick Smith stated.
Or more simply Nick Smith followed the rules and Peters did not – spin that!
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am
An interesting question for Key to ask of Clark would be:
What corrupt practice by a minister in her government would result in a dismissal?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Nice on D.Mum
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am
so..that lab/grn/mp coalition govt is looking more of a ‘goer’ every day..eh..?
and i’m looking forward to peters’ return..
..cos’ he’s promising to start flinging all the ‘dirt’ he has on national..
..can’t wait..!..do tell..!
etc..
can we just stand by and watch the right devour itself..?
..can’t wait..!..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:15 am
“But I would observe enthusiasm in both Labour and National is waning for dealing with Peters”
What?? “Enthusiasm is waning???????” Jezuz H Christ on a bike..!!! IS THAT IT?????
I’ll assume this is just a phrase written in haste, for really, if that is an accurate representation of the approach of the rest of parliament to this charlatan and fraud then the whole lot of the bastards are in actuality not any better.
..and as for “not dealing with Peters”, its not really the issue. The question is- “Will your party ever consider entering into a political alliance with NZ First??”. After Jerry Brownlee’s description of Peters as “showing utter and complete contempt for parliament”, how can the Nats refuse to state irrefutably unarguably and most definitely that NZ First will not be a coalition partner of National???? Most people know what equivocating jelly backs National are when it comes to principle, but surely there’s enough spine remaining to make this announcement. If they can’t speak out clearly and with courage on this issue, they’re useless.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Nationals biggest problem is that they haven’t ruled out working with him after the next election. This pretty much means that no matter what they say to Labour they can turn around and say “well you will have no problem working with him.” National now needs to come out with “Given these latest revelations, we no longer think Winnie is fit for govt, especially not one we are leanding” and then hammer home Labours refusal to do anything so as to retian the majority.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Isn’t it a bit early to be stoned out of your bloody tree phool.
[DPF: Murray - that would attract demerits if it wasn't for the fact you know where I live! Seriously, stuff like that just turns this into a war zone. Ignore Phil or rip his arguments to pieces but lay off the being stoned stuff - esp if that is the entire comment]
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I agree with Redbaiter! (I just relished typing that). NZ1st on the ropes, National should take a punt & dismiss him, and hopefully encourage voters not to waste their votes.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:28 am
It’s fucking pathetic. If I read this correctly, the whole of the Westminster system and who rules the country after the next election is down to the support of this one stuffed shirt?
Vote:Isn’t it time someone grew some cahones (other than Hide) and declared war on this oxygen-thief?
What happened to the good old days when a politician went to the country and won an electorate over with arguments, charisma and sheer force of personality?
If Tauranga isn’t for the taking now, I suggest taht National just slink away to their corners, defeated, and frankly, unfit to win a fucking sack-race, let alone who governs the country.
No wonder he’s smiling.
Hey Keysey:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
Roosevelt
July 24th, 2008 at 9:29 am
“I agree with Redbaiter! (I just relished typing that).”
Most callow youths eventually come to their senses LLew. As your degree of wisdom grows and eventually becomes superior to your naivity and ignorance, you’ll find agreement with Redbaiter a more frequent event. Be grateful for proof of the fact that unlike the completely mutant brain rotted leftist (who is most often a write off as far as changing political course is concerned), you’re possibly still capable of intellectual progress.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I’ll take that as a backhanded compliment & point out that I’m almost certainly quite a bit older than you
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am
As a currency trader John Key understands risk better than most.
If through the vagaries of MMP Winston maintained 7% support
It would once again be NZ First who holds the balance of power.
To cut out NZ First at this stage would be political suicide.
And in my opinion it would also be undemocratic.
You can’t have politicians deciding en masse, not to work
with a party BEFORE the election, they have a right to be
a possible co-alition party, however sickening that thought may be
We voted for MMP (actually I didn’t) – Key has to work within
Vote:the system for the present, however corrupt it may be.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Funny, it’s been this way for years. I recall (after the disastrous National/NZ 1st coalition in the 90s) someone moaning that the farcical situation was the fault of MMP – when clearly it was the fault of all the morons who voted for NZ 1st.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:43 am
I find myself once more with the conumdrum of the floating voter – I would love to vote National with a clear conscience, but everytime I think it’s ok, they f**k it up again. On this issue, At this particular moment, my vote would go to ACT.
Vote:And, if it is of any relevance, that vote therefore might as well be for Labour. Remeber Labour need approx. 35% of teh vote. If there is no one in opposition to belive in, they will certainly get it. And on the present reading, you have to ask ‘What exactly do National believe in?’
July 24th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“..I’ll take that as a backhanded compliment & point out that I’m almost certainly quite a bit older than you
..”
no.lew.
…redbaiter is really fucken old..eh..?
..some say he is older than mccain..
..some say he swerved to the right even before the mccarthy hearings..
(and i have inside word..that his computor monitor is spittle-specked/flecked..no surprises there..eh..?)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“Key has to work within the system for the present, however corrupt it may be.”
Yes of course. However this does not stop him from declaring to the voters that he will not be in any coalition with a party led by anyone who is patently a fraudster and a liar. If Key cannot do this, then the Nats might as well shut up with the outrage over Peters right now. If MMP means (as you suggest) that NZers are inescapably held to ransom by cronyism and crooks, then it too should be seen as a gross mistake and abandoned immediately.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:51 am
This is like an intriguing game of chess.
Winston’s actions cannot be seen to be corrupt, until Helen deems them so.
At the moment she is moving backwards on the board with statements like “The cabinet manual is just a guide”
The trick is to take Winston out of the game, and at the same time, check mate Helen.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:52 am
“..If MMP means (as you suggest) that NZers are inescapably held to ransom by cronyism and crooks, then it too should be seen as a gross mistake and abandoned immediately..”
yeah..!..back to the good old days..when 35% of the voters decided who would rule over us..
(much easier for the/you righties to manipulate/mis-use the system..eh..?
and say what you like about mmp..
..any coalition..of any sort..that breachs 50% of the votes..
..must be seen as democratic/representing the will of the most..
and yes..i would rather have stv..
..but fpp again..?
no thanks…
dream on..!..ratty..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“…You can’t have politicians deciding en masse, not to work
with a party BEFORE the election, they have a right to be
a possible co-alition party, however sickening that thought may be…”
Can you send that in an email to John Key with regards to Rodger Douglas? It’s not the corrupt practices of Winston or any other NZFirst MPs that National want, but the votes that will come from their seats in the house. ACT can only provide two, at best. Under MMP, principles and ethics are reduced to a mathematical equation. The advantage goes to the party that has no use for ethics before they start.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
“This is like an intriguing game of chess.”
Not if you have any moral baseline. Refusing to deal with crooks is not anything that demands any kind of genius on a strategy basis or any other basis. All Peters has to do to neutralize the Nat’s attack is to challenge them to make such a declaration. If they will not do that, he wins.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
BTW David if you can’t find something other than bloody Peters to write about in two out of three posts I’m going to tune out.
There’s only so much bauble king of secret funding that we can read about. Hes a crime and liar, we all know that. Just tell us when hes been thrown under the bus k.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“yeah..!..back to the good old days..when 35% of the voters decided who would rule over us”
Yes, much better than having a party like the Luddite Greens, with 6 or 7% of the votes, imposing idiotic legislation (e.g., repeal of S59), and lending subservient support to abominations such as the Electoral Finance Bill, the Emissions Trading Scheme, etc.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 10:01 am
As the scandals have piled on this government, instead of it being held properly accountable it has become dominated by corruption. A big reason for that is the weak, ineffectual media which gives them so many breaks: When Labour is government the template is “How is National vainly attempting to bring the government down this time”; when National is the government, the template is “What’s the latest dirt on National – who, afterall, are cronies for the r*ch; and when are Labour going to regain the power which rightfully belongs to them, for the good of the country”. When you look at the pathetic excuses for leaders the left has produced, a large part of the blame has to be on a media culture which favours them and which they take full advantage of. No need to be upstanding public servants when you a big crutch like that to lean on. Is there any doubt that that’s on what a lot of their power depends? All National and ACT need to do is be squeaky clean and just wait for the left to implode on its own abuse of power, exploitation of media fawning, and political corruption. The people of this country will hold them accountable if the media won’t.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am
“All National and ACT need to do is be squeaky clean and just wait for the left to implode on its own abuse of power, exploitation of media fawning, and political corruption. ”
An idea of good intent, however when most mainstream information sources are (as you correctly point out) so corrupted by leftists, they can control a large percentage of public opinion. Look at Chavez. Look at Cuba. This is where NZ is heading, and most of the people don’t know they’re on that journey, and won’t even know how far into the chasm of leftism they’ve traveled until its too late.
