-
12-09-2011, 10:04 AM
#2841
Anyone care to explain this for me. Struggling to make sense of the South Island Farm Holdings arrangements: http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald...l-70m-in-limbo
-
09-10-2011, 09:34 PM
#2842
Even the NBR is part of the chorus demanding that Feeley should go:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nbr-edi...must-go-102035
Of course "the end justifies the means" brigade cannot see any form of issue ... I wonder how many charges under the crimes act Feeley will face? Theft as a servant ... ?
Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.
-
10-10-2011, 10:49 AM
#2843
Originally Posted by Enumerate
Even the NBR is part of the chorus demanding that Feeley should go:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nbr-edi...must-go-102035
Of course "the end justifies the means" brigade cannot see any form of issue ... I wonder how many charges under the crimes act Feeley will face? Theft as a servant ... ?
Oh wow! Suddenly the NBR is worthy of quote?
Now let's see : Home detention for hundreds of millions done the tubes for directors of finance companies.
1 bottle of champagne? 10 minutes home detention?
-
10-10-2011, 04:26 PM
#2844
Originally Posted by Balance
1 bottle of champagne? 10 minutes home detention?
Works for me ... charge him under the crimes act and give him 10 minutes of home detention.
Then ask yourself: is this the standard you expect for the head of the SFO? Does this ugly gloating build public confidence that the SFO is impartial? Do you believe the public wants to see the humiliation of Allan Hubbard to proceed beyond his death? It is clear that the SFO does not respect the law of the land and the presumpion of innocence in "due process".
The SFO, in its current state, cannot claim the moral right to investigate serious fraud on behalf of the NZ government.
Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.
-
10-10-2011, 06:35 PM
#2845
Originally Posted by Enumerate
Works for me ... charge him under the crimes act and give him 10 minutes of home detention.
Then ask yourself: is this the standard you expect for the head of the SFO? Does this ugly gloating build public confidence that the SFO is impartial? Do you believe the public wants to see the humiliation of Allan Hubbard to proceed beyond his death? It is clear that the SFO does not respect the law of the land and the presumpion of innocence in "due process".
The SFO, in its current state, cannot claim the moral right to investigate serious fraud on behalf of the NZ government.
Who in the right mind wants the SFO to be impartial when prima facie, fraud has been established?
The SFO must go, hammer and tong, after that to bring to trial - the court will decide guilt or not.
You seem to think that the SFO is investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner?
-
10-10-2011, 10:32 PM
#2846
Originally Posted by Balance
Who in the right mind wants the SFO to be impartial when prima facie, fraud has been established?
You actually concede my point with your reference to "prima facie" - what you probably mean is "res ipsa loquitur".
However, even if this is what you mean, I doubt you would get anyone of any significance defending your point of view. You are advocating a lynch mob mentality.
Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.
-
10-10-2011, 11:04 PM
#2847
Originally Posted by Enumerate
You actually concede my point with your reference to "prima facie" - what you probably mean is "res ipsa loquitur".
However, even if this is what you mean, I doubt you would get anyone of any significance defending your point of view. You are advocating a lynch mob mentality.
Prima facie, my dear Enumerate, is exactly what I mean.
And who cares a monkey's arse about anyone of significance - did anyone of them do anything re frauds perpetuated by those in charge of finance companies?
Go hard, Adam Feely and nail them in court.
-
11-10-2011, 11:55 AM
#2848
Originally Posted by Balance
Prima facie, my dear Enumerate, is exactly what I mean.
If this is the case ... then your view has been unfashionable, in legal circles, since the Magna Carta.
Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.
-
11-10-2011, 01:19 PM
#2849
Originally Posted by Enumerate
If this is the case ... then your view has been unfashionable, in legal circles, since the Magna Carta.
Who cares?
As long as Adam Feely brings to trial those who commit fraud.
-
11-10-2011, 02:51 PM
#2850
... and anyone else Adam Feeley imagines have committed fraud ...
... and exempting those Adam Feeley imagines haven't committted fraud, but actually have ...
... and anyone who pissed Adam Feeley off and he can charge with fraud, becuase he can ...
Do not consider my postings as investment advice. I am here to share research and to speculate on what might be. The boundary between fact and conjecture might not always be clear - best to treat all comments as speculation.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks