Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 67

Thread: Is the Council simply a thief ...Questions of Accountability -> Crown?

  1. #1

    Is the Council not- simply a "THIEF"? ...Questions of Accountability -> Crown?

    Were ratepayers robbed of their investments in infrastructure (which were funded by levy)?
    fraud-triangle.jpg
    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)
    bs.jpg
    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/p...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

    429690_433152073441614_549398677_n.jpg
    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
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 06-09-2015 at 01:43 PM.

  2. #2
    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
    Corporate-Strikes_zpscz2sev5y.jpg

  3. #3
    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

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    Were ratepayers robbed of their investments in infrastructure (which were funded by levy)?
    fraud-triangle.jpg
    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.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 06-09-2015 at 03:25 PM.

  5. #5
    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-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

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/p...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?

  6. #6
    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

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 07-09-2015 at 10:40 AM.

  8. #8
    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'ι·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

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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'ι·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.

  10. #10
    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?
    Two-axes-of-domestic-polit_zpsqf4wchsp.jpg

    The Irony?
    8686_409953702453049_1609065880_n_zpsnx3zjdm1.jpg

    Want more?
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 07-09-2015 at 03:16 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •