More GCSB issues

October 3rd, 2012 at 12:20 pm by David Farrar

The PM has announced:

The review of the files found the following.

  • The Prime Minister was not briefed by the on its role in the Dotcom matter, nor any issues of potential illegality, until Monday 17 September.
  • The Prime Minister was not briefed by any group or official within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the GCSB’s role in the Dotcom matter ahead of the 17 September meeting. Roy Ferguson, Director of the Intelligence Coordination Group, was made aware by GCSB of its role in the arrest of Mr Dotcom the day of the raid but only after it occurred in January 2012. Mr Ferguson has advised the Prime Minister that his records indicate he did not subsequently brief the Prime Minister on the matter. It is not Mr Ferguson’s role to brief the Prime Minister on operational matters.
  • The Prime Minister visited GCSB offices on 29 February for a briefing on the broader capabilities of the bureau, and to meet the staff. A paper prepared as talking points for the staff member conducting a presentation contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest a few weeks earlier, as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the Police. The presentation was an electronic slide presentation. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Mr Dotcom.
  • A short briefing note provided to the Prime Minister prior to the 29 February visit contained no reference to the Dotcom matter. The talking points paper was used by the staff member at the briefing, however neither that paper nor a copy of the presentation was provided to the Prime Minister either at that time or subsequently.
  • No written record was kept of the meeting.
  • In advising the Prime Minister of the talking points note and the electronic presentation, the Director told the Prime Minister that he had no recollection of the Dotcom matter being raised at the meeting but accepted the assurance of his staff that it was mentioned briefly, in the context of a much broader presentation.
  • At no point was any reference made to questions about residency status.

The Prime Minister acknowledged the findings of the review and has made them public at the earliest opportunity.

“I have been clear from the outset that I received no briefing on the operation from GCSB prior to 17 September, and this review confirms that,” says Mr Key.

“While neither the GCSB Director nor I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter being made during my visit to the bureau back in February, I accept that it may well have been made.

“Given the public statements I have made in Parliament and in the media, it is important that I take this opportunity to provide this additional information.

“I will be correcting my answers to the House when it resumes on Tuesday 16 October.”

 It is always messy when you have to correct an answer given. The Opposition will claim of course that it was deliberate, but of course it wasn’t – if it was, why would you, knowing you have to correct it later. I think most people will appreciate a failure to recall a brief mention, which wasn’t noted down.  But don’t get me wrong – still messy and a bad look.
There’s also been an audit of the 58 cases since January 2009, with three of those 58 having issues around them.  GCSB say they merely provided technical data, but the issue is whether their actions were authorised under law.
The report of the Inspector-General into these cases will be eagerly awaited. The Government needs to consider what they need to do to restore confidence in the GCSB.
Tags: ,

60 Responses to “More GCSB issues”

  1. kowtow (7,943 comments) says:

    The government needs to consider what they need to do to restore confidence in………itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > No written record was kept of the meeting.

    Goodness gracious, that cannot possibly be true. Didn’t David Farrar impugn Shane Jones’ credibility on many occasions when Jones insisted he discussed the Bill Liu case with a Justice Ministry official? DPF suggested that because there was no record of the discussion, the meeting didn’t take place.

    [DPF: Jones made a ministerial decision that went against formal departmental advice. He cites an official who he can not name, and whom the department can not find, who told him something.

    You do written file notes when you make decisions. You don't keep them of every discussion or presentation you have,

    But you knew that]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “The Opposition will claim of course that it was deliberate, but of course it wasn’t – if it was, why would you, knowing you have to correct it later.”

    That presumes that Key is as honest as the day is long. Why would he think he would have to correct an answer? I suspect liars expect they won’t get caught. (I’m not for one moment suggesting our illustrious leader is a liar.) I am a little surprised at your naivete.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Philonz (91 comments) says:

    Big questions for the police too. They don’t seem to be able to manage a legal surveillance operation at all and require the use of the GSCB to tell them where their suspects are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    [You do written file notes when you make decisions. You don't keep them of every discussion or presentation you have]

    Yeah GCSB’s illegal spying is such a trivial issue…no need to keep records about it.

    [DPF: You are so desperate. They did keep notes, which is what they have just released.

    Tell me one thing honestly. Do you actually believe the story from Shane Jones that an unidentified official advised him to give citizenship as Liu faced execution in China. Just a yes or no will suffice]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. capitald (72 comments) says:

    I don’t think this issue is going to go away in a hurry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. labrator (1,846 comments) says:

    The next election just became about forgetfulness. I can see the ads now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RJL (145 comments) says:

    Of course, Feb 29 was some time after Dotcom had been arrested, and after it was widely known that he was a NZ resident.

    So, surely if Key was actually paying competent attention to what was being presented, he would have perhaps thought to question what the GCSB was actually doing with regard to the Dotcom operation? There are few legal possibilities for what the GCSB could have been doing if Dotcom is a NZ resident.

    Key is still lying and/or this is just more evidence that he is totally incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nostalgia-NZ (5,043 comments) says:

    ‘While neither the GCSB Director nor I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter being made during my visit to the bureau back in February, I accept that it may well have been made.

    “Given the public statements I have made in Parliament and in the media, it is important that I take this opportunity to provide this additional information.’

    Classic, neither of us recall it but could have happened, even though I said it didn’t.

    But cheer up folks only 3 other possible cases where surveillance might also have been illegal. Probably something as mundane as the police or GCSB not understanding the law. The old when a resident is not a resident.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jaba (2,095 comments) says:

    if I was John Key, I would be having my people preparing for a snap election .. the lefty parties are all over the place and with all the things generating bad press, he would be justified in doing so.
    He needs some wins over the upcoming weeks/months, then go for it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. publicwatchdog (2,285 comments) says:

    C’mon Kiwibloggers – how can anyone believe a WORD that fake, phony, shonky John Key says?

    Seriously?

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1210/S00050/pm-releases-results-of-gcsb-file-review.htm

    “- The Prime Minister was not briefed by the GCSB on its role in the Dotcom matter, nor any issues of potential illegality, until Monday 17 September.”

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    briefedpast participle, past tense of brief
    Verb:
    Instruct or inform (someone) thoroughly, esp. in preparation for a task: “she briefed him on last week’s decisions”.
    More info »Merriam-Webster – The Free Dictionary

    briefed – definition of briefed by the Free Online Dictionary …
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/briefed
    Succinct; concise: a brief account of the incident. 3. Curt; abrupt. n. 1. A short, succinct statement. 2. A condensation or an abstract of a larger document or series …

    brief – definition of brief by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus …
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brief
    Succinct; concise: a brief account of the incident. 3. Curt; abrupt. n. 1. A short, succinct statement. 2. A condensation or an abstract of a larger document or series …

    Legal brief – Brief Legal Definition Of Brief. … – Briefs – Brief about
    briefing – definition of briefing by the Free Online Dictionary …
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/briefing

    brief·ing (br f ng). n. 1. The act or an instance of giving instructions or preparatory information to someone. 2. A meeting at which such information is presented. 3.
    _____________________________________________________

    “- The Prime Minister visited GCSB offices on 29 February for a briefing on the broader capabilities of the bureau, and to meet the staff. A paper prepared as talking points for the staff member conducting a presentation contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest a few weeks earlier, as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the Police. The presentation was an electronic slide presentation. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Mr Dotcom.”

    _____________________________________________________

    YOU LIE – YOU DIE?

    (Speaking politically – off course :)

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    PM releases results of GCSB file review

    Wednesday, 3 October 2012, 11:49 am
    Press Release: New Zealand Government

    Rt Hon John Key

    Prime Minister

    3 October 2012

    PM releases results of GCSB file review

    Prime Minister and Minister Responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau John Key this morning released the results of a full review of GCSB files conducted by Director Ian Fletcher.

    Since 17 September, the date on which Mr Fletcher advised the Prime Minister of the illegal activity in respect of Mr Dotcom, the bureau has been working through its Dotcom-related files in order to cooperate with both the Neazor inquiry and the matters before the High Court.

    The Prime Minister said that on Monday, 1 October, he meet with the Director and sought an assurance that the GCSB had reviewed all relevant files.

    The Director then conducted a further review of the material and provided it to the Prime Minister’s office last evening. Earlier yesterday afternoon Mr Fletcher met the Prime Minister to discuss his initial findings, which were subsequently confirmed that evening.

    The review of the files found the following.

    - The Prime Minister was not briefed by the GCSB on its role in the Dotcom matter, nor any issues of potential illegality, until Monday 17 September.

    - The Prime Minister was not briefed by any group or official within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on the GCSB’s role in the Dotcom matter ahead of the 17 September meeting. Roy Ferguson, Director of the Intelligence Coordination Group, was made aware by GCSB of its role in the arrest of Mr Dotcom the day of the raid but only after it occurred in January 2012. Mr Ferguson has advised the Prime Minister that his records indicate he did not subsequently brief the Prime Minister on the matter. It is not Mr Ferguson’s role to brief the Prime Minister on operational matters.

    - The Prime Minister visited GCSB offices on 29 February for a briefing on the broader capabilities of the bureau, and to meet the staff. A paper prepared as talking points for the staff member conducting a presentation contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest a few weeks earlier, as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the Police. The presentation was an electronic slide presentation. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Mr Dotcom.

    - A short briefing note provided to the Prime Minister prior to the 29 February visit contained no reference to the Dotcom matter. The talking points paper was used by the staff member at the briefing, however neither that paper nor a copy of the presentation was provided to the Prime Minister either at that time or subsequently.

    - No written record was kept of the meeting.

    - In advising the Prime Minister of the talking points note and the electronic presentation, the Director told the Prime Minister that he had no recollection of the Dotcom matter being raised at the meeting but accepted the assurance of his staff that it was mentioned briefly, in the context of a much broader presentation.

    - At no point was any reference made to questions about residency status.

    The Prime Minister acknowledged the findings of the review and has made them public at the earliest opportunity.

    “I have been clear from the outset that I received no briefing on the operation from GCSB prior to 17 September, and this review confirms that,” says Mr Key.

    “While neither the GCSB Director nor I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter being made during my visit to the bureau back in February, I accept that it may well have been made.

    “Given the public statements I have made in Parliament and in the media, it is important that I take this opportunity to provide this additional information.

    “I will be correcting my answers to the House when it resumes on Tuesday 16 October.”

    The Prime Minister today also noted the results of the GCSB audit into all cases of assistance to law enforcement agencies since January 2009. This audit was one of a number of steps ordered by the Prime Minister in the wake of the Dotcom matter, and was released today by the Director.

    “The audit finds that in the vast bulk of cases there is no suggestion of any illegality,” says Mr Key.

    “In three of 58 cases, however, the GCSB cannot assure me that the legal position is totally clear. More legal work is being undertaken and the GCSB will issue a further public statement when that work has been concluded.”

    ends

    _____________________________________________________

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    Hi Penny! I’m still waiting for an answer to my question by the way!

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2012/10/general_debate_2_october_2012.html#comment-1028893

    (Sorry everyone else – back to the thread).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    I think we need to look at the KDC case as a pointer towards how wealthy and connected people will fight their legal or political battles in the future. He is essentially fighting exradition and this should be a matter only for the police and the courts. The police can’t fight the PR battle when the matter is before the courts. So KDC’s PR people have free reign, and they seem to be determined to shit all over everyone that hasn’t given them the special favours they wanted. Like a mattress to the standard they wanted.

    I see similarities with the Pullar case, where a woman with political connections tried to use the media and threats of bad publicity to obtain a payout from ACC. Then she ran a similar scorched earth policy to punish anyone she thought had slighted her.

    There are also similarities with the Owen Glenn case. I think that Labour and NZ First were generally sleazy with their offers of a diplomatic title for money. But I don’t like the way that super-wealthy Glenn decided to punish those parties when he didn’t get what he wanted. He was portrayed as a bit of a hero, where as the reality is that he lived overseas in a tax haven while spending his money to inflict a Labour government on the rest of us.

    Ordinary people have to suffer in silence or push for improvements yourself. But if you’re a fat German millionaire or a friend of a well known lobbyist then the media will go in to bat with you to try and win you special treatment. I think that is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (10,177 comments) says:

    @ Graham – is the Penny Bright who wrote that comment above the same Penny Bright who stars in the video below?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSqdialKkWw

    Footnote: Not suitable for young children, or for people who have just eaten, and should not be watched with coffee/tea in hand :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    KS, could be. :) Thanks for the warning by the way, I made sure to put my cup of coffee down lest I spill it.

    Sorry, not meaning to thread-jack, just wanted to give Penny every opportunity to respond. As you were …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RJL (145 comments) says:

    @davidp
    Nice try at running distraction. Dotcom is not the issue here.

    The issue here is that of the GCSB acting illegally and the PM being incompetent in his supervision of his ministry (or lying about his involvement).

    You are however totally right that none of this would have seen the light of day if Dotcom did not have the resources to employ excellent lawyers. But Dotcom’s lawyers did not cause the GCSB to act illegally, and similarly Dotcom’s lawyers did not cause John Banks to make illegal declarations of donations.

    You are quite correct that it is totally wrong that the GCSB and Banks would have gotten away with their behaviour if Dotcom had not been wealthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    “While neither the GCSB Director nor I can recall the reference to the Dotcom matter being made during my visit to the bureau back in February, I accept that it may well have been made…”

    Anybody that believes this fabricated nonsense, believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden. Key continues to insult everyone’s intelligence, playing them for fools. I for one, am not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Paulus (2,562 comments) says:

    Fat Freddie Dotcon has pulled the media eyes out and covered them publically, and so far legally.
    He will get soft treatment in the extradition court and will come out to the cameras, with a big V sigh to Key and Banks.
    No wonder Labour, Greenpeace Branch and Winston love him – he is doing their job.
    Step one –
    Step two – whilst he may have got away, at enormous financial cost (paid for by the New Zealand Taxpayer) he is very stymied in fact.
    He probably can never leave New Zealand, ever, as there will be an extradition warrant waiting for him wherever he goes, whether that be to his native Germany, or Finland, where he has passports and citizenship. He will probably never get Citizenship here no matter how much money he may have. At present all his money outside New Zealand has been frozen and to get to say his $150 million in Hong Kong may be fraught with extradition.
    So we can look forward to his stunts, and fireworks, which I thought Len paid for at the time anyway.
    He is far from a prepossessing site. No doubt his children will be home schooled until his money runs out for his rental.
    Can we expect him to “legal” work here ? He will be watched closely for illegality by somebody (not GCSB).
    Do we need a porn site based here perhaps ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    “He will get soft treatment in the extradition court and will come out to the cameras, with a big V sigh to Key and Banks.”

    No he won’t. The extradition proceedings will be dropped. Watch ths space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    Paul, it’s quite easy to believe that Key (or anyone) doesn’t recall everything they are briefed on. I often have to refer back to logs to remind myself of things I’ve been involved with.

    That doesn’t mean Key has been completely open and honest, but there’s nothing to prove he’s lied either, and it’s plausible that he hasn’t, particularly taking into account the amount of information he prepared to reveal and discuss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    And it’s just been tweeted:

    ‏@LIVENewsDesk

    John Key says he doesn’t recall being briefed on the Dotcom case in February. He says he attends briefings all the time

    That’s quite possible – I’d expect the PM to be briefed far more than most and it would be impossible to remember everything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    RJL>The issue here is that of the GCSB acting illegally and the PM being incompetent in his supervision of his ministry (or lying about his involvement).

    I suspect that public servants act illegally multiple times a day. If you restrict this to just privacy breaches, public servants have almost unrestricted access to personal information such as tax records and medical records. There have been cases in the past where these have been accessed for invalid reasons, but generally that still hasn’t caused government agencies to properly secure their information or to implement proper access controls.

    So, the law was broken. But it may have been broken a hundred times that day. One case is in the media. The others aren’t, and no one can even be bothered investigating them or even in putting proper controls in place. Why are you obsessed with this one case while you ignore the bigger picture?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Yvette (2,744 comments) says:

    A point not mentioned above, far as I can see –

    However, it has been revealed that on February 16 police told GCSB that the spying may have been illegal – but GCSB’s legal department concluded there was no problem.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7763234/John-Key-briefed-on-Dotcom-spying-in-February

    Then the February 29 presentation included the reference to Dotcom
    One could ask if indeed that was not “running it by” John Key then as insurance

    “Ne croyez jamais rien tant qu’il n’a pas été officiellement nié” –
    “Never believe anything until it has been officially denied”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. publicwatchdog (2,285 comments) says:

    DID JOHN KEY DELIBERATELY MISLEAD THE HOUSE OVER KIM DOTCOM?

    How was a presentation by a GCSB staff member, given to Prime Minister John Key on 29 February 2012, AS PART OF A BRIEFING ON THE BROADER CAPABILITIES OF THE BUREAU, which ‘contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest a few weeks earlier, as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the police’ – NOT A BRIEFING BY THE GCSB ON ITS ROLE IN THE KIM DOTCOM MATTER?

    What manner of ‘weasel words’ are the NZ public expected to believe?

    Where is the accountability, at the highest levels – to the ‘Rule of Law’ – by those who have the power to ‘make the law’ and those who have the authority to enforce the law?

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/117249/pm-releases-review-of-spy-agency-files

    Seriously?

    “Prime Minister John Key says a review of the Government Communications Security Bureau’s files confirms he was not briefed about the Kim Dotcom case until 17 September.”

    Who carried out this ‘review’ of the GCSB’s files?

    Because, arguably both they and the Prime Minister LIED?

    If the purpose of the PM’s visit to the GCSB on 29 February 2012, was a ‘briefing on the broader capabilities of the bureau,’ and the Kim Dotcom raid which involved the GCSB was part of that briefing, then how, in all honesty and befitting the ‘highest ethical standards’ can it be said that the Prime Minister was not briefed about the Kim Dotcom case until 17 September 2012?

    http://www.cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz/2.50

    Conduct of Ministers
    2.52A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities:

    in a ministerial capacity, making decisions, and determining and promoting policy within particular portfolios;in a political capacity as a member of Parliament, representing a constituency or particular community of interest;in a personal capacity.

    2.53In all these roles and at all times, Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    TO WHOM IS THE PRIME MINISTER ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALLEGED BREACHES OF THE ‘HIGHEST ETHICAL STANDARDS’?

    “He says while neither he nor Mr Fletcher can recall the reference to Dotcom being made he accepts it might have happened.
    As a result he will correct an answer he gave Parliament on the matter last month when the House resumes sitting in two weeks.”

    If you’re the Prime Minister – and you allegedly LIE to the House over NOT being briefed about the Kim Dotcom case until 17 September 2012 – when you arguably were indeed briefed about the Kim Dotcom raid on 29 February 2012 – how is this NOT ‘Contempt of the House’?

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/AboutParl/HowPWorks/PPNZ/7/4/3/00HOOOCPPNZ_471-Chapter-47-Contempt.htm

    Misconduct

    Deliberate misleading of the House

    It is a contempt deliberately to attempt to mislead the House or a committee, whether by way of a statement, in evidence or in a petition. [98] This example of contempt, while always potential, was given explicit recognition in 1963 when, following a political cause célèbre (the Profumo affair), the House of Commons resolved that a former member who had made a personal statement to the House which he subsequently acknowledged to be untrue had committed a contempt of the House. [99] It has been submitted that there is an established constitutional convention that Ministers should always tell the truth to Parliament as far as this is possible without harming national security. [100] Whether this type of contempt embodies a convention or not, regarding lying to the House as a serious transgression of parliamentary etiquette (quite apart from any moral considerations) has been said to be the only way for Parliament to keep a check on the executive. [101]

    The contempt can be committed by anyone taking part in parliamentary proceedings. It consists of the conveying of information to the House or a committee that is inaccurate in a material particular and which the person conveying the information knew at the time was inaccurate or at least ought to have known was inaccurate. [102]

    Members deliberately misleading the House
    Most commonly allegations that there has been an attempt deliberately to mislead the House involve statements made by members in the House – whether by way of personal explanation, in the course of debate or in replying to a question.

    There are three elements to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt by reason of a statement that the member has made: the statement must, in fact, have been misleading; it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time the statement was made that it was incorrect; and, in making it, the member must have intended to mislead the House. The standard of proof demanded is the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities but, given the serious nature of the allegations, proof of a very high order. [103] Recklessness in the use of words in debate, though reprehensible in itself, falls short of the standard required to hold a member responsible for deliberately misleading the House. [104] The misleading of the House must not be concerned with a matter of such little or no consequence that is too trivial to warrant the House dealing with it. A misunderstanding of this nature should be cleared up on a point of order. [105]

    For a misleading of the House to be deliberate, there must be something in the nature of the incorrect statement that indicates an intention to mislead. Remarks made off the cuff in debate can rarely fall into this category, nor can matters about which the member can be aware only in an official capacity. But where the member can be assumed to have personal knowledge of the stated facts and made the statement in a situation of some formality (for example, by way of personal explanation), a presumption of an intention to mislead the House will more readily arise. [106]

    As well as a deliberate misleading of the House arising from a remark in the House, it is conceivable that members could mislead the House by their actions: for example, from a deliberate misuse of a voting proxy, by delivering to the Clerk a totally different document from that which the member obtained leave of the House to table, [107] or by misrepresenting their authority to act on behalf of an absent member. [108]

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    WHAT ACTION MAY/WILL BE TAKEN IN THE HOUSE AGAINST THE NZ PRIME MINISTER JOHN KEY?

    We shall see…………………………….

    Isn’t it HIGH time for an ENFORCEABLE ‘Code of Conduct’ for New Zealand Members of Parliament?

    New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ according to the 2011 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception index’.

    Is this now a New Zealand corruption ‘reality check’?

    Starting from the top?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nostalgia-NZ (5,043 comments) says:

    Some good might come out of this which could save a lot of money. No briefing John Key because it’s too hard for him to remember.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > I’d expect the PM to be briefed far more than most and it would be impossible to remember everything.

    I totally agree. Which is why pen and paper are useful when it comes to recording details of meetings. Under the Public Records Act, government agencies are required to create and maintain full and accurate records.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. KevinH (1,155 comments) says:

    “- No written record was kept of the meeting.”

    The Prime minister had better hope that there isn’t a whistle blower in there.Minutes from these meetings are classified fyo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > No briefing John Key because it’s too hard for him to remember.

    John Banks, Ian Fletcher, Paul Neazor and now the PM. It’s a worry that these highly paid people, each with significant responsibilities, can suffer from collective amnesia, which apparently absolves them from any responsibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ>No briefing John Key because it’s too hard for him to remember.

    My understanding is that KDC’s photo was included on a PowerPoint slide along with ten others to illustrate GCSB assistance to the police. Presumably Key would have seen the slide, noted the important point “GCSB help the police from time to time”, and then moved on to the next slide.

    Are you saying that Key should have paused the presentation, then asked the presenter to identify each of the 11 people and provide a detailed summary of their cases, including legal commentary about any legal aspects? And that someone should have kept detailed notes… maube a page or two per person. Do you honestly think that any PM or Minister micromanages their departments to that extent?

    Which segues in to the big issue here. Which is whether we want the PM more involved in the operational control of the intelligence services, or not. It seems that Labour, the Greens, and the media expect the PM to be involved in the day to day operational control of intelligence. That scares me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    [They did keep notes, which is what they have just released...]

    “No written record was kept of the meeting.” I’m surprised you’d even try to spin that. I look forward to your change of position when the Auditor-General reports back on Shane Jones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    Penny, you talk about “an ENFORCEABLE ‘Code of Conduct’”.

    As somebody who has stood for public office, would YOU PERSONALLY sign up to such a ‘Code of Conduct’?
    As somebody who has stood for public office, do you agree that people in those positions should be accountable and answer questions that are asked of them?
    As somebody who has stood for public office, would you agree that the actions of the people featured below are not actions we should expect of mayoral candidates?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    Are you saying that Key should have paused the presentation, then asked the presenter to identify each of the 11 people and provide a detailed summary of their cases, including legal commentary about any legal aspects?

    So a big fat German with an odd name is busted in a paramilitary style raid but during a briefing about their activities the minister in charge of the government spy agency that participated with a foreign state the operation was unaware of the people involved?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    grr…no edit;

    a foreign state ‘in’ the operation .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. publicwatchdog (2,285 comments) says:

    Yes ‘Keeping Stock’ – that’s me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSqdialKkWw

    Just had the Occupy Auckland appeal hearing in the Auckland High Court on 25 September 2012.
    I was an Appellant, as I had previously been a Named Respondent, and defended myself.
    Judge Ellis has reserved her decision.

    Can Auckland Council By-laws ‘trump’ our lawful rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, as enshrined in the NZ Rill of Rights Act 1990?

    I argued NO.

    We shall see……………….
    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Here are a couple of other videos that you may find interesting?

    (If you’re interested in the work of ‘whistle-blowers’ – who are asking the HARD questions that nobody else seems to? )

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFTYZVQo-A8

    Is John Key shonky?

    Back in 2008 I took a private prosecution against John Key over TranzRail, after the Police and SFO refused to act.
    There was not ONE sentence published in the NZ Herald about this, while there were regular ‘MAN ON THE MOON’ headlines about NZ First and Winston Peters about alleged fraudulent behaviour ( in order to help stop them reaching the 5% party vote threshold?).

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXwNoaOpDMw

    Will John Key benefit from NZ’s growing debt?

    Grey Power Public Meeting 3 February 2011 – where I ask John Key (to his face) if he will personally profit from NZ’s growing indebtedness given his shareholding in the Bank of America.

    (Which is still the case.

    http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/DFA6C21E-69A8-433F-8BA9-956431281F7F/222223/register2012_3.pdf
    (See pg 33)

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    PS: Sorry Graham – have been a bit busy with arguably more important things to do, but will reply to you question in due course.

    As you will see by my PROVEN track record – I take full personal responsibility for my actions, and will defend them in Court, if necessary.

    (Unlike John Banks or John Key – who seem to hide behind an inability to remember rather important matters – as it were? :)

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. cha (3,856 comments) says:

    fuckety.fuck.

    a foreign state agency ‘in’ the operation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. publicwatchdog (2,285 comments) says:

    Defending basic human rights and civil liberties to the point of arrest – shows the sort of civic backbone that I for one would like to see in candidates who stand for public office.

    Of course – it is up to the voters to decide.

    However – the main reason I stand for public office is to try and help raise public awareness of issues that don’t tend to get a lot of coverage in mainstream media?

    http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    (Further background info can be found on http://www.stopthesupercity.org.nz )

    Where have I been factually inaccurate in the raising of these issues Graham?

    Or perhaps you like being part of a giant CA$H COW?

    All pay – no say? (As it were?)

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nostalgia-NZ (5,043 comments) says:

    davidp

    I’m sure that anybody showed a montage of photos which included Dotcom would remember. But you are now trying to offer reasons for John Key not to do his job. Being made conversant with a subject of surveillance is hardly mundane or micro management. To my view Key showed an unusual manner last week when conceding that the interceptions had been illegal. I was also surprised that he so quickly ordered an ‘inquiry’ of sorts – correct procedure or a knee jerk reaction, panic? These are things yet to surface, but in a week we’ve gone from September back to February, a date which upon which some participants claim not to recall a briefing. Sort of makes me wonder the point of briefings, if they’re so unimportant that the Minister responsible doesn’t recall what was said, or when the general importance of the briefing is so low that covert operations are canvassed the Minister pays so little attention that he has soon forgotten. I thought the whole act was for accountability, so that such operations were within in the fold, rather than beyond it.

    In my small experience with such things, the driving momentum is that the obligation is to report all matters carefully and fully so that if there is anything out of the ordinary, then or later the person above has taken the responsibility of being fully briefed. Or put another way ‘if you tell me, then the responsibility is mine. If you don’t it yours.’ Add to that ‘I might not like what you tell me, but I still need to know – otherwise you own it.’

    Of course GCSB is not just any department either, nor would any of it’s briefings to the PM be run of the mill. In a little over a week the GCSB has been blamed, now that is no longer clear. As someone has written before on another thread, GCSB are not roll over patsies and I would not be surprised if they were as fully professional as some branches of the armed services, right down to how they deal with Ministers or anyone that might later want to off load blame onto them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    “… in due course”

    All I can say is, I await your answers with interest Penny. :) I’ve publicly stated that I will do as you ask if you answer these questions:

    - Will YOU, Penny Bright, happily sign up to a ‘Code of Conduct’?
    - If so, what will this ‘Code of Conduct’ look like? What will it bind you to?
    - If you will not sign up to it, why not?

    Now let’s see some of the ‘openness and transparency’ you call on others to show. Your 3:26 post is merely an attempt at diversion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. publicwatchdog (2,285 comments) says:

    Good grief!

    Don’t the people charged with running the country KEEP MINUTES of what happens at their meetings?

    Arguably even the local Cat Club KEEPS MINUTES of their meetings?

    (shakes head in total disbelief……)

    Seriously – you couldn’t make this stuff up?!

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. graham (2,284 comments) says:

    Being willing to be arrested is not a ‘Code of Conduct’, Penny …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. RJL (145 comments) says:

    @davidp
    “Are you saying that Key should have paused the presentation, then asked the presenter to identify each of the 11 people and provide a detailed summary of their cases, including legal commentary about any legal aspects?…”

    Are you really saying that if Key receives a briefing involving Dotcom on the same day as a story like this Herald story is printed http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788914 , then he cannot reasonably be expected to show any interest in who Dotcom is or what precisely the GCSB’s involvement was? Key *is* the minister supposedly responsible for the GCSB.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ>Sort of makes me wonder the point of briefings, if they’re so unimportant that the Minister responsible doesn’t recall what was said, or when the general importance of the briefing is so low that covert operations are canvassed the Minister pays so little attention that he has soon forgotten.

    You’re missing the point of the briefing which wasn’t to give the PM a detailed update on specific cases for governance and oversite purposes, but to discuss “the broader capabilities of the bureau, and to meet the staff”…

    “The Prime Minister visited GCSB offices on 29 February for a briefing on the broader capabilities of the bureau, and to meet the staff. A paper prepared as talking points for the staff member conducting a presentation contained a short reference to the Dotcom arrest a few weeks earlier, as an example of cooperation between the GCSB and the Police. The presentation was an electronic slide presentation. The cover slide was a montage of 11 small images, one of which was of Mr Dotcom.”

    I’ve done this before when working in government. My Minister generally had no interest at all in my area of speciality which is IT security. Then some semi-random event (which in one case was a potential vendor sending the Minister some sales material) meant that the agency CEO decided that we should provide a bit of a background briefing to advertise our work and capabilities. We’d do a high level presentation that might include bullet points like “Provide investigative assistance to other agencies with breaches of privacy and mis-use” and might name a couple of agencies we’d assisted. I might take my team along to meet the Minister. In no way would I or the CEO or the Minister regard that as an official briefing on other-agency privacy breaches. We certainly wouldn’t keep detailed minutes… a one liner “DavidP gave an overview on IT security to the Minister” would cover it. And I wouldn’t expect the Minister to remember much more than the most important point which was “We have an IT security team who can take care of complicated stuff”.

    In this case (which was an Aussie state government) the Minister actually did remember the most important point. His office called a few months later to say he’d been infected with malware, porn was popping up randomly in his browser, and they wanted someone to fix it without the media finding out. Which wasn’t any problem, but if 2005 Australia had been suffering 2012 GCSB hysteria then I suppose I’d have had the media and the opposition after me and we’d have had multiple inquiries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. davidp (3,557 comments) says:

    RJL>Are you really saying that if Key receives a briefing involving Dotcom on the same day as a story like this Herald story is printed http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788914 , then he cannot reasonably be expected to show any interest in who Dotcom is or what precisely the GCSB’s involvement was?

    So because the case was being covered in the media, Key should have started micromanaging the involvement of the Police and GCSB?

    I’ve said this before… Suggestions that the PM should be involved in the operational matters of the intelligence agencies scare me. We have a system where criminal investigations are completely independent of political interference and I’d like to keep it that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. DJP6-25 (1,310 comments) says:

    Paul Marsden 2:06 pm. That’s what I think too. Assuming there is an incoming Romney administration in 2013 of course. None of the Republicans in Congress have any time for Hollywood’s version of copyright law. Hollywood hates them. The feeling is largely mutual. So Justice and the FBI will likely drop the proceedings against Kim Dotcom. They’ll have bigger fish to fry by then. Fish from the Obama side of the fence.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Sofia (830 comments) says:

    Asked whether she was happy to have her husband home, a heavily pregnant Mrs Dotcom said “yes, very much” …

    Meanwhile, Ms Toohey was expecting more information tonight from US authorities about whether Mrs Dotcom was involved in her husband’s company.
    She told the hearing today she had received a preliminary application from the US and was seeking to clarify it with US prosecutors.

    RJL’s link – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788914

    So when was the baby born? Presumably a New Zealand citizen.
    And is Mona Dotcom involved in the company with any charges as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. publicwatchdog (2,285 comments) says:

    3 October 2012 at 4:17 pm
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/another-dotcom-review-key-told-february-bc-130082#comment-587037

    (Yet to be published comment)

    DID JOHN KEY MISLEAD THE HOUSE?

    “Mr Key visited GCSB’s offices on February 29 to talk about the bureau’s wider capabilities when a power point presentation made mention of the Dotcom arrest a few weeks earlier and contained one small picture of Dotcom.”

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/1/b/f/50HansQ_20120925_00000003-3-Government-Communications-Security-Bureau.htm

    3. Government Communications Security Bureau—Briefings Since November 2008

    [Sitting date: 25 September 2012. Volume:684;Page:5560. Text is subject to correction.]

    3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: How many times has he been formally briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau, by year, since November 2008?

    Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : My diary indicates that I have been formally briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau the following number of times, by year, since 2008: twice in 2008, 15 times in 2009, 11 times in 2010, 10 times in 2011, and 15 times in 2012.

    Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why was he not briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau about who would be involved in the raid on Kim Dotcom, given the involvement of the Government Communications Security Bureau, the New Zealand Police, and an American agency, so that he could be aware that the Government Communications Security Bureau had met with Crown Law, the police, and US authorities 2 months before the January raid on Dotcom’s residence?

    Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The activity in question did not require a ministerial warrant, and I am not briefed on operational matters on every operation it undertakes.

    Rt Hon Winston Peters: When was he first briefed about the ministerial certificate that his Deputy Prime Minister signed on his behalf?

    Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Last night.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nostalgia-NZ (5,043 comments) says:

    davidp

    You could be entirely right, and no doubt are according to your own experience which I gather didn’t include GCSB.
    From what others have written on the subject the sensitivity of the GCSB role carried with it a higher degree of accountability to the Minister. There have been public comments that this was so to ensure that that operations did not become rogue operations, but if in fact it was more like a type of ‘internal tour on paper’ that didn’t reveal matters of public importance, national security and so on then we shall soon see.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    DJP6-25 (1,018) Says:
    October 3rd, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    None of the Republicans in Congress have any time for Hollywood’s version of copyright law.

    Really?

    SOPA was introduced by a Republican from Texas, Lamar Smith. It was initially sponsored by 12 representatives including 8 Republicans and 4 Democrats. It was subsequently sponsored by a further 7 Republicans and 12 Democrats.

