Mark Hotchin

The race for the National aprty nomination for Tamaki is between these five:

I have been forwarded a summary of candidate biographies by the electorate chair, Andrew Hunt, who is making a good fist of the selection. HE is approachable and seems to be be running everything precisely by the rules. He has sent me the summary because candidates aren;t allowed to talk to media.

Candidate Bios

My summary will follow the same format as previous selections. Links on their names are to their iPredict stock.

Denise Krum:

Selection Record: Maungakiekie 2008 (Successfully won selection for United Future), Botany 2011 (Did not make it through Preselection),  Epsom 2011 (Dropped at 2nd ballot)

Denise is a pleasant journey woman who is unlikely to make mistakes as an MP, but also unlikely to make an impact. Her solid and stable family background and Christian values platform may endear her to some locals. A female MP for Tamaki would be a first, and probably not a bad thing either. If Krum can present more like a corporate and less like a suburban housewife, she would have the potential to win the selection.

Advantages:

• strong track record of community involvement including getting seriously off side with Greenpeace after cleaning up the Ellerslie town centre and having them poster it with anti corporate messages.
• Political background including father Graeme Lee being a former National MP.
• Would help the gender balance in the National caucus

Disadvantages:

• Political background including father Graeme Lee being a former National MP.
• Ran for United Future in 2008
• Was United Future Party President
• A very attractive woman who’s causal dress sense and hippy style hair does not do her justice
• Needs serious speech training to stop her coming across as a stoner.
• No proven track record as a vote winner
• Has not won a selection so far and Tamaki may not want a woman who is a repeat loser

Toni Millar:

Selection Record: To this blogs knowledge has not stood for National Selection previously

A former local councillor with a reputation for abrasiveness and bossiness. Her strong local connections 9she has lived in the electorate for decades) would make her an excellent candidate for right now, but her “spoilt child” reputation proceeds her, and will turn off some delegates. Local community groups would adore Millar as the local candidate, as she is a very social person. Not one to make a contribution to policy – think of her as a Sandra Goudie without gumboots. No longer married, but also no children, which means she would have the time to apply to the role of ribbon cutter. Would be an effective local MP and loyal to the party. Her weight might be held against her by some delegates.

Advantages

• Proven electability as a C&R councilor on the old Auckland City Council
• Experienced political operator who would have a head start on newbies in parliament
• Great links into a wide range of community groups
• Very good with voter contact and very good manner with voters
• Known to enjoy doing the hard yards in her electorate, and enjoy the contact with constituents
• Would help the gender balance in caucus
• Would not mind taking on hostile audiences of morons like teachers unions as she is known to have a hide like a rhinoceros

Disadvantages

• An assertive woman in a world where assertiveness in women can unfairly be used to call a woman a “school marm”, “bossy” or “a bitch”
• Former Teacher
• Would not add to the intellectual and policy heft of the party
• Perhaps not the best long term prospect

Simon O’Connor:

Selection Record: Stood unsuccessfully for selection in Maungakiekie in 2008.

Seen as a nice fellow, a hard working volunteer for the party over the years, but not considered a rising star. O’Connor used to be a priest in training, but mysteriously left the seminary with his studies uncompleted. However, his Catholic connections will probably be popular in Tamaki. He is unmarried, so may be seen as less than settled as a choice for a conservative seat like that. Has not been a seat candidate for National before, was unsuccessful as a local board candidate for the Waitemata ward in 2010. He is a Contracts Manager for Southern Cross Health Society

The selection in Maungakiekie in 2008 was marked by extreme unethical behaviour, with O’Connor and the electorate chair trying to stack selection in O’Connor’s favour against Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. O’Connor then went on the offensive to attack Sam on the grounds he was a councillor and could not campaign properly due to his council responsibilities. Like Brent Robinson in Rodney, O’Connor lost.

What is it with fundies and unethical selection campaigns? Maybe we need to get candidates to swear on the bible they will not be unethical during selection.

Advantages

• None

Disadvantages

• Unethical selection campaign in 2008 means he will never receive a positive comments from this blog.

Seby Reeves:

Selection Record: None

I have never heard of him, but who is reputedly an early 30-something lawyer, is unlikely to have upset anyone, and so could become everyone’s second choice because he hasn’t done enough to cause people to vote against him. It is unconfirmed if he has a strong party connection. He is the son of Graeme Reeves.

