Sue Tierney - what's the latest?

[WBuffett]

You make facetious comparisons.

The papers are full of court decisions
that offend most folks sense of
natural justice. All those slap-on-
the-wrist-with-a-wet-bus-ticket
outcomes. Or those who get off
on a technicality?

The other way is worse.

Have you not seen those imbecilic
cases brought, where the police
are arraigning someone for assault,
when all they were doing was de-
fending themselves and their own
[family] against criminal onsets?

We don't know the full story, in the
matter of this thread's topic, so
handing around opinions based on
media reports is premature.

Until we have a fuller understanding,
opinions should be muted, at best.
.

I am still unsure of your agenda or what agenda
you are pushing, but I am sure it will be interesting
when it comes out in the fullness of time, I await with interest.

[Perry]

I am still unsure of your agenda or what
agenda you are pushing . . .

You will ever-remain unsure because
I have no agenda other than the views
I've already expressed.

I noticed that criticisms of my perspective
(thus far) fail to answer the matter of
'getting off on a technicality' and other
legally correct injustices.

Rather than respond, it's easier to answer
a question with presumption, supposition
and yet another question. Speculating on
some 'agenda' is similar.

Decisions made by judges alone always
have the potential for an element of oddity
to them. No one likes the cost of jury trials,
(especially the poorly-paid jury!) but at
least it allows for a jury to exercise their
prerogative of nullification. (If the jury
knew its own rights, of course)

While a seeming abstraction, a slightly
strained analogy here, (on the PT forums)
may be worth pondering.

My guess is that the original regulation
quoted related to the old days when the
MoW built nearby 'villages' for construction
staff in the days of hydro dam building
being the MoW's exclusive domain.

Next, one sees the Tenancy Services Twits
mis-applying it in a really fatuous fashion.
The next progression would be a Tenancy
Unobunal Adjudicator also mis-applying
the same thing. Then you'd have non-
binding case law that was based on some
mis-construction mis-placed on a what
seems to be a regulation that doesn't
apply and which says that it is the res-
ponsibility of a government dept. that no
longer exists!

Law?

How many times have we seen forumites
mention or refer to 'buying' themselves
out of a bad tenancy deal, because the
'legal' process is slow and akin to a round
of Russian roulette?

Both are about law and legality. It's re-
lationship to justice is tenuous, at best.

Like you, I wonder what the fullness of
time will reveal.
.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Of agendas and ignorance...

Now, who said anything about it being “OK” to break the law? Not me.
In his posts on the matter, Matthew Gilligan patiently explained that this is how the law in his area of expertise actually works. (He should know.)

Garth Melville used to colourfully say at Empower Education’s legal structure workshops that asset protection is about protecting you and your family from “creditors and predators”. My own view is that the existence of corporate structures enables individuals to ring fence their personal assets and hold them distinct from the affairs of their companies. That's the law.

I am still unsure of your agenda or what agenda you are pushing, ...

Although your comment was directed at Perry, I certainly have an ‘agenda’ posting here. Here it is:

Since my first post in this thread my aim was to say ‘Hang on a minute’, -- I know Sue, she’s a good person, a good professional and I think people shouldn’t be so fast to judge her based on the partial ‘facts’ (and acknowledged as such) reported in the newspaper.

I spoke up to defend Sue here because it looked to me like she was being clobbered ignorantly (I don’t mean that as insult). For example, look at the ‘discussion’ around the amount of debt being liquidated ...

One poster here diagnosed “illegal phoenixing” as “problem 1” (based on what expertise? one has to ask) ... then climbed all over that ‘debt’, suggesting mis-management, incompetence, dodgyness, even a miracle(!?!).

As part of what looked like a pretty sustained effort (to me, anyway) this poster said he had even asked other brokers how the situation could have possibly have reached that position (quite wrongly, as it turned out) ...

THEN slipped in a mention of the debt-free state of “our own broking firm”.... I guessed this was a reference to his co-directorship and 30% interest in Kris Pedersen’s mortgage broking business -- as first disclosed here in the Sponge Bay thread.

Which made me curious, WBuffett, as you are.

