South Canterbury Finance Limited

[Enumerate]

Enumerate, Feely wasn't grandstanding - he was answering questions and providing information in front of a select committee.

C'mon Mini ... you can answer a question about interagency cooperation without revealing the details of an "arrest the next day". (In point of fact, Feeley was commenting on the MED/SFO cooperation - since Feeley, himself, is ex-MED; NEU was successfully built up in MED and serves as a model for the Feeley SFO; the MED Registries contain the effective case files - this level of cooperation is hardly surprising or innovative).

Look at the "heat" generated on this thread about the impending Hubbard "arrest" - you cannot tell me that Feeley's lack of probity has done harm to Mr Hubbard. Why the SFO chooses to stoke the flames of negative public relations against Mr Hubbard seemingly to divert attention from their own failures is the question of the moment.

Maybe Mr Feeley believes he is engaging in a bit of "shock and awe". I would rather see probity and respect for legal conventions (including the Magna Carta).

I note the stock picture, used frequently in the press, of Adam Feeley shows him casting a long dark shadow over the SFO logo. In hindsight, this has turned out to be prophetic.

[minimoke]

C'mon Mini ... you can answer a question about interagency cooperation without revealing the details of an "arrest the next day". (In point of fact, Feeley was commenting on the MED/SFO cooperation - since Feeley, himself, is ex-MED; NEU was successfully built up in MED and serves as a model for the Feeley SFO; the MED Registries contain the effective case files - this level of cooperation is hardly surprising or innovative).

Look at the "heat" generated on this thread about the impending Hubbard "arrest" - you cannot tell me that Feeley's lack of probity has done harm to Mr Hubbard. Why the SFO chooses to stoke the flames of negative public relations against Mr Hubbard seemingly to divert attention from their own failures is the question of the moment.

Maybe Mr Feeley believes he is engaging in a bit of "shock and awe". I would rather see probity and respect for legal conventions (including the Magna Carta).

I note the stock picture, used frequently in the press, of Adam Feeley shows him casting a long dark shadow over the SFO logo. In hindsight, this has turned out to be prophetic.

C'mon Enumnerate. Feelty said it was an arrest involving 10's of millions - that put Hubbard clearly out of the frame. Now, if he had said it was involving hundreds of millions - then there would be some substance to your complaint.

[Enumerate]

C'mon Enumnerate. Feelty said it was an arrest involving 10's of millions - that put Hubbard clearly out of the frame. Now, if he had said it was involving hundreds of millions - then there would be some substance to your complaint.

However, I was not the one speculating that Mr Hubbard would be arrested?!?

Using a select committee to announce an impending arrest amounts to grandstanding ... that is my point. There is no need to announce an arrest, at all - let alone in a forum where he clearly calculated the timing for the maximum press impact.

Conduct of finance market and securities regulation and enforcement has switched from "asleep at the wheel" to "over-zealous grandstanding". Adam Feeley seems to be enjoying driving the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff - is it really necessary to have the siren going all the time?

Minister Power is acting to replace Diplock as "sentry" at the top of the cliff. However, the only idea that seems to be generated from Wellington is even more draconian legislation and regulation.

By the way, what ever happened to Bruce Sheppard? Has he been gelded as a condition of acceptance for his fancy new government job? Even in his lame column on Stuff, ("the pot calling the kettle black", or something like that) he was wittering on, a la Mary Holm, about mortgage finance when the Hubbard Statutory Management was enacted. Sheppard is a typical "pragmatist" - he would only support Hubbard if he saw the tide turning (much like the chorus of disapproval on this thread). To stand for Hubbard requires a "principled" perspective - with a mixture of moral, ethical, psychological and legal insights.

[Balance]

So much of crime and fraud prevention is about deterrent.

Hooray for the new SFO taking a high profile.

High time.

[Cully]

To stand for Hubbard requires a "principled" perspective - with a mixture of moral, ethical, psychological and legal insights.

As I've said before Enumerate, with 20 years experience in this area of law, there are no legal principles upon which to stand for Hubbard, it is abundantly clear he has breached the law. Why would you expect Bruce Sheppard to be against the statutory management? I would have thought it would be exactly the sort of thing he would be in favour of.

[Enumerate]

As I've said before Enumerate, with 20 years experience in this area of law, there are no legal principles upon which to stand for Hubbard

David Baragwanath seems to have a different perspective.

... it is abundantly clear he has breached the law.

After 20 years, I would have hoped that you would have understood our system of justice ... charges imply a case to answer ... no charges imply no case to answer. Evidence is presented in support of the case and against the case. A judgment is made based on the evidence presented. At this point, if the case is proven, it can be said that there has been a breach of the law.

My first problem is with those of a lynch mob disposition who judge Hubbard guilty without hearing a charge, without reviewing the evidence, without hearing the answer to the charge.

My second problem is the irregular system of justice that allows extraordinary investigative powers of Statutory Management to be arbitrarily deployed (yes, arbitrary - where is the justification) against an individual who has no right of appeal and where all normal laws of evidence are suspended.

My third problem is the unprofessional conduct of the investigating organisation (Adam Feeley's SFO) who fail to address conflict of interest issues, who make public details of investigations where charges may not be made, who arrogantly bypass established judicial practice and long established rights under the law.

My fourth problem is the cowardice of the professions in not making public comment on these outrages.

Why would you expect Bruce Sheppard to be against the statutory management? I would have thought it would be exactly the sort of thing he would be in favour of.

I do not expect much from Bruce Sheppard and am rarely disappointed. What is required is a stand to be made in defense of Mr Hubbard based on principle. His continued, unjustified, statutory management and the indignities and excesses he is subject to should be the concern of all principled citizens. Those who do not have any principles will remain unconcerned.

[Cully]

David Baragwanath is an esteemed member of the profession but is not known for any securities law expertise. "No charges" do not mean "no case to answer", that is nonsense, where do you get these ideas? There is an investigation underway. The statutory management is to ensure no more investor's money goes west in the meantime. This is not a difficult concept.

The statutory managment is not arbitrary - it was based on several months initial investigation and the need for it has been amply demonstrated in the stat managers' reports. And as I've said before there is a right of appeal - it's called judicial review. Hubbard could have filed for one, and can still do so, at any time.

The reason why professionals are not making public comment about any "outrages" is because they ARE professionals and understand that the statutory management is for good reasons and the legal process is taking its proper course.

[Enumerate]

David Baragwanath is an esteemed member of the profession but is not known for any securities law expertise.

The issues of Statutory Management of Mr Hubbard are well beyond securities law.

"No charges" do not mean "no case to answer", that is nonsense, where do you get these ideas? There is an investigation underway. The statutory management is to ensure no more investor's money goes west in the meantime. This is not a difficult concept.

On suspicion of a case to answer the government is able to suspend an individual's property rights and all rights to "due process", as the Americans say. Extreme powers of investigation, and beyond, are invoked (effectively liquidating Aorangi without so much as a by your leave to the owners or even investors). It has been 6 months without an effective justification of Statutory Management of Mr Hubbard and his wife; no charges; a continuing investigation and liquidation of Hubbard assets. Hubbard cannot even pay his own legal costs!

You effectively argue that "the end justifies the means" - any action against an individual is justified if the collective interest mandates it. If this action can be taken against Hubbard - it can be taken against anyone. In effect, property rights have been extinguished, in New Zealand - any property you have is yours in a custodial capacity until the government decides the interests of the collective out weigh the interests of the individual.

The statutory managment is not arbitrary - it was based on several months initial investigation and the need for it has been amply demonstrated in the stat managers' reports.

You cannot be serious. If you think this action has been justified in the Aorangi Stat Managers reports, to date ... you must have absolute contempt for constitutional democracy and our version of the British legal system.

And as I've said before there is a right of appeal - it's called judicial review. Hubbard could have filed for one, and can still do so, at any time.

The grounds for this judicial review would be ...

The reason why professionals are not making public comment about any "outrages" is because they ARE professionals and understand that the statutory management is for good reasons and the legal process is taking its proper course.

You have a strange definition of "proper". Maybe you were qualified in North Korea where there is equal disregard for property rights, individual rights and "due process".

[Beagle]

Enumerate,

You seem so emphatically concerned with Alan Hubbards reputation and protecting same and yet you have no interest in Aorangi Securities or in Mr Hubbards so called funds management business, should that read his related party lending business ?

I would have thought his reputation is inextricably linked to the above entities and SCF, care to explain why in your opinion this isn't the case ? as it would appear your position is more than a little convienient.

[peat]

I see that Hubbard invested in Lord of the Rings and was done by The Hollywood shell.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10693123