You’re on to it tho. (LDW) The mainstream media in NZ are as great a threat to democracy and freedom as the Klark gang of crooks. Since the rise of so called “advocacy journalism”, and with graduates indoctrinated with the poison of leftist ideology, they are mostly traitors to their profession, who will not investigate, who will enthusiastically promote any leftist lie, and who are in general barely worth our spit.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 10:13 am
uh uh, looks like the VDS are following through with Helen’s promise to dish the dirt on National if they didn’t lay off her and Winston.
Last post is about ‘secret Trusts’
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 10:29 am
My view: I hope they dish all the dirt they have. Firstly, I doubt there is anything of significance. In a small personality cult like NZ First it is possible to keep stuff like this hidden for a while – but given how many people Winston has pissed off, surely not for long. In a massive party like National with many comings and goings, I find it very hard to believe that any underhanded behaviour would remain secret for all that long. Particularly given the media interest in publishing even the slightest hint of impropriety when it comes to National.
Secondly, I think dishing dirt will backfire on Labour, particularly when National have been pretty light handed on Winston – the media are making most of the running.
Thirdly, Labour in power have a lot of skeletons. I’m pretty sure that whatever they dish will rebound – the media have been complicit in hiding that stuff, they know about it. If Labour start dishing the dirt, the media will start publishing what they know without National needing to leak it. This will also be to National’s benefit.
In short, Phool is dreaming if he thinks that Labour will start dishing dirt – it will rebound on them and they know it.
Labour, however. Well, that is another story. The media seem complicit in keeping the dirt off the
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 10:58 am
well..that’s a ‘d’ in comprehension there paul..(but..par for the course..?..eh..?..)
i never said labour was going to sling the dirt..
i said peters is issuing the ‘just you wait’tll i gey back.!’ threats..
..and you reckon national have nothing that peters can throw at them..?
dream on..!..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Look, National and Labour would be stupid NOT to make a bipartisan announcement now to the effect that neither of them will work with NZ First after the next election. Winston is poison, as the Nats know from bitter experience in 1996 and 1999. Had he gone with Labour in the first MMP government, it would have been curtains for them instead of National. But on the other hand, he might have been dragging the NATS down NOW instead of the Heleban.
No effort should be spared to eliminate the possibility of Winnie’s blindly loyal voters taking him over the 5% AGAIN.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Anyone notice the strange silence of the conscience of Parliament Peter Dunne…?
Wonder what he is worried about?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Phil Peters threatens to dish the dirt pretty much every week. He did it to Rodney in the last parliamentary session. His dirt will probably be a series of allegations with no substantiation to them. Unlike the allegations against Peters which have donors such as Glenn, Jones confirming them or copies of cheques.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
1. The Unhelpful Dr Smith.
Actually Mr Smith’s intervention wasn’t helpful – but then that should hardly surprise.
Yes Smith declared a beneficial interest in the trust established for his legal fees under Standing Orders Appendix B, Part 1, 4(d). I assume because he was the beneficiary of an express trust or a beneficiary of a discretionary trust in which the trustee exercised their discretion to his benefit.
But that isn’t the sum of his obligations.
Arguably, he might have also been required to declare the debt owned to his Solicitor under Standing Orders Appendix B, Part 1, 4(h)(i) which requires the disclosure of the creditors if owed more that $50,000.
