Invoicing and Creative Colin

Selection_016

This morning I let you in on Colin Craig’s bizarre email exchange resulting in an invoice for the use of his intellectual property, a poem called “Two of me”.  A poem he 1) denied writing, 2) won’t comment on as to the ownership of it, and 3) is invoicing royalties for its use.

Confused?   There may be some consistency there, if you have a larger picture.  John Stringer analyses it over at coNZervative.

1. WHY is a business partnership entity of Colin and his wife Helen Ruth Craig invoicing Slater for a romantic poem Colin wrote privately to the press secretary of the Conservative Party? Does CC not see that as ironic?

The poem discusses wishing to share himself around with women not his wife, and there are forlorn sentiments about his marriage. Is that a service, a function, of his registered partnership with Helen Ruth Craig? Do they publish romantic poems of Colin’s to women not his wife? Does he not care about Helen?; is he contemptuous of her feelings, her needs, her honor? The contempt of invoicing his romantic poem IN HER NAME to a third party beggars belief (that disconnect from reality thing).

2. Colin has been accused of “creative accounting” by some people who’ve worked with him over many years (in fact, that is being actively investigated by the Police on top of Police file 150-921/0239 and Police file 150-807/9750, one of which also looks at other accounting irregularities in realign to over matters). It’s odd that the ACTUAL cost of the poem + Gst comes to a round $3000.oo How can that be?

2. $2608.70 + Gst 391.30= $3000.oo.

3. How is “$2608.70” determined? And on what basis? What elements determine the cost of this royalty for a published poem by Colin Craig (that he has previously denied, and still now won’t confirm) on Whaleoil from 19 June?

4. It’s because this is a contrived amount. The Gst has been worked out backwards after the fact, i.e. x3 ÷ 23. In other words, Colin just plucked “$3000” out of the air as a monthly charge to Slater, and worked the Gst backwards. There was never a real cost. How did he get $2608.70 a month for the use of the poem? What is that made up of? More imaginery things.

[see below]. And look at the invoicing timetable. Why was a slate opened on 1 June 2015 for Slater? For what? Nothing was invoiced for 4 and half months from 19 June till 30 October 2015. Craig knew the poem was published 19 June, and it was up there all that time. But why was an account opened earlier on 1 June? A pod question for Slater to ask.

It’s because this whole invoice is a complete contrivance.

6. I suggest CC (Helen probably doesn’t even know this exists) only “opened” a slate for Slater on 30 October, not 01 June at all, and he walked the invoicing back to 01 June once the poem was published 19 June. He likely only decided to do all this on 30 October. We’ve seen this before elsewhere, something the Police, the Electoral Commission and former Centurion staff, Trust Account Managers, and clients have taken a great deal of interest in recently. It has even been the subject of previous Court proceedings that CC lost, and had to pay out for.

7. If the “Craig and Craig” account was opened 01 June, but the ‘Two of Me” poem was only published 19 June by Slater, why was the account opened by Craig and what for, between 01 June – 19 June? Could Colin foresee the future? What services was C&C anticipating offering to Slater 01 June – 19 June before the poem was published? My brain swells at the possibilities.

8. And WHY is this an asset of C&C anyway? Is the poem actually written by Colin AND Helen Craig to Rachel MacGregor? After all, they privately loaned her money, and gave her $56,000 before, during and after toxic employment and sexual harassment wrangles with Ms MacGregor. ?????

9. “Craig and Craig” is not a company. It’s the name of an office for “Shore Bins Ltd.”

10. Which poses the Q. Whose is the Gst number registered on the invoice above to Whaleoil? I’m sure some Marine Mammals of Mischief will enlighten us soon.

Reality as they say, is often stranger than fiction.

I have of course not received any Tax Invoices for the months indicated on the statement.

“But!”, you may say, “it’s a Tax invoice/Statement”, that’s legit!

Is it?   Not if it doesn’t have a unique Tax Invoice number.

 

Selection_017

It’s pedantic, but then we’re down to nit picking:  the invoices were all raised on the 30th, and have not been presented individually.   I should have 5 distinct tax invoices.  Or, if this really is a Tax Invoice/Statement, it should have a Tax Invoice number on it somewhere.  The Reference Number simply doesn’t comply with the legal requirement.

The whole thing smacks of Creative Colin taking the piss and not taking this seriously.   The problem for him is that this isn’t the only time he’s created formal legal financial documents that have raised concerns.

Authorities would normally not take any notice of something like this.  But it can now be added to others to indicate an alleged propensity and pattern to use legal documents in ways that aren’t strictly proper.

It’s above my pay grade, but I’m sure the police will work it all out.

 

– John String, coNZervative, Craig, Craig, Colin, Colin and possibly also Colin.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

To read Cam’s previous articles click on his name in blue.

66%