Advantages

• No previous negative form in National, meaning if he presents well, works the delegate list hard and delivers the best speech on the night he has a chance.
• People will not have formed an opinion of him, so he has a chance to convince them to vote for him in a weak field.

Disadvantages

• Unknown in National
• Looks like an opportunist.

Mark Thomas:

Selection Record: Successful Wellington Central 1996. (Bolger shafted him so Prebble could win the seat).

Current Orakei Board member, with a reputation for talking but not walking. Thomas has a number of negatives causing political risk to National. His work as PR stooge for Mark Hotchin would be poison to locals and a bright shiny bullseye for Labour. Thomas is unmarried with children, which won’t be popular with locals either. His becoming an MP would also trigger an expensive by-election for Auckland ratepayers, or potentially cause another round of double-dipping accusations like Sam Lotu-iiga went through. Famously knifed by Bolger in Wellington Central in 1996. Comes across as a bit effeminate.

Advantages

• Of the known candidates Mark is the most talented and has done more good for the National Party
• Sound strategic and political mind, and a good backroom operator
• Will present well and speak well, with a very clear, logical message

Disadvantages

• Too close to party president Peter Goodfellow, who has no support in Tamaki
• Good talker, not such a good walker
• PR man for Mark Hotchin, which will be used against him
• To intellectual to be really liked by middle New Zealand and not great at pressing the flesh
• Not a retail politician
• Unfairly blamed for Melissa Lees campaign debacle, rather than being credited for the highly successful campaign for Sam Lotu-Iiga in Maungakiekie in 2008

A note for readers: The tip line has been running hot with all sorts of stories about marriage, sexuality and other personal details. I do not believe these points deserve public airing, and I also do not believe they will be factors in selection. In 1976 Marilyn Waring was outed by the Truth, but remained in parliament until 1984, with the provincial New Zealand seats of Raglan and Waipa accepting her for who she was rather than being all preachy and judgmental.

The SFO has announced that the Mr Magoo of New Zealand finance is to face 50 charges.

The Serious Fraud Office has confirmed it has laid 50 charges against failed financier Allan Hubbard.

SFO chief executive Adam Feeley said in a statement just released: “after an exhaustive investigation, we have concluded that there is sufficient evidence to lay fraud charges against Mr Hubbard.”

Feeley said that fifty charges under sections 220, 242 and 260 of the Crimes Act had been laid today in the District Court in Timaru.

The SFO said it did not intend to lay charges against any other current or former director of Aorangi Securities Limited.

This man has cost the taxpayer billions in the collapse of his fancy Ponzi scheme called South Canterbury Finance. It is evident now that the SCF should never have been in the deposit guarantee scheme in the first place.

The pity is he will be long dead before the SFO can sort out its internal mess and even start to prosecute this case.

This case now provides stark contrast with the case of the treatment of Mark Hotchin by the authorities and the media. Mr Magoo cost this country billions because of the guarantee scheme, the depositors all got their money back and now Mr Magoo faces charges. Meanwhile Hanover cost the taxpayers nothing and as a reward for that Mark Hotchin is being victimised by authorities who so far, after looking for many months longer than they have for Hubbard have come up with nothing.

Let’s see the media now go into a frenzy over Hubbard and while they are at it go ask some very pointed questions of the Finance Minister as to why SCF was even in the scheme to start with. It is as clear as the nose on my face that there was material differences between stated positions.

Schlock Jock Anderson has still got a bad case of Hotchin Derangement Syndrome and the NBR is still trying to sell subscriptions to their paid content by selling off of the back of Mark Hotchin.

The latest example shows just how low, their ethics, and their editing qualities have sunk. Despite their vaunted techno solutions to prevent people spreading their stories around no matter how poor quality they are, here is a taste of their crap.

Not only is Schlock Jock Anderson suffering from a bad case of Hotchin Derangement Syndrome but he is now also using the name of Rodney Hide to try to sell subscriptions.

Anyone learned person easily knows that Jekyll and Hyde is spelled with a ‘Y’ and to spell it with an ‘i’ is only serving to use another persons name in an attempt to get readers to buy content.

