Dail Jones was right

September 5th, 2008 at 6:55 am by David Farrar

The last pieces of the New Zealand First funding mystery were solved today, as the Herald reveals that the “close to $100,000 than $10,000″ mystery amount referred to by in December 2007 was a $80,000 donation from the .

No wonder Peters was furious with Jones. He had accidentially revealed the existence of the Spencer Trust. As Party President Jones wasn’t even aware of the Trust – it was all Peters.

And what did Peters say at the time:

Asked if that meant “there was no big anonymous donation”, Mr Peters said “precisely”.

$80,000 is not big of course.

And in that infamous press conference:

“We have a treasurer in the party and he says it’s a consolidation of amounts around the party. He should know. One can get confused when you look at documentation and perhaps he [Mr Jones] should have spoken to the treasurer.”

Now this is fascinating. Peters refers to ti being a consolidation of amounts “around the party”. This is implying that the Spencer Trust is part of the party.

Where the $158,000 came from to “repay” NZ First’s unlawful spend at the last election:
“We’ve had at $10, and $20, and $50 for a long, long time because some people used to think – and it’s an attitude that still permeates New Zealand as a democracy – that one day the communists might take over and they will be all in the firing line.”

Yep all those small donations of $10, $20, $50 and oh yeah $10,000 and $25,000.

Incidentally we still don’t know where the $158,000 that should have been paid to the taxpayer went.

Now there is an interesting scenario. What if the $80,000 was made up of seperate donations each under $10,00.01? Would that have to be disclosed?

Unless the Spencer Trust is literally part of NZ First – as in an additional suffix to their main bank account – I believe the answer is yes. And it seems its money was kept in a solictor’s trust fund so the answer is they are separate. The donation is from the Spencer Trust or even the solictor’s trust fund, and was $80,000 so should have been declared.

Tags: , , ,

9 Responses to “Dail Jones was right”

  1. goodgod (1,348 comments) says:

    Everything Winston has previously claimed is turning out to be lies. The veracity of his word is forever lost. I’m waiting to see how Helen and the Labour Party are mixed up in all of this – which they clearly are.

    Christmas comes on 10th September this year. Owen Glenn has agreed to be Santa. The kids can hardly wait to see what’s in his sack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Grant Michael McKenna (1,159 comments) says:

    I’m thinking that Mr Glenn will have evidence that he was promised the consulship in return for a donation- a straight cash for honours deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. unaha-closp (1,157 comments) says:

    Incidentally we still don’t know where the $158,000 that should have been paid to the taxpayer went.

    Donated to the Spencer Charitable Trust?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. adc (588 comments) says:

    using the definite article(the word “the”) to refer to a sum of money implies that there was only one sum of 158k, and so by paying that amount to charity, Winston absolved himself of paying it back to the public from whom it was stolen.

    However as we all know, there is more than 158k NZD in circulation, and therefore there’s nothing stopping Winston acquiring another sum to repay his theft. The fact he gave away enough money to repay the people only makes him stupid, since I imagine now he has pissed off all his donors, scraping together another 158k will be all the more difficult.

    As for why no-one is still hounding him over this, does this mean people think it’s acceptable to steal from the public, then instead of repaying, donate money to charity instead? Anyone who believes that has risen far beyond their level of incompetence. Why the police aren’t pursuing that matter is beyond me.

    Can a member of public lay a complaint with the police about this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Until I see a full and complete reconcilitaion of the income and expenditure for NZ1 and all and every entity in any way related to it I dont accept there hasnt been a gross corruption committed

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. freethinker (688 comments) says:

    Grant – if you are correct then presumably Peters has committed a criminal offence!
    Hopefully the SFO enquiries will provide leads as yet unknown, question is will they be become public and followed .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Tauhei Notts (1,683 comments) says:

    Did anybody else notice that the Spencer Trust did not have a bank account.
    All transactions went through a solicitor’s trust account.
    I think that this is because if the Spencer Trust was to open a bank account the paperwork would be too much for NZ First administrators to comprehend. Nowadays banks want a copy of the trust deed, proof of identity of each trustee, guarantees from each trustee; all stuff that Winston would not let outside of a lawyer’s office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.