We hardly hear from Kris Pedersen here on PropertyTalk, but last month (as a public service?) Kris provided details of Barter Trader bloke Terry Cuthbert’s past financial woes through this post in the now-locked Richmastery thread.

I was a bit gobsmacked that Kris would do that, I don’t mind saying. Reading around the post for context, I noticed (maybe you will too, if you do the same) that Kris’s revelation appeared just after Terry started recommending another mortgage broker Kent Finance.

Is that what you mean by an agenda, WBuffett?

and since when has any internet forum waited to get a full understanding of the facts.

Droll, CJ, very droll. It looks and feels very different when it's your reputation being trashed, let me assure you.

In short, we don't know all the facts; we don't need to.

Xav, mate, kindly: Can you hear yourself? I appreciate your comments, but really...
--

Moderators: I hope I haven't overstepped the rules, here, by sharing these thoughts. Let me know.

[Perry]

In short, we don't know all the facts; we don't need to.

Maybe the judge and the law book felt the same way?
.

[Xav]

I noticed that criticisms of my perspective (thus far) fail to answer the matter of 'getting off on a technicality' and other legally correct injustices.

Err:

Now I agree with you that from time to time judicial decisions are made that are regretable. The system needs a myriad of changes. But this is not the way. Think of the ultimate outcome of this type of behaviour. Is that really a "system" which is preferable (not that it would even deserve that word)?

The Property Investors Associations represent investors to the public. In my opinion the high ranking members of those associations consequently need to show social responsibility. If you disagree then so be it, but consider the impact on the public perception of the APIA.

Perry, I am sorry that the legal system has obviously delivered what you consider an injustice in a matter that was obviously important to you. But the alternative you seem to be supporting here is far worse than the current system.

That's the law.

We're discussing ethics. Sadly they differ.

Xav, mate, kindly: Can you hear yourself? I appreciate your comments, but really...

It is interesting that you and Perry both chose to just quote that phrase and ignore the rest of the post which clearly explains why I say that. Doing so doesn't help either of your arguments.

Unless there a factual error in the newspaper article then my comments stand. From what I can tell from the companies office the article is accurate.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd
That's the law.

We're discussing ethics. Sadly they differ.

Um, Xav, yes they do differ. But, no we aren't -- I was actually replying to WBuffett's post:

Some agendas here or what.
Its (sic) okay to break the law ..because the law is wrong, we don't know why or how but it must be well because a president of the APIA can do no wrong ..or they have similar court descions (sic) go against them and (sic) still bitter about it?

... and most of my comments are addressed to his 'agenda' suggestion.
But your "In short, we don't know all the facts; we don't need to" was a howler that just demanded a reply.

Unless there (sic) a factual error in the newspaper article then my comments stand. From what I can tell from the companies office the article is accurate.

Well, we disagree about this (I hope respectfully).

I don't intend to re-litigate the court case, nor critique the newspaper coverage (and a decade working in the news media taught me there is only very rarely any positive point to be gained seeking retractions and corrections)
... but as I hope I have demonstrated, I have misgivings about the truth or accuracy of what's being said publicly -- hence my voice here.

regards, - P

[The-Victor]

One poster here diagnosed “illegal phoenixing” as (based on what expertise? one has to ask) ... then climbed all over that ‘debt’, suggesting mis-management, incompetence, dodgyness, even a miracle(!?!).

As part of what looked like a pretty sustained effort (to me, anyway) this poster said he had even have reached that position (quite wrongly, as it turned out) ...

THEN slipped in a mention of the debt-free state of .. I guessed this was a reference to his co-directorship and 30% interest in Kris Pedersen’s mortgage broking business -- as first disclosed here in the Sponge Bay thread].

Which made me curious, WBuffett, as you are.

We hardly hear from Kris Pedersen here on PropertyTalk, but last month (as a public service?) Kris provided details of Barter Trader bloke Terry Cuthbert’s past financial woes through in the now-locked Richmastery thread.

I was a bit gobsmacked that Kris would do that, I don’t mind saying. Reading around the post for context, I noticed (maybe you will too, if you do the same) that Kris’s revelation appeared just after Terry started recommending another mortgage broker Kent Finance.

