Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 67

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

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    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?

  2. #32
    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.?

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Yoda View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 11-09-2015 at 11:55 AM.

  4. #34
    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?

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 11-09-2015 at 09:57 PM.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Q. C. View Post
    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
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 11-09-2015 at 11:54 PM.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 12-09-2015 at 10:06 AM.

  8. #38
    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.


    .
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 12-09-2015 at 11:14 AM.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    ...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.
    Last edited by Q. C.; 12-09-2015 at 12:16 PM.

  10. #40
    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 ...



    .
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 12-09-2015 at 06:20 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
  •