However even if Mr Smith reaches the $50k level for disclosure, he might have an out under Standing Orders Appendix B, Part 1, 6(b) where the debt arises as a result of continuous services. Here what isn’t important isn’t the total sum nor whether the debt was actually paid regularly, only that Mr Smith was regularly invoiced for it. Careful litigants often opt for a pay-as-you-go approach to paying legal fees.
The problem for both Smith and Peters is Standing Orders Appendix B, Part 1, 7(c) which requires the disclosure of any debt relief over $500 received. This disclosure is independent of any disclosure requirements for the debt itself, which if arising from the ongoing supply of services may not need to be disclosed. Note also 7(c) requires the disclosure of the debt relief AND the name of the person. This disclosure is also independent of how the relief might be provided i.e. the beneficiary status of a trust for example.
Thus both Smith and Peters should have disclosed that they received debt relief. In Mr Smith’s case, the sums received from the trust to reduce his legal debts in the relevant years and in Mr Peter’s case in the Jan 2007 return for the 2006 year $100K received in debt relief from either: his Barrister (outright or as a trustee) or from “sources unknown”.
At least Mr Smith appears to have sought advice and he may well have been misadvised regarding the debt relief provisions of the Standing Orders. Peters appears to have sought no such advice. There is no doubt the legal bills were in the name of both Smith (respondent) and Peters (Petitioner)
The only way Peters’ can escape this disclosure requirement is if he didn’t know that he received debt relief at all. Thus the billing from the Barrister to the Instructing Solicitor would not include any reductions in the fees owned as a result of donations received. The problem for Peters is that he knew his Barrister was soliciting donations and he also knows the general costs of litigation – a 100k reduction in the value of one’s legal bills makes a considerable impact even for lawyer’s bills – it would be hard not to notice it. Even if there were nothing on the bill between Barrister and Instructing Solicitor, because of Peters’ knowledge of the solicitation for donations and the general costs of litigation, he would be on notice to make further inquiries of his Barrister to satisfy the requirements of 7(c) because the legal bill would be less than what one would reasonably expect.
2. Trust Law
“Peters has is not a legally constituted trust with Trustees and its own legal personality”
Trusts don’t necessarily have a legal personality – indeed few outside charitable trusts do. Better to view trusts as a set of personal obligations on natural and legal persons. A trust can arise from dealing, and other than interests in land don’t require anything in writing or any particular formalities.
If I say “take care of my car keys for Joan” and you accept the car keys on that basis a trust has been created.
There is only one other subtle wrinkle: there is a legal difference between a “beneficial interest” in a trust and being a “beneficiary.” Strictly speaking if it’s a discretionary trust, then no beneficial interest in the trust fund arising until the discretion is exercised by the trustee. Thus it’s possible to be a beneficiary of a trust without any beneficial interest in the trust.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
DPF “Phil Peters threatens to dish the dirt pretty much every week. He did it to Rodney in the last parliamentary session.” It would seem Winnie has two separate MOs. For the MP who says something he doesn’t like he insinuates that he has dirty to fling on them. On the other hand if it is the media or someone else then he threatens to sue. Pretty much old hat now. Doesd it say something that Rodney never apologised as Winnie ordered him to do, yet no dirty was dished on Rodney as promised by Winnie…
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
David I submit that he is in fact stoned and present his comments as evidence of this.
It is allowing useless bloody stupid comments of of his kind that have turned this plase into Trollasic Park or “war zone” as you put it, not the kicking of said trolls when they talk crap.
I stand by the essentail truth of my comment.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Speaking of dirt…one assumption everybody seems to be making is that Helen has become Winnie’s chief apologist as she is shit-scared of losing his vote/support, him bringing down the govt, early election etc etc.
However she may fear, even more so, the information that her Foreign Minister has which would destroy what little credibility her Labour cabinet has left.
Winston (as this Labour government’s Foreign Minister) was heavily rumoured to be involved in keeping the lid on a certain incident (involving an un-named VERY senior Labour Party Minister’s spouse) that occured last year at a meeting in a VERY small room at LA International airport .
Luckily, Luigi has been, of course, the model of discretion…so far. If they cut him loose however, Labour could not trust him not to go feral, and reveal all.
This MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) model explains perfectly Helen’s reluctance to face up to, and deal with, this latest mess of NZFirst corruption. She had no such trouble acting decisively (well sometimes!) when her own Labour Ministers transgressed.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
DPF:
“She is wrong. The Freedom of Speech Trust is a legal entity and Nick Smith has declared in his register he is a beneficiary of it.
The so called legal fund that Peters has is not a legally constituted trust with Trustees and its own legal personality. It is either a solictor’s trust account (not the same as a trust) or the money went straight to debtors. In both cases it is paying off debts directly on behalf of Peters. And this is not my assertion – this is what Brian Henry said.”
Um… no.
While there may be some minor differences between the form of the two trusts (Nick Smith’s *might* be an express trust with a written deed; Peters’ appears to be an implied or presumed trust for a specific purpose), these won’t affect the issues in question. The trusts are basically the same, in the same way an oral contract is still a contract and enforceable in the same way as a written contract.
See Law of Trusts (LexisNexis):
“A trust has been defined as “an equitable obligation under which a person (“the Trustee”) having the control of property is bound to deal with that property either:
(a) for the benefit of definite persons (of whom the trustee may be one) and any one of whom may enforce that obligation; or
(b)for some object or purpose permitted by law.”
A trust is not a legal entity but an obligation or set of obligations in respect of property.
Trusts can arise in the following ways:
• An express trust: A person (the settlor) creates an obligation during his or her lifetime. This is often done by the execution of a deed which names the settlor, trustees and beneficiaries and directs how the trust is to be administered.
• An implied or presumed trust: The intention to create a trust has not been expressed but is implied or presumed from the circumstances. This includes resulting trusts where property is transferred to trustees for a specific purpose and when the purpose is fulfilled there is a surplus left over. The trustees then hold this surplus for the creator of the trust.
• The operation of law: …”
[DPF: Thanks Dean. I believe Nick's is a written formal Trust. We do not actually know enough about Winston's one to make a conclusion - what if there is no bank account - just the direct payment of legal bills?
The key point is Smith declared a beneficial interest as required. Peters has not. Whether Peters has failed to declare a beneficial interest of failed to declare payment of a debt is something that needs to be investigated - but it seems to me he has failed at least one of these]
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
DPF:
If there’s no bank account or money held by someone else on behalf of Peters, then there’s no trust. But then that means there’s no need to declare a beneficial interest in any trust, because none exists.
But, yes, if the payment of a debt was made directly, discharge of a debt would need to be declared. Whether the identity of who has discharged the debt needs to be disclosed, if it was done on the basis on anonymity, remains a moot point under the standing orders – especially as the anonymity is *consistent* with the purpose of the register (namely, to avoid conflicts of interest).
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Dean, if Henry took money into his account from Glenn with the intent these monies were to be applied to pay off Peters’ legal bills then there is an implied trust: Glenn has settled money into the account for which the Trustee (Henry) is to apply towards the beneficiary – Peters. Judith Collins raised a valid point but this does still not escape the fact Henry could have been (and was it seems) a trustee of money held on Peter’s behalf.
In the above two comments you seem to assert there was a trust relationship then there wasn’t. I think there was.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Deankinght “But, yes, if the payment of a debt was made directly, discharge of a debt would need to be declared. Whether the identity of who has discharged the debt needs to be disclosed, if it was done on the basis on anonymity, remains a moot point under the standing orders”
Yes this is exactly what Gordon Copeland and Rodney Hide were asking about yesterday. When did he know that his legal bill had dropped by $100k? HC kept to script only saying that Winnie only found out on Friday that it came from OG. But the point they were making was that he should have declared the $100k gift or reduction in debt as soon as he was made aware of it even if he declared an anonyomous gift/reduction. HC refusal to address this point smells of something rotten.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Hagues, because she suspects or knows it was much earlier. And with Winston out of town, it was probably hard to deal with.