Apart form the outrageous headline, attempting to leverage of the Hotchin name, Schlock Jock Anderson then proceeds to mangle a few facts into a whole lot of un-necessary paragraphs repeating several times the “Hide” error. About the only mainstream media technique he didn’t use in this poor quality schlock piece was to use his now infamous epithet:

Perhaps he is learning. Cactus Kate certainly bashed him hard the last time he went all silly and she doesn’t hold back now either.

In her post slamming him before she called him “Shock” Jock ANderson. After this poor showing I think he really should be called “Schlock” Jock Anderson.

The Wikipedia description of the word “schlock” certain seems to apply:

Schlock is an English word of Yiddish origin meaning “something cheap, shoddy, or inferior (perhaps from German Schlag, Yiddish shlak, meaning ‘a stroke’)”

In the field of science, “schlock” refers to shoddy or unreliable results. In art, “schlock” is sometimes used as a synonym for kitsch.

The insistence of mainstream media outlets to continue to try to sell papers and content with sensationalist headlines and outrageous word-smithing is certainly” cheap, shoddy and inferior”. It is the sort of thing Barry Colman accuses bloggers of in his attempt to remain high-brow and charge for his schlock content.

A man I was convicted of naming was today convicted of indecent assault.

A former prominent figure was today found guilty of indecent assault on a girl after a trial in the Nelson District Court.

The man who faced three charges of indecent assault has name suppression.

The jury took 14 hours to reach its guilty verdict on all three charges after a three-day hearing.

The Crown says the assaults happened at a Nelson house on December 30, 2009.

The Crown said the man touched the girl on the breasts while they were alone watching TV in the living room.

The man indecently assaulted the girl later when she had gone to bed, by touching her leg and genitalia with his fingers and then kissing her on the back when she rolled away, the Crown said.

The defence maintains the events did not take place. The man was remanded on bail until June 16 for sentencing.

So now a man convicted of indecent assault is roaming free on bail in Nelson until his sentencing. No one is allowed to know who this sexual predator is. Why can he not be named? Surely the Cappill precedent could be used.

I wonder if the Herald will spend more $100,000 pursuing this man like they did with Mark Hotchin?

The other thing is this man breaks one of Whaleoil’s Rules of Politics.

I see yesterday that Mark Hotchin has finally had a gutsful of the witchhunt being run at the NZ Herald by them and in particular Brian Gaynor. He has decided to sue their arses off them for defamation.

Former Hanover Finance director Mark Hotchin is suing the Herald and leading business commentator Brian Gaynor for defamation over criticisms about the company’s collapse.

In a statement of claim lodged with the High Court at Auckland, Hotchin referred to a number of columns and a profile feature published in the Weekend Herald between 2008 and 2011.

It says the articles had damaged his personal and commercial reputation and caused him to lose commercial opportunities in Australia and New Zealand.

The Herald attempts to editorialise in their headline claiming they are being sued for “alleged defamation”. You can’t of course be sued for alleged anything let alone defamation but that didn’t stop the herald.

I’m surprised they didn’t mention John Hotchin as the brother of Mark. i am also still waiting for The Herald to spend the same amount of money finding out the name of the politician with the secret dogs names as they spent overturning the historic name suppression of a victim.

I imagine that some of the evidence may well relate to the persecution and witch0hunt that the Herald has pursued against Mark Hotchin. There have been 125 days this year so far and the Herald has amassed 66 articles online that mention Mark Hotchin in the same time period. That is one article every two days.

To put that in perspective a similar search for Don Brash shows just 80 articles since the beginning of the year and most of those are in the past two weeks with more than 40. The other 40 are spread over the whole time period.

It is clear that the Herald has been running a campaign against Mark Hotchin in a bid to sell papers. I think he may well have a good case here.

What is it with the mainstream media. Check out these articles from the past week, all have one thing in common. The silly and unnecessary addition of  ”is the brother of Mark Hotchin” or something similar in articles about John Hotchin.

Nathans directors ‘could have been more conservative’
New Zealand Herald
A fourth director, John Hotchin, younger brother to Hanover’s Mark Hotchin, pleaded guilty to similar charges in February and was sentenced in early …

Hotchin fronts up to Nathans trial
Stuff.co.nz
Hotchin, brother of former Hanover Finance director Mark Hotchin, had earlier pleaded guilty to three charges of making untrue statements in a Nathans …

John Hotchin testifies against former directors
TVNZ
John Hotchin is the brother of Mark Hotchin, whose failed finance company Hanover is also being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office and the Securities …

Nathans came close to merger - Hotchin
Stuff.co.nz
Nathans Finance – co-founded by John Hotchin – was close to being merged with another finance company owned by his brother, Mark Hotchin, just six months …

This article in the NZ Herald doesn’t even mention John Hotchin’s name in the first sentence, only that of Mark Hotchin.

John Hotchin admits Nathans Finance documents wrong
New Zealand Herald
The younger brother of former Hanover director Mark Hotchin pleaded guilty to Securities Act breaches in February. His sentence was reduced from a jail term …

That is just from the last 72 hours and all the stories have nothing at all to do with Mark Hotchin other than it is his brother appearing in court ratting on his former mates.

I wonder how long it is before the media reports that someone with the same last name as former Hanover director Mark Hotchin was caught jay-walking in Levin on the weekend.

Cactus Kate has picked a rather unsavoury scab in her article about the Herald and APN who appear to have confused the ethical lines between advertising, content, editorial and the high moral ground.

As readers will well know the Herald has been running a remarkable campaign of denigration about Mark Hotchin and Hanover, especially in the pst 10 or so days with story after story after story about how Mark Hotchin got scammed in a Ponzi scheme.

They posted an editorial as well taking the moral high ground and ticked off a judge and sounded all po-faced and sage in talking about name suppression. They spent a not inconsiderable amount of money with top end of town lawyers, reputed to be well over $100,000 attacking a victim’s rights to privacy as ordered by a court through a suppression order.

Sure I attacked suppression orders myself, but I only named kiddy fiddlers, rapists and thugs. This is why I have been so hot under the collar about this. The Herald went after victims and played for the high moral ground in doing so.

What Cactus Kate has done, and I am slapping myself for not thinking of this myself, is go straight to the source and asked Carrick Graham, spokesperson for Hotchin/Hanover about how much Hanover loot the Herald pocketed, all the while knowing that the two principals of Hanover were the victims in an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

2006 – $342,695 (Only November on)
2007 – $1,146,280
2008 – $328,807
2009 – $94,469 (all for FAI Finance)
Total – $1,912,251

So The Herald, knowing as they did that the principles of Hanover had been scammed, continued to repeatedly take truck loads of loot for their advertising.

Cactus Kate rightly points out the ethical dilemma for the Herald in continuing to accept their advertising revenue and also waxing lyrical in cu/paste opinion pieces about Hanover and their various investment vehicles. She also quite correctly asks whether or not the gamblers investors in Hanover would have been more influenced by the Herald opinion pieces by Adam Bennett and Maria Slade amongst many others along with the millions in advertising featuring a former newsreader spent with the Herald than with the prospectus proffered by some spotty investment advisor across the desk of one of myriad of advisory houses who likewise pocketed Hanover coin.

I just bet that Hanover’s and Hotchin’s lawyers are licking their chops with joy, salivating at quenstioning  gambler investor after gambler investor just exactly where they obtained their investment advice from: “Was it from advertising? Or perhaps you read something in the paper? Or did you actually read and digest with some solid research from a truly independent investment analyst the prospectus provided by Hanover?”

You can see where that is going to end can’t you. Badly…for the investors and possibly for APN.

The Herald took the high moral ground in spending huge amounts of money in overturning a victim’s name suppression, they stood on a pedestal and proclaimed their moral righteousness when all along they should have been on the naughty step for palming almost $2 million in investors cash to enable Hanover to take more investors cash from them, all the while knowing that Mark Hotchin was subject to a name suppression order.

Their retrospective moral righteousness is nothing but shameful hypocrisy. I wouldn’t mind betting that Cactus Kate has much more information about other media outlets and journalists and the large amounts of cash they similarly received. If she wasn’t so busy working in her Guangdong sweatshop she could bother to return my emails.

