Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

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

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    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

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    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

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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?

  6. #26
    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

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    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.
    Last edited by John "Brockovich"; 09-09-2015 at 05:02 PM.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by John "Brockovich" View Post
    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

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by BarryCowlishaw View Post
    ....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.

  10. #30
    I was expected adult conversation -
    john so my bad
    391282_266149640164293_1139361722_n.jpg
    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
    Last edited by BarryCowlishaw; 09-09-2015 at 06:28 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
  •