There is something seriously wrong with our political system that this turkey can remain in our parliament. He owes his job to his luck on the party list and he has no moral right to be an MP if he fails to account for his honesty and bona files to that party.

NZF would turn NZ into Alabama of the south pacific.
………………………….
How about Japan, China, India….. too redneck and mono cultural?

1 Why did Horan see fit to borrow money from his dying mother? He has a high paying job as an MP and previously as a broadcaster for what reason did he see fit to borrow this money?

2 How much was this loan? When was it drawn down? Were there any loan documents prepared? what were the repayment schedules required to be?

3 If this ‘loan’ was above board why did his mum act prior to her death to change her will & executor and require her new executor to seek repayment of money loaned or gained by misadventure?

4 If this loan was above board why has the new executor seen fit to employ forensic accountants to analyse the bank accounts? For a single, simple loan this would not be necessary – however if the ‘loan’was informal or unapproved (and drawn down in multiple ATM withdrawals etc.) then this analysis would be necessary in order to get a better picture of what occurred.

5 Mr Horan’s repayments. If his ‘loan’from his mum was above board he would be making regular repayments on a regular basis. However if his ‘loan’was not authorised then the accounts would show no repayments at all until perhaps the change of executor and the application of sunlight after which the repayments would be coming in very fast indeed as a butt covering exercise. Which scenario occurred?

6 What were the roles of Mr Horan and his sister during this time? Who had access to their mum’s bank accounts? Is it possible to follow up who made which withdrawals at which time?
It appears from the amendment to the will that their mum was concerned that either or both of her children had some responsibility for any missing money.

7 Power of Attorney. What was the background and purpose for Mr Horan’s sister invoking this power? Why did their mum fight against this invoking if it was all above board? More importantly what occurred within the bank accounts during the period this power was invoked and the successful regaining of her affairs several days later?

8 Urgent operation. There was a suggestion money was withdrawn to pay for an urgent operation. Was there any medical background to this operation’? Did the operation occur? Was the money withdrawn subsequently refunded to the bank account?

9 Alleged purchase of a new car? Did this happen? How much did it cost? Who made the transaction that paid for the car? Who’s name is the car in? Why would a terminally ill elderly lady (presumably with limited mobility) require a brand new car?
Who has been using the car during this time and subsequent to their mum’s death?

Obviously more questions arise but they are the basic ones that spring to mind

But if he wasn’t he just made an enemy.

Field committed criminal offences for which he was charged, tried and prosecuted by a jury in a lengthy trial where he could defend his claimed innocence. The offences were committed whilst Field was a Labour MP and a Minister in the Clark government (outside Cabinet). Whilst Key accepted Banks’ verbal assurances that are likely to be untrue (with respect to Kim Dotcom), Clark and Cullen actively defended Field until his trial by stating that he was guilty of nothing more than helping his constituents. On the ‘turning a blind eye’ scale it is a 10 out of 10.

If there is anything criminal then the police undoubtedly will be involved. Usually these things become a ‘he says – she says’ mess with little definitive evidence of criminal wrong doing and it gets thrashed out in civil law suits. If Horan is charged with any criminal offences then Peters’ action will be largely vindicated. If it turns into a messy civil fight amongst greedy siblings, whilst politically we can all agree why Peters would want to cauterize any weeping sore from a media drip feed of the Horan family dirty laundry, the manner in which he has chosen to dispatch Horan may come back to bite him. If Horan digs in and refuses to resign he may be able to cause Winston considerable political embarrassment. As others have pointed out, there is plenty of ammo to fire at Peters. Peters is brazen enought to think that the public have entirely forgotten his 2008 antics. I’m not so sure that Owen Glenn or the Suminovich family have ever forgotten.

The point that you lack any sort of honour is ably demonstrated by one of your more recent outings, where you picketed a charity lunch that was aiming to raise money for a new children’s ward at Waitakere hospital, solely to make a point about John Key. So blinded are you by your irrational hatred of John Key.

As to the other matter of corruption … hmm, shall I, shan’t I? Tell ya what, Penny, just because it’s you:

I retract that above-mentioned statement forthwith.

Happy?

Now that I have your attention – when are you going to fulfill your end of the bargain we made some months ago and answer some simple questions? Do you have enough “honour” to do that Penny?

Not holding my breath.

“Winston’s primary support base is old age pensioners”
……….
and people opposed to foreigners pushing up house prices plus the general threat to the NZ way of life through importing the worlds over population (coast watch and all that….).

Winston’s primary support base is old age pensioners – so he can’t be seen to support an MP who has stolen from an old age pensioner (theft from bank accounts is a common concern in the OAP community).

This MINORITY National Government has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

Lol, when exactly was there a MAJORITY government Penny? That’s why it’s called a coalition.

Please be reminded of s.25 of the NZ Defamation Act and retract that above-mentioned statement forthwith.

People are actually entitled to their opinion, amazing aye. A bit like you calling John dodgy. Oh and to be defamed, you actually have to have a reputation that could be damaged. I’d hesitate to suggest to you that your reputation couldn’t actually get any lower.

If not – why not?

Helen set the precedent, oh and private prosecutions are a bit lame.

Arguable David. It’s not where the battle will be won, which is in the court of Public Opinion which hinges on the evidence which none of us have yet seen, but Horan’s QC Paul Mabey might decide to make it into a test case. After all, if you aren’t entitled to natural justice processes in the caucus processes engaged in expelling a duly elected Member of a political party, then where should you be entitled to expect it? It’s a very interesting constitutional argument precisely because it butts the law up against the rights of Parliament.

Secondly I just bet as I said above, Peters’ many enemies some of whom have lots of cash and spare time on their hands and many of whom would just love to see Peters pounded into the dust, might discretely and unseen line up behind this which would solve Horan’s resourcing problems and provide a very significant media platform for re-hashing some old ground which Peters might wish had been long dead and buried.

I’m not sure there’ll be lots of surprises for us – I think most of us on this blog know who Peters is. But the sheeple may be very surprised as to what comes out of this.

OTOH Horan might just fade into the background as a minor player on the grand stage who was just a small supernova in early December, 2012.

This may happen, who knows. I hope it doesn’t because Peters needs to pay, for what he’s done, dating back to his Prima Donna resignation from the Maori Affairs portfolio in Bolger’s 1st Cabinet. That’s when he proved by his actions he was destructive not constructive and he has been on that path ever since.

If he was in private practice somewhere I wouldn’t mind, but he, by his own choice, preens and prances on the national stage, with our money, and his actions to me since way back when he did that, need to be held to account.

Of course I’m not holding my breath. I’m not naive. I’m merely hoping against hope that finally, this little prick will be exposed to the sheeple for who he always has been.

That is a highly defamatory statement Graham.

Please be reminded of s.25 of the NZ Defamation Act and retract that above-mentioned statement forthwith.

http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/DLM281239.html

25 Retraction or reply

(1)Any person who claims to have been defamed by any matter published in a news medium may, not later than 5 working days after that person becomes aware of the publication of that matter in that news medium, request the person who was responsible for the publication of that matter to publish, in the same medium as the publication complained of, with substantially similar prominence, and without undue delay,—

(a)a retraction of the matter in so far as it includes or consists of statements of fact; or

(b)a reasonable reply.

(2)Where, in response to a request made under subsection (1), a person agrees to publish a retraction or a reply, that person shall also offer to pay to the person who made the request (in this subsection referred to as the requester),—

(a)where it is agreed to publish a reply, the cost of publishing that reply; and

(b)the solicitor and client costs incurred by the requester in connection with the publication of the retraction or reply; and

(c)all other expenses reasonably incurred by the requester in connection with the publication complained of; and

(d)compensation for any pecuniary loss suffered by the requester as a direct result of the publication complained of.

(3)In this section, reply means a statement of explanation or rebuttal, or of both explanation and rebuttal.

Penny Bright
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

http://www.dodgyjohnhasgoen.com

David G, i think it unlikely Brendan would challenge the party’s decision, firstly because, unlike Donna, the expulsion, by itself, wont force him to vacate his seat, and perhaps more simply, that would probably involve him in some expense which I suspect he cant afford. sitting tight like Phillip Field might be best for him.

For that matter, bit of a laugh that Penny insists on styling herself as an “Anti-corruption campaigner” when we all know just how corrupt Penny Bright actually is.

Of course – you were an ACT MP – and the NZ public have learned that ACT’s ‘one law for all’ isn’t actually supposed to apply to ACT Party MPs?

Particularly ACT Party ‘Leaders’?

If a District Court Judge decided to issue a witness summons for the arguably ‘Not-So-Honorable’ John Banks, the Minister for Small Business, and Regulatory Reform — and Associate Minister for Education, and Commerce, to appear in Court on Tuesday 11 December 2012, at 1.45pm, then shouldn’t he at least have to stand down as a Minister?

Seems there IS a ‘case to answer’?

Oh yes – that’s right.

This MINORITY National Government has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

So – ‘shonky’ John Key will continue to defend the indefensible ‘dodgy’ John Banks?

We shall see……………………..

Kind regards,

Penny Bright
‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com