Winston’s party

Why NZ First staff should be afraid

I know a fair bit about money laundering and not for reasons you think. I also know a few experts in legal fields surrounding money laundering.

Right now the media and almost everyone else has focussed on Owen Glenn and his fabulous evidence before the Privileges committee without thinking that trucking along sweetly in the background is the Serious Fraud Office investigations into New Zealand First and Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode.

The media would do well to examine our money laundering laws and associated information, all conveniently located in one place at the Ministry of Justice website. Of particular note are the methods of money laundering.

It is acknowledged that their are three stages to money laundering;

  1. Hide: to reflect the fact that cash is often introduced to the economy via commercial concerns which may knowingly or not knowingly be part of the laundering scheme, and it is these which ultimately prove to be the interface between the criminal and the financial sector
  2. Move: clearly explains that the money launderer uses transfers, sales and purchase of assets, and changes the shape and size of the lump of money so as to obfuscate the trail between money and crime or money and criminal.
  3. Invest: the criminal spends the money: he/she may invest it in assets, or in his/her lifestyle.

Our money laundering laws are very broad-brush and almost certainly New Zealand First staffers are caught by these laws, certainly Brian Henry, Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode, The trustees of the Spencer Trust including the previously un-named third trustee Roger McClay, the present and past presidents of New Zealand First including Dail jones and Doug Woolerton are in the firing line. It is not not a matter of if, but when the SFO puts the squeeze on these folk that the truth is going to come tumbling out.

Mark my words, people are going to jail and it will be our money laundering laws that put them there. Obfuscations about the exact locations of the funds merely add to the evidence that this was a wilful deception on hiding the source of funds. As soon as you change the appearance of the funds you commit an offence under the money launder laundering laws.

Winston First officials will be nervous

TGIF popped into my inbox and when I opened it and read the first page found out why Winston Raymond Peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode has retained a criminal lawyer to represent him.

He and his officials and possibly Labour Party officials and MP’s are in serious, serious trouble.

You see under the Electoral Act all these folk think they can bluster and lie around the facts because 6 months have elapsed on everything. unfortunately for them the Crimes Act supercedes all of that and there is a time limit of 10 years under that Act.

This means that the Serious Fraud Office, as I predicted, needed only a couple of representative allegations to start prying open the bullshit that exists around NZ First and WRP, 63, LMPONFA. Once they start focussing the laser of examination on some of the officials one of them will crack. That is all the SFO need, one of them to squeal and then the house of cards will come tumbling down.

Threat of imminent jail time for Doug Woolerton, Dail Jones, Brent Catchpole and others will see them all reaching for criminal lawyers as well in a bid to cover their extremely exposed asses.

The real fun though will start when Winston seeing that he is going to spend some time sharing a cell with a big blackman called Bubba, will spill his guts and name Helen Elizabeth Clark and Michael Williams as parties to his electoral fraud, then we may see the Serious Fraud Office re-open the Labour Party electoral rorts as well.

We may well be watching the destruction of two political parties here. No wonder that Clark and Winston conspired to abolish the Serious Fraud Office.

More on Scampi 2

More backgrounder so you can understand the Scampi Scandal and why the secret tape was suppressed.

This is the valedictory speech of Ian Ewen-Street.

Richard, in case you hadn’t noticed, Sue is young, beautiful and highly intelligent, whereas I’m…. well, I’m not. Even my kindest friends would describe me as middle-aged, overweight and bald. Richard, that’s not a scandal, it’s a bloody miracle!

But I knew I’d chosen the right woman a few days later when we were walking through the Bowen House tunnel and came across Richard Prebble, so I stopped to introduce them. It’s not often you see him stumped for words, but he uttered not a syllable when Sue greeted him with the words “Hello Richard, thank you for making me famous!” and he was still recovering and backing off towards the travellator when Sue called out – “but watch out for my father, he still wants to kill you!” That’s my girl!!

Yes, the scampi scandal! I can joke about it now, but it was undoubtedly a difficult time for me. But a great lesson in life’s rich tapestry. A great experience in finding out who one’s friends are – or even more pertinently, who one’s friends aren’t!

My sincere thanks to all the members of the Primary Production Committee – especially David Carter, Doug Woolerton, Clayton Cosgrove, Gerry Eckhoff, Dover Samuels, Phil Heatley, Janet Mackey and Harry Duynhoven – I know I became the subject of some wonderful jokes for you, but I am also aware that your friendship and support kept me sane through that time. Thank you!

Working in the PPSC was a real highlight for me. I enjoyed the work, I enjoyed your company – including the support staff of Bob Bunch, Mary Hay and Steven Mitchell – and I shall miss you all.

But I also have to say that I am convinced that you got parts of the scampi inquiry badly wrong. I believe you shot the messenger and allowed the real culprits to get away with perpetrating one of the biggest frauds and one of the gravest injustices in NZ history.

I struggle with the suggestion from some people that there was no evidence of any wrong-doing. There was. Affidavits are sworn evidence. They have convicted murderers in the past. I agree that someone may argue that it may not be possible to string together a long sequence of events and say that they prove a certain outcome, but if you treat each piece of evidence as a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, there are more than enough pieces to see the overall picture of premeditated offending. And please don’t forget the evidence of the people who made submissions to the PPSC, but had their evidence returned because they alleged criminal behaviour and that was outside the terms of reference for the inquiry. How can you weigh up evidence if you send it back to the submitter, especially if you then claim there is no evidence?

If the next government wants to follow up on the scampi issue and restore my faith in the political system, I suggest that a good place to start their enquiries would be Helen Cull QC, the lawyer who convened the State Services Commission inquiry which ran in parallel with the PPSC inquiry. She got it right. She knows pretty much what happened, but her final report does not reflect this because her terms of reference were limited to investigating the role of the Ministry of Fisheries. I believe she should be asked to publish her real findings and the people guilty of raping and pillaging the scampi fishery brought to account.

I think the incoming government should also heed the words of former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer when he described the criticism of the Ministry of Fisheries by both the PPSC and the State Services Commission as the most scathing criticism of a government department in NZ history. But what has happened as a consequence? Did anyone get sacked? Pensioned off? Slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket? No, nothing. The then CEO of the Ministry put out a press release saying that the Ministry had been vindicated. They had not. He should have been falling on his sword, but instead he continued the fantasy within the Ministry that somehow they are beyond the law, that they can ignore the rulings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal with impunity. And that they can ignore Parliament.

I believe the Ministry should also be made aware of their responsibilities under the Fisheries Act (and international treaties) to address the social and economic well-being of coastal communities. It is simply unacceptable that small fishers in such fisheries as cockles, whelks, geoducs, paddle-crabs, pilchards and others can be put out of business and their lives destroyed by the whim of ministry officials. The RMA is a tool in the toolbox of the management of fisheries, it is not an end in itself. And it most certainly should not be there for the purpose of hugely enriching a small number of fishers at the expense of others and the ecological sustainability of the fishery.

It is my opinion that this is a Ministry which needs a thorough shake-up in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy and imbued with the realization that they are public servants. They are paid to serve the public interest and they are there to manage the ecological sustainability of the fisheries of this country.


More on Scampi

Well, my site has taken a hammering since posting the infamous secret scampi video. Now by way of a backrounder here is some filler information that tells you why this video is so explosive. It is from Hansard and the debate on Scampi. When you read this you can see why Winston Raymond peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode is going to be squirmingthat the video has now seen the light of day. You would also do well to read Question 5 from the other day as well.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate-this very debate we are having now-Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course-and a lot of people do not realise this-Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.


Question 1 today

Watch Question 1 from parliament today. Michael Cullen was genuinely rattled today and in his very first answer accuses Owen Glenn of being “confused” and later threatens Nick Smith with some supposed dirt that Labour has on him.

Bill English actually could have done a little better than this. He would be advised to read the blogs a bit more or at the very least get the NRU to. The best laugh is when Doug Woolerton reads out the same question as the first numpty Winston First sychophant and then in typical bully-boy fashion threatens the staff for his own ineptitude.

Ok, the other time for a good laugh is when Cullen suggests that the reason why Helen Clark lied by ommission was because “she was busy”.

Cullen also repeated lies about the Privileges Committee decision to release the letters from Owen Glenn and Winston Raymond Peters, 63, Member of Parliament of no fixed abode when the Committee resolved unamimously to release those letters. To suggest otherwise is extremely disingenuous.

Campaign run by leader, not me, says former President

Campaign run by leader, not me, says former President Doug Woolerton.

Proof positive NZ First is really what everyone suspected all along…..WINSTON First!!! 

How fractured is New Zealand First?

[Imported from Whale Oil Beef Hooked on Blogger]

Doug Woolerton has confirmed earlier reports that he quit as President because of the deal Winston has done with Labour.

Is this the start of the end of Winston First?

If I were National or Act I would be wooing Ron Mark and Woolerton. Doug to return to his natural home and Mark to come to the right side.

Winstons deal I predict will collapse his support along with Labours. Once the support ratings are so untenable they will jump all over the place trying to save what can’t be saved.