Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 67

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

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    ...[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.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 13-09-2015 at 11:34 AM.

  2. #42
    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
    8686_409953702453049_1609065880_n_zpsnx3zjdm1.jpg
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 13-09-2015 at 04:29 PM.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Q. C.; 14-09-2015 at 09:00 PM.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    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)

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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
    Last edited by Q. C.; 15-09-2015 at 12:47 PM.

  7. #47
    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 ..

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    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?
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 15-09-2015 at 10:43 PM.

  10. #50
    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?

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
  •