I think National are upping the rhetoric this week because Winston isn’t here, so Helen has to defend him. She is the target, not Winston.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Gooner: Yes, that was precisely my point. An implied trust if the money was held before payment. However, if the money was paid directly to discharge the debt then there is no trust. There needs to be some “trust property”, ie some asset, before there can be a trust.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
A trust doesn’t need its own bank account only that the funds subject to the trust obligations are identifiable. Thus it could be an accounting code in the accounts or a secondary bank account in the name of say Henry who operates it as trustee.
There are only two options actually.
Option A: Agent – Principal relationship.
Under this option Henry accepts donations on behalf of Peters for debt relief of legal bills. Here Peters is the Principal and Henry the Agent. What is received by Henry is received by Peters. Peters is caught by Standing Orders Appendix B Part 1 7 (b) and (c) – gifts received over $500 in cash and in kind. Because of the tagged nature of the donations for legal debt relief disclosure would occur under 7(c) – although 7(c) isn’t limited only to debt relief by way of donations – it could also include some form of remuneration otherwise not disclosed. Thus when the gifts are received by Henry this triggers the disclosure by Peters. Again the disclosure is the sum of the gift AND the name of the person from whom it was received. If Peters could not name the donor, he would record “Anonymous” or “Sources unknown”. The inability to reasonably ascertain the donor is explicitly provided for in the Standing Orders for 7(b) for non tagged gifts this inability does not remove the obligation to return the sum of the donation if over $500. One would therefore have to argue that there is a lower disclosure requirement under 7(c) because of the inability to name the person providing the debt relief. This would be against the scheme of the standing orders.
We know this scenario is consistent with the facts as Peters has long known that Henry is soliciting funds for legal debt relief – it’s just the donors who are unknown to Peters. As Peters had knowledge of this and knowledge of the general costs of litigation, he would be on notice to make enquires of his Barrister, if the legal fees were substantially lower than he expected irrespective of whether this reduction is made explicit on the invoicing between Barrister and Instructing Solicitor and in turn between Instructing Solicitor and Peters.
Option B: A species of trust.
The legal fund could be a form of trust. There are two choices here:
B1: From X (settlor) to Henry (trustee) on trust for Peters (beneficiary) to the extend of any legal fees owed by Peters. This trust might be discretionary in which case Peters beneficial interest arises when that discretion is exercised in his favour i.e. through legal debt relief. This exercise triggers the disclosure requirement under Standing Orders Appendix B Part 1, 4 (1) (d). If it’s a non discretionary trust i.e. Peters has a beneficial interest in the trust then the disclosure is triggered the moment the trust has funds. And the ongoing requirement for disclosure under Standing Orders Appendix B Part 1, 7 (c) is triggered when the debt relieve is affected. The person providing the relief in this case is Henry as trustee.
B2 From X (settlor) to Henry (trustee) on trust for Henry (beneficiary) to the extent (at the discretion of the Trustee of legal bills owed by Peters. Here Peters has no beneficial interest in the trust and isn’t a beneficiary, therefore there isn’t any disclosure under Standing Orders Appendix B Part 1 4 (1) (d). And the ongoing requirement for disclosure under Standing Orders Appendix B Part 1, 7 (c) is triggered when the debt relieve is affected. The person providing the relief in this case is Henry as trustee.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
3-coil Of course you are so right that the Minister of Foreign affairs would have been involved in the (cough) alledged (cough) incident at LAX. The LA Embassey would have funished the usual report to MFAT who would have (cough) briefed the Minister.
Gosh Liugi really does hold a full house aces high over the PM. Its hard not to delight in the situation with us knowing and she knowing that we know.
And of course if Luigi falls the (cough) revelation of the (cough) alleged incident wont come from him or anyone that can be publicly connected with him.It will come from a ‘reliable source” complete with LAPD and MFAT reports attached.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“..not the kicking of said trolls when they talk crap..”
the problem for you muzza..is you get the crap kicked out of you everytime you stick your head out..eh..?
that must be rather galling..
you obviously prefer the mirrored echo-chamber school of blog..
..where all can sit around nodding in agreement with each other..
(that way lies madness..)
maybe you should just stay in your own little echo-chamber..
..if you can’t stand the ‘heat’..?..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Norty norty, “3 coil” and “gd”, tut tut tut……….
Vote: