PDA

View Full Version : Is the Council simply a thief ...Questions of Accountability -> Crown?



BarryCowlishaw
05-09-2015, 01:21 PM
Were ratepayers robbed of their investments in infrastructure (which were funded by levy)?
676
Could somebody please explain to me how the Council managed to become the owner of generations of investments by ratepayers in regional infrastructure?

I am aware that the older rates demands (before the council prescribed us to become clients) informed us of which loans we were paying off and what those loans were for- I am one of those old fashioned types that considers paying off a loan confers an interest and I believed that the council was steward of those investments/interests ….

On the watercare site …ownership is determined as being “wholly owned by the Auckland Council” …. all good but what happened to the ratepayers interests/investments in the catchment, treatment and distribution of water or waste? ...is this business not using our property? -yet we have no interest in the corporation or our investments which it now has (as in owns)
677
As…STEWARDSHIP IS NOT OWNERSHIP and knowing that the Council serves in a fiduciary relationship… I have some questions- some of which...



1- How did the servant manage to script a change of ownership without the genuine consent of the investors in the Property- and what legal protections were there for the ratepayers interests in their investments... or worded differently.... is theft as a servant still a crime?

2- The Crimes Act 1961 Section 243 defines “money laundering” or the concealing of and transferring of interests in Property as being a “Criminal Act” while Section 408 determines that this act shall bind the Crown…. so … are the corporations (formed for scripting a change of ownership from ratepayers to council without genuine consent) not simply instruments of theft and money laundering or products of criminal activities sanctioned by or orchestrated by the council and the crown? [The Crimes Act 1961 Section 243 money laundering .... http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM330289 ] .... I like the use of the term "without limitations" in this section of the act.

Perhaps others are genuinely interested in ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL and perhaps they may help me answer these questions …. but it is important to note that the English language confers a different meaning upon OWNERSHIP AND STEWARDSHIP at the time of writing this (perhaps there has been a script change?) … Surely if the ratepayers funded the accumulation of properties they should have an interest in those properties rather than have their servant who serves in a fiduciary relationship (or another...like the Crown).. scripting them out of it

678
ANYBODY ELSE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATION IN A CLASS ACTION INTENDED TO RECOVER PROPERTIES FROM THESE THIEVES OR RECEIVERS- ???

Stewardship…… Managing another’s property
Ownership…….. Being that “another” with property

Crimewatch
05-09-2015, 04:30 PM
You might need to ask the permission of the THIEVES representative then to actually bring charges against the Thieves

The Council or the Crown have more influence over the attorney generals office than any small group or individual - [So Displaying the quality of Impartiality you should anticipate]

Perhaps you either need large numbers in support or a small miracle- like finding (the seemingly extinct) "HONOUR" (structural integrity support) within the Nations representatives-



Fat chance of that
679

BarryCowlishaw
06-09-2015, 12:22 PM
Hi- Yoda
Must admit to not bothering with that.... I reckon there is a problem with the journalistic integrity of a Australian owned paper that presents itself as being the NZ herald ... It might not be in the best interests of the Australian backers to bring certain things to the public attention in a timely manner.

Certainly Interesting that none of the media considered it to be newsworthy enough to do a little impartial investigative reporting- choosing instead to repeat the Corporate Spin- so no .... I no longer have the time to waste on the media and would prefer that folk became more aware of the impact of trusting the media or the legal fraternity that seem to turn an intentionally blind eye to large scale corruption or Criminal activities which the legal fraternity has to participate in to consummate

This little? example of corruption is pretty easy to point out in that a school kid could see the problem- (once pointed out) yet how long do you reckon I will need to repeat it before the problem is able to be acted upon by responsible adults and how many more immigrants do we need to import before we actually get some... ha ha :)

I sometimes wonder if the rest of the world has a big chuckle at our tiny expense... I know they can read these posts as easily as the shrunken Australian owned nz herald
:) :)

Q. C.
06-09-2015, 02:14 PM
Were ratepayers robbed of their investments in infrastructure (which were funded by levy)?
676
Could somebody please explain to me how the Council managed to become the owner of generations of investments by ratepayers in regional infrastructure?...

What a Council "owns", the rate payer owns. A Council cannot exist as an entity unless it has rate payers in its geographic area to enable it to provide services or own and manage the rate payers collective assets.

If a Council has no right to sell Council "owned" assets, then by deduction it had no right to use ratepayer funds (generated from rating levies over time) to purchase them in the first place.

Don't confuse concerns about Council's miss-management, or your ideological differences, with who has "ownership" or "management" of assets.

Rate payers individually do not own the assets, they do so collectively through a Council. That is why you cannot 'cash in' your ownership when you sell your property and are no longer a ratepayer.

BarryCowlishaw
06-09-2015, 08:19 PM
Perhaps the problem is more simple than you want to see QC.... so I will refresh you on some basics ... check out the legal terminology known as

Contra proferentem

Remember I am not discussing ownership of corporations... I am discussing infrastructure or property that was in place long before the corporations or laundries which were forced upon us by thieves who were serving in positions of trust....


From the watercare site .... http://www.watercare.co.nz/about-watercare/about-watercare/Pages/default.aspx

Who we are owned by
We are a council controlled organisation, wholly owned by the Auckland Council. The council appoints our board of directors who in turn appoint our chief executive.

remember "Contra proferentem"

The ownership of this corporation could not be set out any clearer it is not ambiguous or confusing.... the ownership of properties watercare utilizes to make a profit was formally held under the stewardship NOT OWNERSHIP of the Council but now watercare owns the properties and the council owns watercare

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM330289

(1)conceal, in relation to property, means to conceal or disguise the property; and includes, without limitation,—

(a) to convert the property from one form to another:

(b)to conceal or disguise the nature, source, location, disposition, or ownership of the property or of any interest in the property

Seems abundantly clear to me still... but I have remained focused




If there is any confusion about theft now it could be just that you are batting for the other team but I aint moving as the facts are clear :)

We have no control over how much debt the council wants to incur but we should only need to pay for the maintenance and any improvement to our Property and clearly the Council has proven to be unable to act as a responsible steward of our investments -

SHOULD WE HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THIS WITH THIEVES OR THEIR EMPLOYEES?

BarryCowlishaw
07-09-2015, 12:50 AM
Hi- again yoda

The problem does highlight some issues with structural integrity [(& credibility) separate issues]

I am not really interested in asset sales (Laundry sales) nor was I posting this with the intention of being drawn into other subjects than that of the THEFT of PROPERTY or INTERESTS in that PROPERTY.

That the thief has or intends to on-sell the stolen property is a separate issue to the theft itself which appears to be confusing enough (apparently) I suggest that all thieves have good reasons to offer for "STEALING OTHERS PROPERTY" but theft is theft- as the politics of the Laws are already set in legislation.... what is there to discuss other than how to just take back our property ....... is the Law going to serve to make that takeover PEACEFUL (as it should do- if honour was present)?

It's just blatant theft as I see it .... I really cannot understand how anyone could be confused when the facts are right there in our faces

Q. C.
07-09-2015, 09:37 AM
Perhaps the problem is more simple than you want to see QC.... so I will refresh you on some basics ... check out the legal terminology known as

...Remember I am not discussing ownership of corporations... I am discussing infrastructure or property that was in place long before the corporations or laundries which were forced upon us by thieves who were serving in positions of trust....

...The ownership of this corporation could not be set out any clearer it is not ambiguous or confusing.... the ownership of properties watercare utilizes to make a profit was formally held under the stewardship NOT OWNERSHIP of the Council but now watercare owns the properties and the council owns watercare

...SHOULD WE HAVE TO NEGOTIATE THIS WITH THIEVES OR THEIR EMPLOYEES?

For any Council to utilize assets it has stewardship of, for the benefit of ratepayers, it must have ownership. Without ownership it can do nothing with the asset, ie. develop it into a water care facility by borrowing against its owned assets.

You cannot conceal or steal assets from yourself. Council have stewardship, via Councillors, of ratepayer assets, Council have stewardship of Watercare, via its appointed Directors in Watercare, whose assets were transferred from Council. Watercare manages those assets, via its directors appointing a CEO, who has stewardship for Watercare. Therefore Council still has stewardship, as does it have ownership.

Ownership of those assets, in reverse; the CEO of Watercare does not own the assets, Watercare does. Council owns Watercare, and thereby all its assets. Council owns all assets on behalf of ratepayers.

So no assets are concealed or stolen, they exist in the same ownership and stewardship, via Councillors and Council. Only the management structures of managing those assets has changed - which you are entitled to disagree with.

BarryCowlishaw
07-09-2015, 01:28 PM
Hi- QC ...Nice to see somebody trying to justify theft in this manner and so totally unexpected (not)... But I do love to hear the shallow mod-spin or thieves propaganda - so lets see .... first you state....

QC- "For any Council to utilize assets it has stewardship of, for the benefit of ratepayers, it must have ownership...."

BC- 1- Could you please explain how the council managed as Steward of the ratepayers investments for over a hundred years
before the thieves coup d'é·tat complete with the propaganda you have digested - were Councils more capable and intelligent
in the old days perhaps .... if so are they not overpaid today- for being less competent?

If I managed a property for you would you be stupid enough to grant me title to the property if I pulled that line on you?


QC..."You cannot conceal or steal assets from yourself. Council have stewardship, via Councillors, of ratepayer assets, Council have stewardship of Watercare, via its appointed Directors in Watercare, whose assets were transferred from Council. Watercare manages those assets, via its directors appointing a CEO, who has stewardship for Watercare. Therefore Council still has stewardship, as does it have ownership."

BC...You are rather confused even when the facts are before you - but I don't wonder why ..... lets see if anything makes sense .... do tell who is stating that one can steal off themselves you have lost me (or the plot) there....

If you are going to tell me that you know better than Watercare about the ownership of watercare you had better have some impressive qualifications as I have already provided you reference to the fact that the Auckland council owns watercare (by their own admission) so you are calling the Corporation a liar and stating that the Auckland Council is a Steward ......provide some proof please or reference that I can check out amounting to proof-
If the Corporation (Watercare) already has its own overpaid executives why would it need the Council to be its Steward? are the directors pathetic as well as overpaid? ..... and how can the owner also be the steward or have you got a different meaning for Steward to that found in the English dictionary?

The Meaning used for referencing .....STEWARDSHIP..... manage or look after (another's property).




QC..Ownership of those assets, in reverse; the CEO of Watercare does not own the assets, Watercare does. Council owns Watercare, and thereby all its assets. Council owns all assets on behalf of ratepayers.

So no assets are concealed or stolen, they exist in the same ownership and stewardship, via Councillors and Council. Only the management structures of managing those assets has changed - which you are entitled to disagree with.



What are you on QC... your mind is wandering nobody mentioned ceo's owning other than an income that ensures that every man woman and child pays way too much to get their water are you confused between legalities within the English language or simple meanings ..... with political spin ..... I love it when you twisters get twisted :) so much fun :)

Of course I am entitled to disagree with an opinion that is in direct conflict with the facts... an opinion that ignores clear meanings of words, corporate representations as to ownership and/or commonsense - not only am I entitled but I see it as the duty of any adult or right thinking person .... get some help my friend just because the government stopped making cents doesn't mean that our reasoning needs to be similarly effected

Q. C.
07-09-2015, 01:47 PM
Hi- QC ...Nice to see somebody trying to justify theft in this manner and so totally unexpected (not)... But I do love to hear the shallow mod-spin or thieves propaganda - so lets see .... first you state....

QC- "For any Council to utilize assets it has stewardship of, for the benefit of ratepayers, it must have ownership...."

BC- 1- [COLOR="#0000CD"]Could you please explain how the council managed as Steward of the ratepayers investments for over a hundred years
before the thieves coup d'é·tat complete with the propaganda you have digested - were Councils more capable and intelligent
in the old days perhaps .... if so are they not overpaid today- for being less competent?

If I managed a property for you would you be stupid enough to grant me title to the property if I pulled that line on you?...

I will answer you other questions later (as I am too busy). The above questions: They managed as stewards over the years by owning the assets, e.g. they owned the trucks and equipment to enable them to repair roads etc

All ratepayers, by deduction, grant Council title over Council property to deal with it how the Council feels fit. They do not grant title over their own property, that is subject to rates to fund the Council's activity on their behalf. An individual ratepayer does not grant Council anything, they grant Council collectively and manage Council collectively, whether individuals like it or not. So you question is a nonsense.

BarryCowlishaw
07-09-2015, 02:10 PM
Hi- again QC
I cant wait to hear more of your opinions that you have no facts or evidence to back up... its really not the way I would recommend getting our property back though pretending like you do that there is no problem-

Before you do post your pigeon English response... though do try a little harder to distinguish between "OWNER" AND "STEWARD" it would be a good start.... The spelling is different so that should give you a "heads up" that the meaning is also different.... They are both relationships to property but they are different relationships just as there are different interests in property including intangible interests like rights that can be stolen.

Most Legal issues require better standards of accuracy and proof than you appear to be able to muster .... so did you want me to post some pwetty pictures?

new stewards?
680

The Irony?
681

Want more?

Q. C.
07-09-2015, 04:11 PM
Hi- QC ...Nice to see somebody trying to justify theft in this manner and so totally unexpected (not)... But I do love to hear the shallow mod-spin or thieves propaganda - so lets see .... first you state....


QC..."You cannot conceal or steal assets from yourself. Council have stewardship, via Councillors, of ratepayer assets, Council have stewardship of Watercare, via its appointed Directors in Watercare, whose assets were transferred from Council. Watercare manages those assets, via its directors appointing a CEO, who has stewardship for Watercare. Therefore Council still has stewardship, as does it have ownership."

...[COLOR="#0000FF"]If you are going to tell me that you know better than Watercare about the ownership of watercare you had better have some impressive qualifications as I have already provided you reference to the fact that the Auckland council owns watercare (by their own admission) so you are calling the Corporation a liar and stating that the Auckland Council is a Steward ......provide some proof please or reference that I can check out amounting to proof-
If the Corporation (Watercare) already has its own overpaid executives why would it need the Council to be its Steward? are the directors pathetic as well as overpaid? ..... and how can the owner also be the steward or have you got a different meaning for Steward to that found in the English dictionary?

...

Simple. The day you convince the current Council or a future Counsel that they are wrong to run the ratepayers water care under a Corporation, that Council as owner of the Corporation will voluntarily wind it up and distribute its assets and liabilities back to its shareholder (the Council). Or the Council or future Council, without your involvement, may on its own motion do the same.

Q. C.
07-09-2015, 04:37 PM
Hi- again QC
I cant wait to hear more of your opinions that you have no facts or evidence to back up... its really not the way I would recommend getting our property back though pretending like you do that there is no problem-

...

Given that you are so intelligent, and therefore capable of convincing others that you are right under law and commerce, why not run for Council, get elected and change things back to what you believe they should be by then convincing your fellow Councillors?

