More on Peters and Henry
August 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm by David FarrarObservers at the Committee were unanimous that Brian Henry performed very well. They also signalled out Russel Norman for praise, saying he asked the key question on the Clarkson costs. And despite what some feared, National MPs were not shy in putting questions to Peters and Henry – especially Brownlee and Mapp. Labour MPs I am told either said nothing or asked patsy questions.
A few more thoughts:
- It would be an incredibly bad look for Owen Glenn to refuse to take part by video-conference, considering he was honoured by the NZ Government, has a business school building named after him, and is so attached to NZ he wants to be our Consul to Monaco. Any refusal to testify will imply cover-up and guilt by Glenn – even if he has done nothing wrong himself (which I think is the case).
- There is little doubt Henry paying a $40,000 debt to Bob Clarkson on behalf of Winston Peters is payment of a debt which should have been disclosed. Ignorance of your own chequebook is no defence.
- Other payments by Henry on behalf of Peters may count as a gift or payment of a debt? It is one thing not to charge for your time, but who paid the court filing fees in the defamation case? These fees can come to many thousands of dollars.
- Could Brian Henry have paid off the $40,000 debt to Bob Clarkson without Owen Glenn’s donation? It is one thing not to charge for your time, but quite another to pay actual costs. If the Glenn donation preceded the payment to Clarkson (and I understand it did) then Glenn is still the person who effectively paid off that bill. Not necessarily from a legal aspect, but in a practical sense. If someone gives me $100,000 and I use $40,000 of it to pay off my mate’s debt, then that debt relief came about because of the donation.
- Does Henry paying the $40,000 debt to Clarkson constitute a gift to Peters on which gift duty should be paid?
Related posts:
- Media on Henry and Peters
- Peters has breached the Register Rules
- NBR on tax on Owen Glenn gift
- What you have to believe in to believe Peters did not know
August 19th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Any view on how Heather Roy performed? Did she not get time, or was she just not noteworthy? I had some hopes for how she might go…
[DPF: I think Heather did well from all accounts. She was expected to be vigorous, which is why I didn't note it specifically]
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Your comment on Glenn intrigues me, if the gift relates to the consulship as circumstances seem to imply then that must be close to bribery…
Vote:It also puzzles me that no-one seems to have books showing money received and money expended, have I been wasting my time keeping a meticulous record of such for ten years in case the Inland Revenue wish to examine same. Indeed the Peters/ Henry/ NZ First machinations seem to replicate those of the winebox companies except that there are no incrimatory papers.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
One question that needs to be asked, “Is Brian Henry’s time, taht he termed as donation going to be counted as election expenses for Winston Peters?” I am sure Brian Henry has done a lot of work for Winston after the 1st of January 2008.
Vote:As per this example set, I can work for any party of my choice and then go out and raise money through donations and pocket them. Better make good use of it before the government closes this loophole.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
No baxter. The truth is, “…..Peters/ Henry/ NZ First machinations seem to replicate those of …..” a sleazy gang of drug dealers and pimps operating from a bordello in the Bronx.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
And lets all remember… what was one of the lasting outcomes from the “WineBox Investigation” ??
The (painfully common sense) legal conclusion that function was more important than form…. if you purposely do something that is in breach of the intent of the law, but document it in such a way that it technically complies…. then it’s still a breach of the law. (at least that was my non-lawyerly understanding of it, anyone care to confirm or clarify?)
Now, I wonder if that has any bearing on these recent revelations?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Hopefully Owen Glenn is one mightily aggrieved guy now, and gives testimony like a bull in a china shop. I don’t believe he has any loyalty to the socialists programme now that I understand how much the Monaco consulship meant to him (courtesy of a Rex Widerstrom explanation a few days ago).
John Key should make him honorary consul to Monaco once HE’s P.M., in gratitude for services rendered…….!!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Yes, Henry did perform well, although the 17 point opening statement which included rehashing the entire Winebox/Fay Richwhite/ Big business conspiracies to ruin the peoples champion of democracy was all a bit X-files for me, he was there to ask questions on a very specific issue, not go into why he thinks Winston is such a great guy.
But hey, It was the best free show in town on a wet Monday night.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Did any of the Labour MP’s ask anyone if they were members of the Exclusive Brethren? Oh no, how silly of me; that was the EFA select committee wasn’t it!
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Good God, IV2. You’re onto something. Has someone asked Winston if he’s a member?
He might as well be as he’s turned out to have been engaged in every type of malfeasance of which he has ever accused anyone else.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Sheesh – hadn’t thought of that Adolf – and aren’t the EB also known for their fondness of a wee dram of Scotland’s finest?
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Adolf
It’s not possible Winston is an EB. The EB actually believe in something other than their own importance.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Baxter, I’ve been around tax departments on and off. I often feel like I’m the only idiot who fills in my tax return truthfully, and sometimes I feel like I’m the only idiot who fills it in at all. “I tried”, “I lost the records” and “that’s vaguely close isn’t it” seem to be legitimate excuses in many situations. Having said that, if you piss someone off then you could be in real trouble without those records – I guess it depends on your appetite for risk. One in a million someone in the IRD decides to throw the book at you, but if they do then your life is pretty f****d.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
PaulL
Unless of course you are above the law, then it’s all just a bit of media circus to boost your opinion poll ratings.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
What kind of Barrister publicly claims a client is like a blood-brother? What kind of Barrister publicly states that appearing before the PC, should be a bit of fun? I’ll tell you what kind…A lying, arrogant, SOB, with plenty to hide.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Paul -
Vote:I’m sure the Law Society, the IRD, and many others will be awaiting the outcome with some interest…
August 19th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
anonymouse
Just out of interest, are you female and is your real name one that starts with “J” ?
The reason I ask is a girl I know who’s name starts with “J” once talked about blogging with a handle of “anonymouse”.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Like a performing seal, balancing a wobbly ball on its nose & hoping to be fed for doing a good job
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Oh, the delicious irony….Blood-brothers’ fighting together……falling together.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Interesting that it was Russell Norman who asked Stephen Kos the key question earlier on regarding normal practise of barristers to receive funds. (The answer was nearly deliberately undone by Cullen 2 minutes later.)
I don’t agree with his politics but Russell Norman has quite an intelligent style of interview by well constructed and probing questions.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I lost all faith in Russell Norman when he tried to tell me that the EFA was no compromise for a political party based on activism… while he was protesting….
He might be a smart man but he’s a Labour party lickspittle if ever there was one. Perhaps he’s grown some balls and I should give him a second chance. Lets see what he’s got to say come the election campaign, if the EFA which he had no problem with allows him to say anything.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“Does Henry paying the $40,000 debt to Clarkson constitute a gift to Peters on which gift duty should be paid? ”
And could Henry claim the $40,000 as a tax deductible business expense? On what justification, I wonder?
Vote: