“The whole saga of Winston Peters’ superannuation leak is explained here”

Someone who seems to be ignorant of New Zealand law tried to post here yesterday:

The whole saga of Winston Peters’ superannuation leak is explained here.

(link)

Please share.

The link was to a lengthy post making a number of accusations and claims.

The post style looked very similar to many on a now defunct website that was involved in the conviction of one person.

There were a number of other red flags that raised alarm bells, so of course there was no way I was going to link or identify the post.

And at the bottom of the post:

This article was written and published outside New Zealand.

​The identities of [deleted] and [deleted] are subject to a court-imposed name suppression order in New Zealand.

So it would obviously be nuts to link to or identify the post.

It also shows ignorance of established New Zealand law. From a Court of Appeal judgment: NOTTINGHAM v R [2019] NZCA 344 [30 July 2019]

In his summing-up, the Judge directed that, as a matter of law, publication occurs where material is comprehended and downloaded and that accordingly there was publication in New Zealand irrespective of LF’s domicile. He said that this was a function of “Judge-made” law and that it was also a feature of s 7 of the Crimes Act 1961.

We identify no error in that direction. It did not involve any assumption of extra-territorial jurisdiction. It stated what we regard as a now uncontentious proposition: that a blog available to New Zealand internet users is regarded as published in New Zealand. We agree also that s 7 provided a pathway to successful prosecution. As the Judge summarised its effect to the jury:

… even if the main parts of a crime are committed abroad, if you do something to further that crime, and you have done it in New Zealand, that crime, the whole thing can be prosecuted in New Zealand.

Physical location of the LF server was, in that context, irrelevant. What was required was proof either of direct publication (that Mr Nottingham was LF), indirect publication (that Mr Nottingham was a co-principal with LF, working directly with it to effect publication in New Zealand) or that he was a party to LF’s publication. That is exactly as the trial Judge put it to the jury, supported by an accurate description of the “party” requirements. Mr Krebs is correct that the question of whether Mr Nottingham “caused” the publication (in any of the legal senses relevant) was a matter of fact for the jury. No error of law was made by the trial Judge.

Someone has tried to “cause” publication of their post in New Zealand by attempting to post the link here and and asking to “Please share”.

I’m not going to aid their potentially illegal activity.

Fortunately if no one links to their post it is likely to remain virtually unnoticed and ineffective.

Leave a comment

24 Comments

  1. John J Harrison

     /  28th August 2020

    Pete, the sooner the SFO table their report on alleged financial improprieties regarding the NZ First Foundation the better for all concerned.
    I sincerely hope it results in finishing off both Peters and his party.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  28th August 2020

      ‘Pete, the sooner the SFO table their report on alleged financial improprieties regarding the NZ National Party the better for all concerned.’

      absolutely!

      Reply
      • John J Harrison

         /  28th August 2020

        Blazer, I find it strange that you did not also mention the current SFO investigation into alleged financial improprieties by the Labour Party.
        As you know the SFO investigation into the National Party did not involve the Party itself but only a disgraced former National MP and four Chinese born individuals.
        Let us all know how the current investigation into the NZ Labour Party is progressing.
        Thanking you in anticipation.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  28th August 2020

          ‘ the SFO investigation into the National Party did not involve the Party itself but only a disgraced former National MP and four Chinese born individuals.’

          No I didn’t know that!

          I thought the National Party were the recipients.
          Why is those NZ residents birthplace a factor?
          Why is the M/P disgraced…his crime?

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  28th August 2020

            “SFO investigation into the National Party did not involve the Party itself”

            How come JLR had 200 pages of detailed donations to the NP that was sent to him in error , when its clear the SFO was going through the partys books in fine detail.
            Its emerged that there was a separate $100,000 ‘salami’ donation BEFORE the election when Bridges wasnt leader.
            How did national not guess its was from straw donors back then ?
            The party is up to its neck in ‘curious’ donations from Chinese benefactors, including one that ‘got around’ the rules about foreign donors

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  28th August 2020

              One Partys donations is currently before the courts as charges have been laid.
              other investigations for NZF and Labour is merely that… SFO says that it doesnt mean theres any guilt involved

              “Hengjia Zheng’s $10,000 donation came through buying a piece of art at a silent auction in 2017, while Shijia Zheng donated $1940 in 2018.

              [Party President] Szabo has said the donations were appropriately filed in accordance with the rules.”
              https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12347726

              One party has small amounts while other party had 2x $100,000 and had the party leader busting to have dinner with them., inspite of the amount arriving in the names of straw donors

        • duperez

           /  28th August 2020

          Do you have the time line of when Ross became a ‘former’ member of the National Party and when the alleged events happened?
          When they happened (if they did) was he a former member?
          Thanking you in anticipation.

          Reply
        • duperez

           /  28th August 2020

          Were the ‘four Chinese individuals’ members of the National Party? Or one or some of them? Or intending members?
          Was one seeking to attend their ‘candidate’s school?’
          Is it possible for a political party to revoke membership? Is it possible for a political party to ‘lose records’ of membership? What could cause that to happen?
          These are simply the sorts of questions raised by a most curious radio interview with Simon Bridges.

          Reply
    • duperez

       /  28th August 2020

      Have you made submissions about the National Party donations/Jami-Lee Ross fraud case to be brought to air before the election?
      In terms of it being ‘better for all concerned’ of course. 🙂

      Reply
      • John J Harrison

         /  28th August 2020

        Duperez, why would I ?
        I have never been a member of the National Party.
        Too socialist for me.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  28th August 2020

          National have lost their way, and their constitution, John. I’m glad old time Tories aren’t around to see this lot singing kumbaya at their country retreats.

          Reply
        • duperez

           /  28th August 2020

          I am interested in those who get themselves into a state about what they think others are doing yet don’t turn that into real action to get understandings they make out are important. You seem to be concerned about the NZ First Foundation. Telling us won’t get answers. Maybe some real action might precipitate finishing Peters and his party.
          https://sfo.govt.nz/contact

          The reference to National is just about selectivity. Are you concerned about impropriety or just wanting to see Peters down the tubes?

          Blazer commenting was an invitation to boot the Labour party and then run defence for the socialist party you’ve never been a member of but just happens to be National.

          So why would you not make submissions about the National Party donations/Jami-Lee Ross fraud case to be brought to air before the election? A reasonably obvious guess would be that you want the magnifying glass put on the parties but National before the election. Am I right or am I right?🙂

          Reply
          • John J Harrison

             /  28th August 2020

            I have always been opposed to blatant corruption- particularly in the political arena.
            Evidence of this was the case of MP Michael Laws who was found to have taken $5,000 from the NCC for a poll signed off by “ Antonette Beck “ from Monash University in Melbourne.
            A person who did not exist !
            Despite being served with a writ for $250,000 for so – called defamation I went into overdrive from 2nd gear and produced the evidence of outright lying and misappropriation of public funds by Laws.
            This resulted in his instant resignation from both parliament and the NCC.
            I also received a substantial payment covering ALL costs involved in defending myself.
            The SFO are the appropriate agency to investigate both Labour and NZ First which they are so doing.
            Like millions of others I live for the day that the greatest political charlatan in our country’s history is brought down by either the SFO or the voters.
            I had my nuts on the line in bring Laws down, what have you done to fight political corruption?

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  28th August 2020

              ‘I have always been opposed to blatant corruption-‘

              As opposed to discreet…corruption?

            • John J Harrison

               /  28th August 2020

              Absolutely beyond pathetic.
              Take a nap and a cup of Milo.
              Be kind.

            • Fight4nz

               /  28th August 2020

              “ I live for the day that the greatest political charlatan in our country’s history is brought down by either the SFO or the voters.”
              Yeah! Before she has any chance of becoming PM!!

            • duperez

               /  28th August 2020

              What I’ve done is tried to stay the line in different situations and see behaviour for what it is, not turn the tap on and off according to partiality.

          • Too late, she is the PM.

            Do try to keep up.

            Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  28th August 2020

    Curious motivation for writing and promoting such an article at this time.

    Reply
    • duperez

       /  28th August 2020

      The fear of being irrelevant and the desperation for attention winds clocks and time in different ways in different folk.

      Reply
  3. We received this as well at The Standard. Moderators picked it up as immediately as being suspicious. I wrote a back end analysis of who I thought it was likely to be.

    Warned a number of the other blogs about it (including here), and warned the target staffer that some arsehole was trying to promote some political sleaze.

    Apart from that it was typical LF / Whaleoil / dirty paid politics. Full of largely unrelated facts and a lot of pointless innuendo and speculation.

    While the violation of court orders is and issue, it was primarily the method of delivery that I found irritating. This was someone who took a great deal of care to maintain anonymity, who didn’t actually provide anything apart from unverifiable gossip, and frankly were just lying. This didn’t look any different.

    People who have done this in the past have been Cameron Slater, Dermot Nottingham, and that silly minion Spring. The first two of whom I’m had the great pleasure in helping to legal defeats as being idiotic arseholes who do nothing for our local political debate and who routinely broke laws.

    I’d be happy to do the same evisceration to whoever this current idiot is – and I’d welcome any verifiable leads to them. But I’d also happily apply the same treatment to anyone who uses salacious and malicious material obtained in this style in our political debates.

    I like the way that Pete George has dealt with it. In effect a public warning.

    Reply
    • Fight4nz

       /  28th August 2020

      “happy to do the same evisceration to ….. apply the same treatment to anyone who uses salacious and malicious material obtained in this style in our political debates.”
      Bit fish in a barrel around here. Just check some of the posts in today’s open forum for example.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s