I agree with you regarding the incompetence of the existing Council and the overpaid executives and Directors, so we at least agree on something.

Dixpat
07-09-2015, 07:39 PM
Perhaps the problem is more simple than you want to see QC.... so I will refresh you on some basics ... check out the legal terminology known as

Contra proferentem



BC - can you please expound on "contra proferentem". What ambiguity in what document are you referring to?

BarryCowlishaw
07-09-2015, 09:30 PM
Hi- Dixpat...


BC - can you please expound on "contra proferentem". What ambiguity in what document are you referring to?

Contra proferentem (Latin: "against [the] offeror"),[1] also known as "interpretation against the draftsman",

My understanding of the term roughly used in context.... The wording of a document can be interpreted most strongly against the tenderer .... In this case accepting the clear wording of the watercare site which states that it is wholly owned by the Auckland Council is a clear indication that our investments in infrastructure are now owned by the former Steward- [thanks to a quick pen and creative accounting (theft and money laundering)]

I was indicating that there was nothing confusing or ambiguous about that clear wording
while the "QC" was stating nonsense like "What a Council "owns", the rate payer owns" .... yea right ... So I used the reference because seemingly "QC" found something ambiguous about watercares statement of ownership .... hope that helps- heres my reference

From the watercare site .... http://www.watercare.co.nz/about-wat...s/default.aspx

Who we are owned by
We are a council controlled organisation, wholly owned by the Auckland Council. The council appoints our board of directors who in turn appoint our chief executive.

remember "Contra proferentem"

The ownership of this corporation could not be set out any clearer it is not ambiguous or confusing.... the ownership of properties watercare utilizes to make a profit was formally held under the stewardship NOT OWNERSHIP of the Council but now watercare owns the properties and the council owns watercare

essential to the whole conversation is
"The ownership of propertiesinvestments watercare utilizes to make a profit which were formally held under the stewardship NOT OWNERSHIP of the Council"
For the purpose of exposing theft and laundering with the intention of having those interests returned - The clear wording works fine - I was being sarcastic :)

Dixpat
08-09-2015, 09:24 AM
BC

Whether your argument has merit I leave for others to judge but you "muddy the waters" when you get cute by suggesting that a doctrine of contractual interpretation such as "contra proferentem" applies when it would appear you have no real understanding of the application of the doctrine

BarryCowlishaw
08-09-2015, 03:05 PM
BC

Whether your argument has merit I leave for others to judge but you "muddy the waters" when you get cute by suggesting that a doctrine of contractual interpretation such as "contra proferentem" applies when it would appear you have no real understanding of the application of the doctrine

Yes the waters can become muddied by folk trying to get clever and focus the attention of the conversation away from the THEFT OF GENERATIONS OF RATEPAYERS INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE BY THOSE- SERVING IN A FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP.... (I am mildly surprised you didn't check my spelling and punctuation.) .... But you are wrong- I wasn't "arguing" I was pointing out simple facts- using the term sarcastically to indicate there was really "nothing ambiguous" that the theft was Blatant - (it seems to have passed right over your head) but it did not pass me... that the facts I presented were


Facts you did not dispute at all in fact!clear enough?



The thing is ...... The theft is pretty obvious... one doesn't need to be clever to see it either- yet the legal fraternity and the media seem to have been hiding and,................. They can't all be "Just Thick 2" can they? (I wonder if "Time" is of the essence?)
-
Not hard to make the waters crystal clear though eh Dixpat .... THEFT AND MONEY LAUNDERING ....Explains Why the interests in property need to be returned .....

How that is achieved depends upon the value of the laws in serving the People of New Zealand and that depends upon the presence or absence of honour - [ Integrity/credibility of the Legal Structure ] ... (Not sure its wise to hold your breath there but the juries out) .... so (I wonder if "Time" is of the essence?)

I suspect that if the Legal Fraternity wish to side with the Crowns? thieving Corporate laundry....... then the ratepayers could still take back their Own Property by other Legal and Peaceful Methods than waiting for the Courts to perform honorably (when consulted), or lawyers to use the courts to frustrate the matter -
Properly organised "Fiscal Disobedience" is one possibility .....whereby the victims of theft refuse to do business with the corporation (thieves-representatives) but insist upon access to Their Property (peaceful, easy and quick) Minus GST![Costs become maintenance and improvements only] of course... sorting out the Legal Title could come Retrospectively taking the pressure off the Courts.

What I am indicating Dixpat ..... Is that this claim is not about how I present it .... it has little or nothing to do with me .... [I][B]the waters are already muddy for others to not see the theft and corruption so clearly.... I am simply planting the seeds of Equity in the hope that Justice may be seen to be balanced by same and present

That the same methodology to steal Property has been used elsewhere - didn't miss my attention either dixpat or was that ambiguous to you? :)

Dixpat
08-09-2015, 04:41 PM
Y
Facts you did not dispute at all in fact!clear enough?





I am sure that you and Yoda will enjoy conversing with each other because I can't see many others on this forum treating you seriously

Q. C.
08-09-2015, 05:09 PM
I am sure that you and Yoda will enjoy conversing with each other because I can't see many others on this forum treating you seriously

Dixpat: I agree with you.

BC: If you believe your 'facts' are right, why don't you file a private criminal prosecution for theft against the Councillors who voted to transfer, or sell, the assets you are concerned about to Watercare? It only cost $50.00 to file a Charging Document in the District Court against an individual. Yoda can help you, as he knows everything as well.

John "Brockovich"
08-09-2015, 05:24 PM
Dixpat: I agree with you.

BC: If you believe your 'facts' are right, why don't you file a private criminal prosecution for theft against the Councillors who voted to transfer, or sell, the assets you are concerned about to Watercare? It only cost $50.00 to file a Charging Document in the District Court against an individual. Yoda can help you, as he knows everything as well.

Q. C.: What's going on? Oh, I see, there is some else as stupid as YODA. If BC and YODA teamed up they may have half a brain.

BarryCowlishaw
08-09-2015, 09:00 PM
Hello- John I see you have nothing at all resembling intelligent to offer are you the local troll are you?
682
Here's a picture to cheer you up- if you can pull your head out of that "important little place" long enough to peek
683

John "Brockovich"
08-09-2015, 09:18 PM
Hello- John I see you have nothing at all resembling intelligent to offer are you the local troll are you?...

BC: There is no need to add to the intelligent consideration and comments made by Q. C. and Dixpat. That have said all that needs to be said.

BarryCowlishaw
08-09-2015, 10:36 PM
BC: There is no need to add to the intelligent consideration and comments made by Q. C. and Dixpat. That have said all that needs to be said.

Ha ha ...thats good... yet here you are still got nothing ...eh :) can you recall anything that was said by QC or Dixpat that impressed you or are you just brown-nosing in the hope that somebody else likes trolls

John "Brockovich"
09-09-2015, 09:58 AM
Ha ha ...thats good... yet here you are still got nothing ...eh :) can you recall anything that was said by QC or Dixpat that impressed you or are you just brown-nosing in the hope that somebody else likes trolls

BC: What part of you being 'stupid' do you not understand? If you were not so stupid - you to would be impressed by what QC and Dixpat have said. All what they have said is 'common sense' or legitimate commercial reality; and 'common sense' is part of the "golden rule" of law.

BarryCowlishaw
09-09-2015, 10:55 AM
John does your mum know you are playing on her computer... behave yourself or explain which comments you feel need more attention (you don't count) .... we are discussing theft here not your inability to contribute to the subject with other than stupidity which you expect me to understand.... If I was any less polite I would just tell you to fookorf :)

John "Brockovich"
09-09-2015, 11:17 AM
John... explain which comments you feel need more attention.... we are discussing theft here...

BC: Q. C. asked - "If you believe your 'facts' are right, why don't you file a private criminal prosecution for theft against the Councillors who voted to transfer, or sell, the assets you are concerned about to Watercare?": and

"Simple. The day you convince the current Council or a future Counsel that they are wrong to run the ratepayers water care under a Corporation, that Council as owner of the Corporation will voluntarily wind it up and distribute its assets and liabilities back to its shareholder (the Council). Or the Council or future Council, without your involvement, may on its own motion do the same."

You have not responded. Why not?

BarryCowlishaw
09-09-2015, 02:37 PM
Hi- John .... fair question :)

BC: Q. C. asked - "If you believe your 'facts' are right, why don't you file a private criminal prosecution for theft against the Councillors who voted to transfer, or sell, the assets you are concerned about to Watercare?": and


Firstly it is not about "if I believe my" facts are right .... The Facts are Not Exclusive... The "Right" of the Facts is unchallenged even by the writer of the question but there are Several reasons already covered why I wouldn't be interested some reasons apply to the anticipated standards of impartiality .... As I recall the Crown have been directly involved in the construction of some of the unstable foundations of the Body Corporate Council and the Legal Profession needed to consummate it all .... So Sounds like a good? way to waste a ship load of time- when I'd rather not...and So... Nah......
My prime focus is upon the recovery of the Stolen Interests in Property - Not charging windbags

Fortunately... Repossession of Stolen Property is Legal of Intent

"Simple. The day you convince the current Council or a future Counsel that they are wrong to run the ratepayers water care under a Corporation, that Council as owner of the Corporation will voluntarily wind it up and distribute its assets and liabilities back to its shareholder (the Council). Or the Council or future Council, without your involvement, may on its own motion do the same."

To be blunt John .... I didn't answer that because... ha ha (like the thief could or would) ..... optimism (how sweet yes "That's Right" Santacorp is real! na na ba:) )

I reckon you should sell that idea to the Police ..... yep I can just see them making appointments with thieves to chat about getting them to change their ways and repent .... Yea ......... That could be why ... I didn't really want to answer it :)


or it could be that I was still wondering how much thought was put into the questions - maybe

John "Brockovich"
09-09-2015, 03:34 PM
Hi- John .... fair question :)

...but there are Several reasons already covered why I wouldn't be interested some reasons apply to the anticipated standards of impartiality ....


or it could be that I was still wondering how much thought was put into the questions - maybe

BC: on the first issue - if you truly believe what you say and claim (even if a misguided belief) then I agree with you on lack of impartially of the Courts to allow you to prosecute or to obtain a conviction if matters were true as claimed.

On the second issue what I think Q.C. was pointing out is that Council, if they wanted to, could reverse what they did or what a previous Council did. So the real property you refer to cannot be lost then found again as it is real property and it cannot be stolen as its retrieval does not require it to be found.

Nor can it be a 'conversion' as real property cannot be lost to be found again, so cannot be subject to conversion. Nor can the benefits of use of the real property (or any other assets transferred to Watercare) be a thief or conversion as the end beneficiary of the benefit of its use is the Council who own Watercare and the other beneficiary of its use being the ratepayer (and all those assets acquired, or used, are retrievable by, and to, those beneficiaries through their agents the Councillors).

So your real issue is not "thief", but a difference in ideology combined with issues of mismanagement by Council.

BarryCowlishaw
09-09-2015, 04:46 PM
BC: on the first issue - if you truly believe what you say and claim (even if a misguided belief) then I agree with you on lack of impartially of the Courts to allow you to prosecute or to obtain a conviction if matters were true as claimed.

On the second issue what I think Q.C. was pointing out is that Council, if they wanted to, could reverse what they did or what a previous Council did. So the real property you refer to cannot be lost then found again as it is real property and it cannot be stolen as its retrieval does not require it to be found.

Nor can it be a 'conversion' as real property cannot be lost to be found again, so cannot be subject to conversion. Nor can the benefits of use of the real property (or any other assets transferred to Watercare) be a thief or conversion as the end beneficiary of the benefit of its use is the Council who own Watercare and the other beneficiary of its use being the ratepayer (and all those assets acquired, or used, are retrievable by, and to, those beneficiaries through their agents the Councillors).

On the First issue my priorities and values are different anyway remember :)

your second issue remains very full of irrelevant pondering's? about what a thief could or might choose to do or if property is lost or found wtf ever was on your mind- As I pointed out of course ......There is many different types of property some of which are intangible such as rights- we are not talking about your school lunch so there will be a paper trail for most of the interests....the rest go with possession or can be accounted for..... nobody has discussed lost property either so start making sense or tracks john so far you have got nothing but childish remarks or pathetic distractions from the facts ..... which indicate that the ratepayer has no interest in his investments as they were stolen/scripted elsewhere by the Servant or the Crown

Plain and simple so a small child can see it ....so whats wrong with you John ..... "that bind upon the crown" got you constipated as well? - you seem to be full of it :)

facts are- as set out- clear title to the property is available and clearly the ratepayers do not have an interest as it has been scripted elsewhere.

The conversion of the various properties and transfer of interests has already occurred so stick to the facts it has already happened so maybe if you......

try playing GET REAL John and stop wasting my time - you have got nothing :)

John "Brockovich"
09-09-2015, 05:04 PM
....facts are- as set out- clear title to the property is available and clearly the ratepayers do not have an interest as it has been scripted elsewhere.


The conversion of the various properties and transfer of interests has already occurred so stick to the facts it has already happened so maybe if you....

BS: I rest my case. You are a f@#k-wit. Suggest you take advice from YODA.

BarryCowlishaw
09-09-2015, 05:25 PM
I was expected adult conversation -
john so my bad
684
Did you actually have a case to make in all that stuff?

I hope your mum finds out you been on her computer and spanks your bottom you little ..sh.t

Q. C.
10-09-2015, 07:37 PM
This is my advice.

Two people need to take rest from this forum:

(1) Q.C. and

(2) John "Brockovich".

[/B]

For Dixpat

Get education before making any worthless comment in this forum. It wastes time for readers of this forum.

YODA and BC: When did you both start ignoring the facts and first realise you were wrong on all your claims?

BarryCowlishaw
10-09-2015, 08:22 PM
I Haven't been to this site for a while... but it seems like a couple of delinquent youths have broken their mothers apron strings and are trying to annoy adults with half baked comments (which is all they are capable of) school kids maybe?

One is openly batting for the other team- and the other seems to be sniffing around or is it brown-nosing for scraps.

Could you two strange/queer bedfellows go and annoy somebody else with your juvenile delinquency or try a little harder and see if you can muster up something nearer to intelligent to offer the conversation..... is there no adults that want to help you? - (or even admit to parenting you?)

Perhaps you little buggers like being screwed over but some of us adults really don't which is why this thread was posted ..... granted some of these criminal activities may have taken place before you were born which would explain your ignorance (but not your stupidity) .... the fluoride they put in the water could explain your problems with learning or your inability to work out when to behave yourselves .... because as I understand it neurological damage can be anticipated check it out (go!).. or maybe you just got dropped on the head...
This thread is not about you two drongo's or me or any other individual- it is about "organised Crime"... you little sh_ts cant organise a good argument ... so you are clearly out of your depths.
Did you want me to start a new thread so we can discuss personal tastes and leave this serious subject to folk that know how to focus on the problem rather than taking really cheap, pathetic or retarded shots at the messenger.?