    PIPA was sponsored by 10 Republican Senators and 21 Democratic Senators and Joseph Lieberman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    John Key: “I am not briefed on operational matters on every operation it undertakes.”

    But he was informed about the Dotcom raid in February. Indeed, he says he saw a laptop with a montage in the bottom right corner! That is quite a memory. So he can remember the small things, but not the important things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    “But he was informed about the Dotcom raid in February. Indeed, he says he saw a laptop with a montage in the bottom right corner! That is quite a memory. So he can remember the small things, but not the important things”

    Yes, that was revealing. When he (Key) said that, I thought that was about game, set and matched for him. It looks like he’s starting to crumble.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Tom Jackson (2,518 comments) says:

    Why is that when any New Zealander gets involved with the supposedly criminal Dotcom, it is the New Zealander who ends up looking sleazy and corrupt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (5,043 comments) says:

    Would be interesting to know who the other persons were on the montage of photos, if they had a connection to Dotcom and the content of the conversation when the photos were shown to the PM. Then we would know if it was a routine or specific event.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. wat dabney (3,721 comments) says:

    Defending basic human rights and civil liberties to the point of arrest – shows the sort of civic backbone that I for one would like to see in candidates who stand for public office.

    Of course you were arrested for no such thing.

    You were arrested for effectively confiscating public land and depriving the rest of us of its use.

    You were arrested for being selfish, self-centered, self-serving, self-important, inconsiderate and arrogant.

    I have the strong impression that your constant attention seeking is a desperate attempt to stave off a nervous breakdown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Paul Marsden (990 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (1,354) Says:

    October 3rd, 2012 at 7:37 pm
    Would be interesting to know who the other persons were on the montage of photos, if they had a connection to Dotcom and the content of the conversation when the photos were shown to the PM. Then we would know if it was a routine or specific event.

    I’d wager any bet you like, that the entire meeting/photo montage was or, related to Dotcom. Why would there be photos in a montage, related to other matters? Its just ridiculous to suggest and/or, claim otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Nostalgia-NZ (5,043 comments) says:

    Another unusual aspect is JK telling the public what the Director also can’t remember. Something very odd about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Chris2 (768 comments) says:

    If: No written record was kept of the meeting.

    Then how can they possibly assert: At no point was any reference made to questions about residency status.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    “The report of the Inspector-General into these cases will be eagerly awaited. The Government needs to consider what they need to do to restore confidence in the GCSB.”

    Nice take, but personally,

    I disagree.

    I think the Government has to first consider what they need to do to restore confidence in John Key. This looks very bad. ‘Honest John’ was like a teflon shield for this guy when voters pro or con considered his fitness for the role of PM. This is damaging and if he is not careful it wil be very difficult to replace if ‘Forgetful John’ is his best shot.

    This is bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. MH (690 comments) says:

    From the act.

    foreign organisation means—

    (a) a Government of any country other than New Zealand:

    (b) an entity controlled by the Government of any country other than New Zealand:

    (c) a company or body corporate that is incorporated outside New Zealand, or any company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1993 that is, for the purposes of the Companies Act 1993, a subsidiary of any company or body corporate incorporated outside New Zealand:

    (d) an unincorporated body of persons consisting exclusively of foreign organisations or foreign persons that carry on activities wholly outside New Zealand:

    (e) an international organisation:

    (f) a person acting in his or her capacity as an agent or a representative of any Government, body, or organisation referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (e)

    was dot’s firm/business wholly operated in NZ. Then they would have had to inform the Min of Foreign Affairs and Trade,they didn’t so that partly answers my question.
    They can’t spy on Dotcom but why not his organisation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. MH (690 comments) says:

    I probably won’t get a reply but why didn’t the Govt spies enact the surveillance warrant on dotcom as an overseas business rather than on him as an individual. Or is that drawing the bow too far? Are all his businesses located or incorporated in NZ? I doubt it. Did his business cease to operate and this was his bolthole to sit out the extradition fracas. Keep his nose clean and ingratiate himself with Banksy et al

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. FreemanRobin () says:

    When The New Zealand Government is a “Corporation” registered with the US Securities Commission. And the NZ government has NO written constitution, (mandate from the people of NZ to govern) than you have a defacto government (an illegal government) in power. So we have an illegal government in power, that has no mandate (no rules to reign them in), and they are registered as a company in the bad old USA. Now has the penny dropped yet.
    NZ is controlled through the USA.
    The NZ government, the NZ Justice System, The NZ Police, Each Council, The Inland Revenue Dept, etc are all Corporations, registered off shore, and foreign controlled, and are all absolutely corrupt, (rotten to the core).
    You think you have a Just Justice System, and Laws to protect you. These Laws are ONLY to protect the Corporations from us. To stop us from suing the Government & it’s Agencies.

    This is all freeman stuff, it’s all out there if you do your homework. But it goes way deeper than what I’ve just explained.
    I hope the big boy sticks it to the NZ & US governments, as he is fighting for the little man’s rights are well.
    if he looses, say goodbye to free speach on the internet. (goodbye youtube & facebook) for starters.

    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.