Not content with breaching their confidentiality agreements of 7 years ago, with Mark Hotchin and Kerry Finnigan, the Herald is really going gang-busters today with Hotchin Over-use Syndrome (HOS). Now I’m no mate of Hotchin but when I read that banal article today it really ticked me off.

In their article they used one and half pages and 3157 words to say almost nothing. In that 3157 words they used the name of Mark Hotchin no less than 8 times. About once every three paragraphs.

This is almost as bad as Jock Anderson’s repeated cut and paste of Mark Hotchin’s name and details in order to help Barry Colman sell a few more issues of the NBR. Between the Herald and NBR they are really challenging David Farrar as the cut and paste king.

The NZ Herald has sat on this story for more than seven years and then when it suited them to put the slipper into Mark Hotchin, they regurgitated it two weekends in a row purely because it contains, and due to their HOS contains a lot, the name of Mark Hotchin.

The Herald and the NBR should be giving Mark Hotchin a cut of all the additional revenue they are scoring through the over use of his name.

The worst thing about their continued campaign to denigrate a man who hasn’t even been charged with anything is that he can’t retaliate because the authorities have tied up all his cash in an attempt to starve him of legal oxygen. This is not only a case of state authorities bullying someone who is innocent and not even charged with anything but also a case of the media bullying him as well through the gratuitous use of his name so they can sell a few more newspapers.

It seems that the names of Hanover and Mark Hotchin can sell newspapers in the good times and now in the bad times. And all the while it is the media outlets that have creamed it off of their backs, good news or bad news.

What would be good is some honest reporting of the situation, and some honest analysis using facts and not emotion. Fat chance of that happening. Between Jock “Cut Paste” Anderson and Fran(k) O’Sullivan the truth seems to get slaughtered along the way.

While I am slamming the Herald I may as well ask why they haven’t as yet started legal proceedings to over-turn the name suppression of the prominent politician who is fighting over a couple of dogs in the Family Court. Exactly the same reasons they trotted off to court and spent over $100,000 with their top notch lawyers over-turning Mark Hotchin’s name suppression and at same time destroying any pretense of protecting victims of crime from ever having their details revealed apply in this case, and it is far more relevant because it is happening now, not seven years ago. In fact in this case there are no victims, no children, just a couple of silly adults and some silly dogs.

Surely the Herald should exhibit some consistency, or was it just the chance for another free hit on Mark Hotchin that drove them to assail victims rights in such an egregious manner?

It is only a matter of time before questions are going to be raised under parliamentary privilege.

A senior political figure and his ex-wife are arguing in the family court over who gets the couple’s two dogs.

The names of the man, his new partner, his ex-wife and their dogs have all been suppressed.

Evidence of an alleged dog-napping by the man’s ex wife, to be referred to as D, was given at the Auckland Family Court yesterday.

D spotted the dogs being walked by her ex-husband’s new partner in an upmarket suburb of Auckland last November.

D was with an employee at the time. The employee fought back tears as he described to the court what the dogs meant to D. He also cannot be named because doing so could identify the parties.

“I’m aware the couple never had children, so the couple’s dogs were kind of like kids,” he said.

This is going to explode, sooner or later. The more it is reported and the more suppression remains the more people will be interested to know who.

It is actually farcical that name suppression is being used in the first place. Sure it is in the Family Court but name suppression in the Family Court is designed to protect children not the political and personal reputation of adults.

Similarly why is the NZ Herald not seeking an urgent overturning of name suppression in this case like they did over Mark Hotchin 7 years after teh fact. This case is far more relevant as it is happening right now not seven years ago.

The NZ Herald spent over $100,000 with their top shelf lawyers having the name suppression of Mark Hotchin and Kerry Finnigan overturned, why aren’t they now in court demanding openness and transparency in the court process concerning a senior political figure?

Cactus Kate has a brilliant post that exposes silly old Jock Anderson as a worse cut and paste merchant than David Farrar.

Knowing the age of Jock Anderson he probably has a shortcut saved so he can easily paste:

Director John Hotchin (brother of Hanover Finance’s Mark Hotchin)

…into his articles.

Jock is better than this so one can only assume that this silly nonsense is editorial manipulation by Barry Colman to sell newspaper for pay-wall subscriptions.

When reputed journalists resort to cut and paste activities like this, it is no wonder we call them repeaters.