Q. C.
11-09-2015, 11:42 AM
Three people who have not started any thread make all kinds of useless comments.

They are (1) Q.C., (2) John "Brockovich", and Dixpat.

Maybe, this forum should end the policy of anonymity.

YODA and BC: Add "wtfbbq69' to your list for posting on 17 August 2015:


"Yoda, do you think the reason nobody responds to your emails is because you have no idea what you're talking about?

Seriously, how many Weetbix coupons did you have to collect before whichever Micky Mouse University sent you a law degree?

Where did you graduate from anyway, a street vendor Somalia?"

Also see his later comments. I note that no one on the Forum responded to the call to support what you claim in any of your threads (that is, disagree with me and "Brockovich")!

BC, by deduction, doesn't count - as he has not questioned your facts either way. He just ????????????. Not sure what he does, other than not liking hard questions.

BarryCowlishaw
11-09-2015, 07:22 PM
QC ... I see you believe I don't like hard questions
You haven't actually asked a hard question yet

Did you intend to or were you just wind-bagging?

Q. C.
11-09-2015, 09:55 PM
QC ... I see you believe I don't like hard questions
You haven't actually asked a hard question yet

Did you intend to or were you just wind-bagging?

You, like YODA, did not answer my question of: "When did you both start ignoring the facts and first realise you were wrong on all your claims?"

One can only assume you both did not answer because it is to hard for you to accept that you ignore irrefutable facts before you (to maintain your claims) and cannot admit that you are wrong in those claims.

BarryCowlishaw
11-09-2015, 11:31 PM
You, like YODA, did not answer my question of: "When did you both start ignoring the facts and first realise you were wrong on all your claims?"

One can only assume you both did not answer because it is to hard for you to accept that you ignore irrefutable facts before you (to maintain your claims) and cannot admit that you are wrong in those claims.

QC um .... I first started ignoring the fact that the New Zealand Justice System was turning a blind eye 2 or supporting Serious Organised Crime in about 1984 at the time I would have willingly claimed that we were the least corrupt nation in the world (rather than the best at disguising it or denial)..and that nobody was above the law...... yes I was wrong- but I learned years before you were born apparently- clearly you came down in a recent shower because you are more than a tad thick and nobody wiped behind your ears

But that has nothing to do with THE THEFT BY THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL OF INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE.

And so I will remind you that you have not disputed "Those Facts" :) .... choosing instead to get personal like a Pathetic little Bitch or a QC


Does QC stand for Queer C....? c c chap

Q. C.
12-09-2015, 09:59 AM
QC um .... I first started ignoring the fact that the New Zealand Justice System was turning a blind eye 2 or supporting Serious Organised Crime in about 1984 at the time I would have willingly claimed that we were the least corrupt nation in the world (rather than the best at disguising it or denial)..and that nobody was above the law...... yes I was wrong- but I learned years before you were born apparently- clearly you came down in a recent shower because you are more than a tad thick and nobody wiped behind your ears

But that has nothing to do with THE THEFT BY THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL OF INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE....

BC: I am on record in this Forum agreeing that we NZ'ers are subjected to systemic corruption within our judiciary and Crown Executive. So we agree on something.

As to the facts about the "theft by the Auckland Council of investment in Infrastructure" there are no facts put up by you to dispute, only accusations. The facts that you ignored are:

1. There is no admissible and reliable evidence, that if a jury accepted that evidence, could possibly convict Councillors' charged with thief by you or anyone else. (And you know that, that is why you will not take that step of charging anyone - you could not get past s. 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011).

2. Council's financial transactions are subject to independent audit. If any major asset was removed from their Control or sold/transferred at under value or "stolen" by them in whatever financial process, the audit would reveal that criminal activity.

3. All the infrastructure assets you refer to remain under Council's control by virtue of their ownership of Watercare. It is a corporate structure just like any other corporate structure - the ultimate 'owner' or 'controller' or steward of the assets is the holding Company; in this case Council.

Having said that, that does not change the fact that I believe Councillors are generally incompetent and also generally have their "noses in the trough" whenever possible.

BarryCowlishaw
12-09-2015, 11:05 AM
QC.... I think facts of significance to the THEFT is that prior to the scripting of the Corporations (or Laundries) the Council did not own the Ratepayers investments in regional infrastructure as they were Steward ... Yet after their scripting, the Corporations owned our investments, and of prime significance we now have no interest either in our investments or the Corporation..... it is not logical to pretend complications theft is theft


What you consider to be relative
1. There is no admissible and reliable evidence, that if a jury accepted that evidence, could possibly convict Councillors' charged with thief by you or anyone else. (And you know that, that is why you will not take that step of charging anyone - you could not get past s. 26 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011).

I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED SEEKING A PROSECUTION....I AM NOT A CROWN AGENCY- I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN HAVING THE STOLEN PROPERTY RETURNED......That Wouldn't have been confusing for you if you had been reading what was presented .... What practical purpose would it serve seeking a prosecution?

2. Council's financial transactions are subject to independent audit. If any major asset was removed from their Control or sold/transferred at under value or "stolen" by them in whatever financial process, the audit would reveal that criminal activity.

Of course a financial audit is not going to show up irregularities in the legalities or origins of the title to property... but have you ever heard of the corporation paying the ratepayers for the property that they had purchased over many generations? ..... financial audits are just that... a legal audit would be more appropriate

3. All the infrastructure assets you refer to remain under Council's control by virtue of their ownership of Watercare. It is a corporate structure just like any other corporate structure - the ultimate 'owner' or 'controller' or steward of the assets is the holding Company; in this case Council.

I am aware that watercare is a corporation (laundry) and its scripted ownership in fact I posted a link to the page on its website referring to ownership ....Had you bothered to read instead of windbaging you would be aware that it is the assets that are now owned by watercare not "watercare the corporation/laundry" being discussed..... This would include some quite considerable investments dams, treatment plants, pluming etc ...... which were formerly held under the stewardship of the Council and funded by levy rather than tax. As I indicated earlier the rates demands included information about which loans the ratepayer was meeting.


.

Q. C.
12-09-2015, 11:59 AM
...I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED SEEKING A PROSECUTION....I AM NOT A CROWN AGENCY- I AM ONLY INTERESTED IN HAVING THE STOLEN PROPERTY RETURNED...... What practical purpose would it serve seeking a prosecution?

...Of course a financial audit is not going to show up irregularities in the legalities or origins of the title to property... but have you ever heard of the corporation paying the ratepayers for the property that they had purchased over many generations? ..... financial audits are just that... a legal audit would be more appropriate

...I am aware that watercare is a corporation (laundry) and its scripted ownership in fact I posted a link to the page on its website referring to ownership ....Had you bothered to read instead of windbaging you would be aware that it is the assets that are now owned by watercare not "watercare the corporation/laundry" being discussed..... This would include some quite considerable investments dams, treatment plants, pluming etc ...... which were formerly held under the stewardship of the Council and funded by levy rather than tax. As I indicated earlier the rates demands included information about which loans the ratepayer was meeting....

BC: 1. You do not have to be a "Crown Agent" to prosecute. The purpose of prosecution would be that you would, if you gained a conviction, absolutely prove to the public your allegation of theft and therefore the demand by the public, and under law, for those assets to be returned. However, a prosecution would be a waste of time because you could never convince a jury of 12 NZ'ers, because the facts do not support your allegations.

2. Audits: You obviously have no idea of how Councils are audited and what aspects are audited - the irregularities you refer to, if they existed, would be automatically subject to audit review. With regarding sale to Corporations - yes any time a Council sells to a Corporation it is no different to any other sale of ratepayer assets to any other entity or person - Council gets paid the market value of that asset, which means in effect the ratepayer gets paid.

3. Ownership of assets v. stewardship: Council transferred individual ownership of assets (to Watercare) that it did have, as owner, as part of its stewardship. It did not transfer real stewardship, as its owns, and therefore controls, Watercare.

Councils have legal ownership of real property on behalf of the ratepayer, that is why they can legally transfer ownership, which they have done. To have all ratepayers agree with that move is an impossible situation - so you object under the ruse of thief.

BarryCowlishaw
12-09-2015, 02:08 PM
QC ...you seem to enjoy wasting my time and trading insults... have you thought about getting a real job

1- As I have indicated I have no intention of seeking a prosecution and as you have indicated

"I am on record in this Forum agreeing that we NZ'ers are subjected to systemic corruption within our judiciary and Crown Executive."

It would probably be unwise to consider a private prosecution based upon your statement there alone .... But you now state "the facts do not support your allegations."
Thats a good start because you are now on record as accepting that there are facts on the table so now you only need to indicate which facts you believe to be wrong and why you believe they do not support the allegation of theft.


2- True I am not interested in the method by which the Council is audited but the blatant theft has gone unattended - If a know-it-all like yourself used their loaf they would be aware that any audit undertaken would probably have been influenced by the Crown which as I have already indicated were party to the THEFT-

If you are going to post silly little things like ...
Council gets paid the market value of that asset, which means in effect the ratepayer gets paid.
You will need to explain yourself.... if the servant sells his own property it has nothing at all to do with the masters .... or are there different laws in Hamilton?


3- Ok... this one seems to confuse you and your mate so I will try once again to indicate the difference between STEWARD OR SOMEBODY THAT MANAGES ANOTHER'S PROPERTY/ (servant not principal) and OWNERSHIP AS IN THE RELATIONSHIP TO PROPERTY THAT INCLUDES DISPOSITION AND ALL OTHER SIGNIFICANT RIGHTS POWERS OR PRIVILEGES IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT PROPERTY (principal not servant)

Yea I could get more exact but as you have already indicated..... "Council transferred individual ownership of assets (to Watercare)"
The Council must have already assumed ownership of the property to enable it to so transfer those interests ... How did the Council get to own it? do tell mr know-it-all?

"Councils have legal ownership of real property on behalf of the ratepayer, that is why they can legally transfer ownership, which they have done. To have all ratepayers agree with that move is an impossible situation - so you object under the ruse of thief. "


That doesn't make sense Ownership "on behalf" you are making things up as you go... but in the real world titles to property are owned by the owner and are transferred only with the consent of the owner unless the owner lacks capacity .... so if this has happened to you it could be an issue of capacity with you which I did inquire about earlier. ... and wonder more-so about your limited capacity when you state that theft is a ruse ...



.

Q. C.
13-09-2015, 10:28 AM
...[1] Thats a good start because you are now on record as accepting that there are facts on the table so now you only need to indicate which facts you believe to be wrong and why you believe they do not support the allegation of theft.

....[2] You will need to explain yourself.... if the servant sells his own property it has nothing at all to do with the masters ....?

...[3] The Council must have already assumed ownership of the property to enable it to so transfer those interests ... How did the Council get to own it? do tell mr know-it-all?

...[4] but in the real world titles to property are owned by the owner and are transferred only with the consent of the owner unless the owner lacks capacity .... and wonder more-so about your limited capacity when you state that theft is a ruse ...

[1] The agreed facts are that Watercare owns and utilises the assets, which were once held and owned by Council as stewards. That ownership and utilisation cannot be theft under law by them or those transferring those assets, or those rights, as the transaction was completed under Parliamentary laws. There cannot be any crime under the Crime Act 1961, there are no facts to support the allegation of thief (that is, intentional breach of a provisions of the Crimes Act), only unsubstantiated allegations.

[2] If Council, as servant of the ratepayer, sells an asset and receive an equivalent benefit in some other from, such as money or shares, the assets is still held for the master (ratepayer), but just in a different form. While Councils legally own property (because they have to) they do not own property in their own right, they own it for the ratepayer. That is because ownership title is held by the Council's authorised person rather than 1,000,000 or so ratepayers, who under law have elected Councillors to represent them (and who will change in constitution every working day, e.g sell their property, die etc). So the Council is not selling any property that does not belong to its collective masters, it is just doing so as the elective representative of its masters.

[3] Councils have always had legal ownership under law. As above you cannot have 1,000,000 or so individual ratepayers on titles to assets, and have to be changing those names every day. The asset is held for the benefit of the collective ratepayers at any one point in time. There is no at some stage "already assumed ownership" by Council, they have always had legal ownership and the ratepayer have never had legal ownership of the asset.

[4] In the real world titles to property are often not owned by the 'owner'. Another example, other than Councils, is family trusts. The Trustees have legal ownership of the beneficiaries property and have their names, as Trustees, on the property title. The Trustees can do anything with the property they legally own, for the benefit of the beneficiaries, without consulting the beneficiaries. They, like Council, need no consent. Like Council financial structure of ownership and stewardship, the law about Trustees of trusts responsibilities has been around for hundreds of years and have served beneficiaries/ratepayers reasonable well over that time.

That is why I say your reference to thief is a ruse.

BarryCowlishaw
13-09-2015, 02:21 PM
You have put so much crap in here I will use red to display your juvenile opinions

QC1- "Watercare owns and utilises the assets, which were once held and owned by Council as stewards".

BC Watercare is currently scripted as being the owner of the ratepayers investments, which were held under the Stewardship of Council. Prior to the transfer of interests the Council did not appear to confuse stewardship with ownership ....Servant with Principal--- So no agreement there and most readers would know the difference....

Your incompetence with the English language is part of your problem my queer friend to presume that there is no offence based upon your retarded opinion and half assed English eg:"there are no facts to support the allegation of thief" just as well nobody is making one then eh ... "ownership and utilisation cannot be theft under law by them or those transferring those assets, or those rights, as the transaction was completed under Parliamentary laws" which parliamentary law are you referring to? .... I was unaware of parliamentary laws that totally ignored investors rights so do tell windbag.

2- Irrelevant issues that lack support or reference-
2- Rather than allowing you to get silly we are not talking about chattel sales we are not talking about sales of property at all. We are talking about the scripting of a transfer of interests from the stewardship of council to becoming OWNERSHIP OF WATERCARE .. There was no sales agreement as you suggest and most of the ratepayers were aware that the council was previously steward of those interests not owner....

3-"Councils have always had legal ownership under law. As above you cannot have 1,000,000 or so individual ratepayers on titles to assets, and have to be changing those names every day. The asset is held for the benefit of the collective ratepayers at any one point in time. There is no at some stage "already assumed ownership" by Council, they have always had legal ownership and the ratepayer have never had legal ownership of the asset."
3- Windbag! You are trying to make the same point about ownership based upon your opinion alone with no supporting reference or evidence.... (if you recall I accused you of making it up as you go) ... not a good look when making a statement as if it were a fact.... legal ownership under which QUEER law?
I suspect the root of your juvenile problem there- comes back to that distinction you fail to make between a servant and the principal ....
STEWARDSHIP AND OWNERSHIP. .... but if you supply some proof or reference I will refrain from calling you half baked.

[4] "In the real world titles to property are often not owned by the 'owner'. Another example, other than Councils, is family trusts. The Trustees have legal ownership of the beneficiaries property and have their names, as Trustees, on the property title. The Trustees can do anything with the property they legally own, for the benefit of the beneficiaries, without consulting the beneficiaries. They, like Council, need no consent. Like Council financial structure of ownership and stewardship, the law about Trustees of trusts responsibilities has been around for hundreds of years and have served beneficiaries/ratepayers reasonable well over that time."

4 Technicaly you are incorrect if a trust owns property it owns property if a corporation calls itself a council and owns property it owns property- I agree it is not an ideal situation having parentless owners to property but- I am not in denial either....

The problem here QC could be that you are failing to realise that the earlier Councils were not operated as Corporations/Laundries. The Assets were accumulated under the former stewardship's and ratepayers were billed for the specific loans taken out for development, maintenance or improvements (The servant was paid separately).... The changes of ownership were accomplished without the consent of the ratepayers and the situation which you state it to be (although without references) might well be an accurate assessment of the current situation which was scripted either after the fact- or by the thieves....



Other examples of relative Considerations

At the Time of the Obvious Theft- The Council was serving in a "FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP"as was said of the Crown

Prior to the obvious theft the investments were not accumulated/intended or utilised as business ventures - they were considered as being necessary by the ratepayers and geographically strategic infrastructure .... so the right to the "benefit of the profit of the crop" was not, (prior to the transfer) measured by commercial gains, once paid off... it would mean the investors would only need to pay for maintenance and improvements so "EQUITY" was always a recognised interest in Property.

Behind Smoke and mirrors?
The Government or Crown .......has a pecuniary interest in the THEFT as well because it can charge GST (great long term milking plant) as the real owners/investors are now scripted as being clients or customers and therefore receiving goods or services instead of using own/mutual property


If the council had leased the ratepayers investments to the Businesses instead of simply transferring it as if owned by other than the regions ratepayers..... I would not be here...


found a pweety picture explaining why boundaries are necessary- Ironic isn't it :)
685

Q. C.
14-09-2015, 07:36 PM
You have put so much crap in here I will use red to display your juvenile opinions ....

BC: We finally agree on something. I think you are an idiot and you think I am an idiot.

Time will tell who is right.

Q. C.
14-09-2015, 07:58 PM
You have put so much crap in here I will use red to display your juvenile opinions ...

Prior to the obvious theft the investments ...

BC: If the investments were subject to theft, who now owns the $5,783,445,000 equity (Shareholding) in Watercare Services Ltd?

Where did the original equity come from to set up the Company?

BarryCowlishaw
14-09-2015, 09:03 PM
BC: We finally agree on something. I think you are an idiot and you think I am an idiot.

Time will tell who is right.
Queer Chap.... I called you a "Half Wit" not an Idiot and as you have already provided evidence to that effect, you don't need to wait for time to tell- which is pretty cool if you are impatient eh

BC: If the investments were subject to theft, who now owns the $5,783,445,000 equity (Shareholding) in Watercare Services Ltd?

Where did the original equity come from to set up the Company?

Why in the hell should I be interested in the ownership or interests of/in the laundry which has indicated to be wholly owned by the Auckland Council which is a body corporate ... when I have already indicated clearly enough for a blind man to understand that I am only interested in getting the Stolen Properties back or ensuring that the claim to do so is on record.


You haven't indicated why you would want to try to make excuses for a thief or thieves after stating

"I am on record in this Forum agreeing that we NZ'ers are subjected to systemic corruption within our judiciary and Crown Executive."

Just as well you are unable to come up with anything resembling intelligent to defend the Thieves (you were easy to expose)... I reckoned there might have been a slightly more intelligent argument ....still you have helped to make it clearer just how blatant the theft was and why one shouldn't trust folk like you with double standards on or off record as presented.... you are shallow with shallow arguments (and queer)

Q. C.
15-09-2015, 11:45 AM
Queer Chap.... I called you a "Half Wit" not an Idiot ...

I am only interested in getting the Stolen Properties back[/SIZE] [/B][/U]...

Just as well you are unable to come up with anything resembling intelligent to defend the Thieves (you were easy to expose)...

BC: Like all 'nutters', once someone gives them a chance to understand they are wrong and they continue their ranting, they are ignored. Goodbye

BarryCowlishaw
15-09-2015, 08:07 PM
Good on ya ya QC....

Accepting you have a problem is an excellent start to your recovery (if that is at all possible)- Perhaps if you avoid attempting to influence serious issues (when you clearly haven't got a clue) would be worth considering, and you would be less likely to challenge your own credibility that way.

Good luck with your treatment ..... I would be more than happy to ignore you normally but would be very pleased to manage any property you or your similarly gullible friends?.. might have that you can provide me with a good title 2 ..
:) :)

John "Brockovich"
15-09-2015, 08:22 PM
Good on ya ya QC....

Accepting you have a problem is an excellent start to your recovery (if that is at all possible)- Perhaps if you avoid attempting to influence serious issues (when you clearly haven't got a clue) would be worth considering, and you would be less likely to challenge your own credibility that way.

Good luck with your treatment ..... I would be more than happy to ignore you normally but would be very pleased to manage any property you or your similarly gullible friends?.. might have that you can provide me with a good title 2 ..
:) :)

BC: You total f@#k-wit.

BarryCowlishaw
15-09-2015, 09:30 PM
BC: You total f@#k-wit.

You may be right Brockovich but what has that got to do with

The Auckland Council and the Crown Stealing Property and/or interests in Property from Ratepayers while serving in Positions of Trust (fiduciary relationships)

And how is that going to assist Auckland Ratepayers to formulate peaceful legal methods of just taking back the stolen Property without further ado.

You see jockavich you and your mate forgot to mention I am ugly as well ..... all of which has nothing to do with the subject matter at all at all.

Now so far your mate reckons he has gone on record in this Forum as "agreeing that we NZ'ers are subjected to systemic corruption within our judiciary and Crown Executive" ...yet you both made a big thing about me bringing charges against individuals within council... ..... this is a real giveaway as to your combined reasoning abilities and probably explains why you cannot spell (eg..total f@#k-wit.) .... that is so nice of you even though you are half baked.... I am sure you meant I am a total friendly kiwi-wit .... so on that note I will just call you Dick from here on rather than remind you of your jock itch

So Dick.... Are you still a Student (which was my first guess) or a drop out like your partner the Queer Chap/Chick?

BarryCowlishaw
17-09-2015, 02:07 PM
On the bright side.... these kids have displayed the quality of education this (post coup) regime, turns out. I would recommend they apply for a full refund if the educators cannot get through their thick sculls the difference between a relationship of stewardship to property and owner of property.....

They could do with learning a little about Equity and its various meanings as well ....

But Fee education probably comes with a Caveat emptor?

John "Brockovich"
17-09-2015, 03:03 PM
On the bright side.... these kids have displayed the quality of education this (post coup) regime, turns out. I would recommend they apply for a full refund if the educators cannot get through their thick sculls the difference between a relationship of stewardship to property and owner of property.....

They could do with learning a little about Equity and its various meanings as well ....

But Fee education probably comes with a Caveat emptor?

BC you are pathetic.

BarryCowlishaw
17-09-2015, 04:14 PM
BC you are pathetic.

Hi- there "Little Dick" I see you are still sniffing around the subject but its a breakthrough that you can learn new words- well done :) :) two smiley faces for you lil Dick...

Still got a bit of a jock itch though I see...... not doing you much good so far is it? [desire to get on ones "High Horse"]


Did you see anything significantly different from The "Corporate Toddler" which the Constipated/Bound Crown gave birth to and the average human toddler that has real Parents capable of observing behavioral patterns?

