On a minor note

September 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

One key issue in the inquiry has been the $40,000 payment to for costs. This was ordered by court in the name of Winston Peters, so anyone paying it on his behalf most certainly would need to have been declared.

says he personally paid the $40,000 – meaning he should have been listed in Winston’s register.

After media and blog attention focused on this, Brian and Winston claimed a couple of days later that it was all sorted out as Winston had repaid Brian shortly thereafter.

My question is, was this ever submitted formally to the Privileges Committee, and if so was any proof of repayment supplied? Anyone know?

Tags: , , , , ,

16 Responses to “On a minor note”

  1. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    “The basis of this latest lunatic spin, according to those I have spoken with, is that $40,000 of the $100,000, that Owen Glenn paid on Peters’ request to his lawyer Brian Henry, was then paid to the National Party or a trust associated with the National Party to pay the $40,000 court-costs ordered against Peters as a result of the court finding there was no merit in Peters’ case in Peters v Clarkson (the Tauranga electoral petition.)”

    Matthew Hooton is suggesting that Labour intends to spin it this way.

    Bryan Spondre aka redbaiter_baiter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    Bryan
    Does that make any sense at all? The costs would have been incurred by the individual (BC) not the National Party (although I suppose they might have underwritten them if -laugh – Bob was short of a bob or two).

    I wonder if this is the subject of the letter from the SFO to the PC that is causing Winston such angst!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. KevOB (262 comments) says:

    We know Henry doesn’t render accounts by his own words. Unless National were parties to Peters v Clarkson the costs would have gone to Clakson’s solicitors on his behalf. For Henry to pay them to a third party would only be proper if he had been directed to do so by Clarkson and they were to reimburse the third party for their payment on Clakson’s behalf. In which case it is Clakson’s costs in name only and the reimbursement is no gift to Clarkson.

    The delicious factor in all this is that so many attempts are being made to avoid the truth that criminal activity may be taking or have taken place when honesty would have excused things from the outset.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. llew (1,532 comments) says:

    Bryan Spondre aka redbaiter_baiter

    WTF? Believe me, you’ll get tired of such a pointless effort.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    dave/kev

    My (limited) understanding is that the National party underwrote Bob Clarkson’s legal expenses in defending the case. That seems reasonable to me, just as an employer should underwrite the legal expenses of an employee who was acting lawfully on their behalf. When Winston lost the case he was ordered to pay Bob Clarkson’s costs, and this was refunded to the National Party.

    Bryan Spondre aka redbaiter_baiter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    “My definition of a total waste is a coach load of lawyers going over a cliff with three empty seats”. Lamar Hunt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “My question is, was this ever submitted formally to the Privileges Committee, and if so was any proof of repayment supplied? Anyone know?”

    Why the hell don’t the police know?? why the hell aren’t they down there putting the lot of them in handcuffs. These crooks are politicians for chrissakes. They are not above the law. Where is the tame Labour Party Police Commissioner.???

    ARREST THEM..!!!

    ————————–

    “WTF? Believe me, you’ll get tired of such a pointless effort.”

    BS Quote-

    Are you talking to me ? I have no knowledge of this “BLOG PRODUCER” you reference.

    Unquote

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. llew (1,532 comments) says:

    Are you talking to me ?

    No, I was just thinking that calling yourself redbaiter_baiter was silly & pointless. First I’d seen of him. You must have got right up his nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. homepaddock (429 comments) says:

    I would find it difficult to believe anything from these two if they didn’t supply proof.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    “My question is, was this ever submitted formally to the Privileges Committee, and if so was any proof of repayment supplied? ”

    From your question DPF I am assuming that the evidence/submissions to the Privileges Committee are not available online ?

    Bryan Spondre aka redbaiter_baiter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    It is not clear from the outline on the parliamentary website if these documents are publicly available.

    Bryan Spondre aka redbaiter_baiter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. redbaiter_baiter (108 comments) says:

    “Hon Bill English: Is it not a bit odd that, given the Prime Minister’s responsibilities under the Cabinet Manuel to make sure that all Ministers are seen to uphold high ethical standards, she had a conversation with Mr Peters just after she had been told by a donor that he had written out a $100,000 cheque and she did not ask Mr Peters about it; and does that indicate she was more concerned about upsetting Mr Peters than she was about getting anywhere near the truth of the matter?”

    Here.

    Exquisite, Bill is my hero.

    Bryan Spondre aka redbaiter_baiter

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. democracymum (660 comments) says:

    How is that the PM can attempt to defame John Key at yesterday’s Grey Power meeting
    based on a “back of the envelope calculation” of 60 dead soldiers

    When she has yet to sack Winston Peters despite damning evidence to the contrary.

    And Winston can you “trust” Helen not to steal your grey haired sycophants right out from under you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    My understanding (which I accept may be incorrect) is that material presented to the Privileges Committee as evidence is available to the public. Only it’s deliberations are secret (or, on a rare occasion, if evidence is given in committee for a reason such as the safety of a person or a matter of national security).

    If evidence was submitted to back up Henry’s story it will thus be available from Parliament. Anyone interested could ring the Committee Secretary or email them using this form.

    However, given the fact that Winston himself has repeatedly called for open meetings and public access to “the evidence” (though clearly his idea of “evidence” is unsubstantiated testimony from himself and his barrister) someone needs to call on him to release it and surely, being an honourable member – as the PM likes to frequently remind us – he will do so.

    Now you’ll have to excuse me, an entire porcine airforce is planning a fly-past outside my window.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. dave strings (608 comments) says:

    Rex
    if you work in Wellington CBD you see that air farce all the time, it tends to circle over the beehive between 2 and 10 pm on Tues, Wed, Thur & Fri and zoom hither and yon around the city at other times. When at rest they are usually on top of the old BNZ building or doing casting calls for BNZ adverts!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    When you listen to Peters leaving the PC you know he’s had a real bad day. Listening to him try and suck up to the media is just a laff

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/Politics/tabid/370/articleID/72116/Default.aspx#video

    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.