Toddlers Rules of Possession
1:- If I like it it's Mine
2:- If I can take it from you, its Mine
3:- If its in my care/hand, it's Mine
4:- If I had it a little while ago, it's Mine
5:- If its Mine it must NEVER appear to be yours in any way.
6:- If it looks just like Mine, it is Mine
7:- If I am doing or building something, all the pieces are Mine
8:- If I saw it first, its Mine
9:- If you are playing with something and put it down, it automatically becomes mine.
10:- If its broken its yours

Yes- I copied it just for you Dick- you juvenile delinquents might want to support the toddler thieves with your wind ...... But I would prefer to just take the toys all back and put them out of reach of toddlers - it was presumed that investors interests were protected by the Crown or the Laws ...... but that would require Honour ....

Little Dicks like you probably think that means an erection?

Honour really relates to integrity, ethics, duty and such like .... not necessarily sound commercial qualities but they are great Human qualities which should count on a forum with Justice in the title

BarryCowlishaw
22-09-2015, 08:40 PM
Hi- Yoda
The Children have stopped their silliness for now- it appears :)


I personally think that this matter needs to be discussed in the wider public than this tiny forum.

Editor of New Zealand Herald, please make sure that this matter be reported in the newspaper.

I am sure that this will generate a considerable interests among the readers of the newspaper.


... Isn't it Interesting that the (Australian Owned) "New Zealand Herald" would rather maintain an outward appearance (intended to conceal a less pleasant or creditable reality)... a "false front" or "facade" formed by denying the truth its rightful place and so enabling the Criminals who hijacked the Crown to continue to completely Ignore Rule of Law .... I suggest that credible investigative journalism has been discouraged for some time... (along with expressing the truth) to the advantage of the same CLASS OF PERSON that was either involved in the theft, benefited from the theft or intends to yet benefit from the Proceedings- of Crime

I am concerned that there is no apparent "Duty of Care" to protect the Ratepayers Interests in their Investments and no concern displayed for the maintenance of some form of reasonable credibility for Crown Law by engaging the Crown in Criminal Activities involving Deceit and Fraud as set out rather clearly in the Crimes Act 1961 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/whole.html#DLM330289)Section 243 money laundering..... note also Section 408. 25

BarryCowlishaw
25-09-2015, 01:23 AM
"At the end of the day, ordinary people of New Zealand need to initiate meaningful reform on the judiciary and legal profession of New Zealand."


A huge call Yoda ... "Ordinary People" need to trust others, but unfortunately others are not always trustworthy (despite the trumpet blowing) that is how we got into this situation- Trust = Catch 22 (damned if you do and damned if you don't do) apparently .... Codes of conduct are all very well in theory but in practice? -

"But my problem is that I don't live in Auckland and cannot investigate the situation myself."

It is my belief that all of the "Regional Councils" have been similarly used by the Crown- trickle down effects resultant from the 1984 coup d'é·tat so although there is nothing unique about the Auckland situation- it does provide clear examples and I can source some pre-corporate rates demands for this region naming the loans the ratepayer was assisting to pay off.

"I am not sure if there is any journalist nor lawyer who is willing to uncover the corruption"

You are a character .... Are you suggesting there might be a conflict of interests in them doing so? .... I agree :) (Pandora Box)

"Reliability of the judiciary is questionable."

I reached the same conclusion years ago... but I reckon we should just take our properties back (avoiding consultation with the Courts) Which can be achieved peacefullyas in "Legal of intent" .... let the thieves initiate their own "Legal Challenge" in "THEIR" Courts.... as I see it the publicity from that would awaken the Court of Public Opinion .... which could then be complimented by exposure to the truth the media seemed incapable of communicating..... Some things need to be brought to the Public's attention in a more timely manner- especially matters of Mutual Concern resultant from inappropriate trusts leaching Equities....

"Integrity of Crown Law is very questionable."

Yes g palmer was one of the architects of this Corporate Regimes Similar UNBRIDLED THEFT of National Investments in Infrastructure formerly held under the "Stewardship of Ministries" is he still behind the scenes influencing perspectives? .... hard to believe whats under the bonnet of some folk eh...
692

"Probably, New Zealand has a wrong Attorney General (namely, Hon Chris Finlayson, a list MP of the National Party)."

Hard to be impartial or fair when you are invested .... that's part of the Problem as I see it or put differently... Some of these positions should be more stable and less able to be blown in the wind from wellington- The Laws should provide a much more stable base than offered by politics - because the politics of the laws are already clearly set out (even if ignored)


"I think the mechanism, set up in New Zealand, precludes any meaningful checks on the judiciary and prosecution."

I agree .... perhaps if political parties had less or no hands on control- but instead (when elected) provided those meaningful checks (governing instead of ruling)


"Well, I am an outsider with very little influence; what I can do is very limited."

A precedent is being set in regard to property Law ... this effects us all really because interests in the corporate titles to the property (as you are aware) can be traded internationally - The value of the shares would be artificially high as STOLEN PROPERTY is listed as being owned by these laundries and prospective purchasers of shares or interests in the property might not become aware of the theft or fraud as the result of normal methods of due diligence ..... selling stolen property might well be a common practice of certain classes of persons but it is certainly not what one would expect from a nations (said to be legally) elected representatives ..... might be ok in a banana republic though?
This methodology to Steal Investors Property is probably the same used internationally - The International Legal Community would perhaps benefit from a little intelligence or perhaps a good optometrist?
I do understand your position though... pretty much the same as mine .... as individuals we are toothless ..... however the Truth is not so toothless - and it's easy to share :) .... Yet I wonder if the culture of Apathy also plays a part when you state...

The culture of denial of problems must be changed to the culture of recognizing problems; without this, there won't be any meaningful progress in New Zealand.

Well put .... :)


and a good start would be to recognize and address the "relationships to the Investments/property" and as I have pointed out there is a HUGE difference between being a "Steward" and an "Owner" .... Servant and Principal ..... And the Servant does not usually get to JUST change the ownership of the property to enhance their own position....

Crimewatch
24-08-2016, 02:36 PM
Hi Barry
I found this on another forum- the poster was discussing the privatization/theft of electricity...

"Only a fool would argue against the obvious xxxx…. artificial competition set up by the thieves to have you believe it is competitive while it is actually very much controlled by the thieves and receivers to the extent that you are paying more than twice what you should to use your property loud and clear"

Looks like the seeds of truth are germinating?

Crimewatch
25-04-2017, 09:37 PM
Today we cerebrate the contribution of those brave youngsters that understood honour while helping to build securities and infrastructure for future generations.

Apparently? so that.......... Thieving sods like "geophrey palmer & Co" could hijack Crown law and steal investors interests in their investments and legacies while undermining aspects of sovereignty etc all with the "stroke of a pen" (and all without a shot being fired).

For the Crown to honour the ANZAC contributions .... Perhaps the "Crown" should start by honouring the laws or the reasons for Culturing them.... what say you legal profession? (complacent is complicit) and attacking the messenger is not very bright clearly

Surely the culture of Crown Law was not intended to promote or institutionalize theft or money laundering while disregarding the purpose of those generations in contributing to meeting the Mutual needs .... the legacy was not intended to endow corporations (artificial identities) with the ownership of the peoples investments.... theft and pecuniary advantage were the significant motivating factors there

Is it just that the thieving NZ Crown wants to be challenged?.... how about..

Your Corporations/laundries have no Parents ... ANZAC's "DO"

Does the Legal Profession that gives you spine have parents?

prove it!
:)