The plot thickens!!
Deane has gone AWOL since his first few posts on the matter. It's good to know that he is still posting on other threads.

You make a good loyal friend but I have to agree with XAR that with respect to the official posts held by person being discussed it comes down to perception and issues of trust. I don't know her and I am not qualified to comment on her person but in the interest of the bodies she represents it would be fair for her to at least provide an explanation to quell the speculation or step aside until any contentious issues are ironed out.

Unfortunately boards and board members of organisations develop strong friendships thereby fail to police each other (which why finance companies fell like dominos), else the respective boards she sits on should have asked her to either clear the rumours by giving her side of the story or stood her down until after the smoke has cleared.

[muppet]

Perhaps Sue cannot comment because of a Confidentiality Clause?

[Xav]

... and most of my comments are addressed to his 'agenda' suggestion.

Fair enough Peter. My understanding of your posts is that you are defending Sue on both a legal and moral level so it was directed at that. I agree with you that (subject to the phoenix provisions) this type of asset protection is legal.

But your "In short, we don't know all the facts; we don't need to" was a howler that just demanded a reply.

It was intended to be a howler . The idea however was to encourage people to think about the rest of my post rather than provoking a response (which seems to have failed miserably).

Well, we disagree about this (I hope respectfully).

I am not sure exactly what it is you disagree with .

Do you disagree with my point that if people have issue with a court decision they should nevertheless abide by it and critique (if justified) the legal process through more appropriate avenues than civil disobedience?

[CJ]

Droll, CJ, very droll. It looks and feels very different when it's your reputation being trashed, let me assure you.

Maybe not my best argument but ....

Does her silence buy her innocence?

We can only come to conclusions from the facts presented. If she decides to keep her silence, we can form our own judgement and act according (as Heg has stated she would do).

Provided we do not breach the rules of the forum and only you and one other have done on this thread, we are free to discuss and speculate as we choose.

Maybe she should have asked for name suppression due to her status in the community but that would only make matters worse

[PeterEmpowerEd]

The-Victor: Thanks for your kind words, and sharing your thoughts.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about perceptions ... the negative newspaper stories aren't a good look, and although I'm not on either of the boards Sue serves on, I anticipate those who are will do/have done what they need to do to satisfy themselves about the matter.

The 'witch trial' being carried out here is a mere sideshow -- for the most part a public display of ignorance, with a good dose of speculation, almost all of it without the facts.

--

Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd
Well, we disagree about this (I hope respectfully).

I am not sure exactly what it is you disagree with .

THIS: "From what I can tell from the companies office the article is accurate."

--

CJ: Your turn for a howler...

Does her silence buy her innocence?

Does it buy her guilt, my dear boy? Put yourself in her shoes. Exactly.

We can only come to conclusions from the facts presented. If she decides to keep her silence, we can form our own judgement and act according (as Heg has stated she would do).

Only very partial "facts" are being "presented" here CJ. Surely you can see that?
As for "keep her silence" -- I said earlier I don't think Sue owes PropertyTalk any accountability at all -- nor disaffected clients who publicly slander her as 'dishonest' and 'dodgy'.

regards, P

Provided we do not breach the rules of the forum and only you and one other have done on this thread

Is that a joke? Or a bad memory? On the night of "the Purge" as I was watching Harry Potter this thread was, um, 'trimmed' from approx 50 posts to something like 37 (if I recall correctly) ... quite a number of posters' comments were purged, not just mine and the delinquent Mark B's on that night of long knives.

Some PT rules incl 2(b) re anonymous 'negative' comments are observed more in the breach, in my observation.

[Perry]

Guys and gals, please focus, not on one another
and what one another has said or implied, save
to correct an error perhaps, but directly on the
matter that is the thread topic, where generally
possible. Play the ball not the man, may be an
apposite aphorism. It was the failure to do that
which resulted in what Peter has called the 'purge.'

It needs to be appreciated that when certain posts
are removed, other posts can vanish as well. Not
because of a rule breach, but because they became
devoid of context when others were deleted.

Perry-the-purgative
aka a PT Moderator

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Falling in with a bad crowd ...

CJ: Probably it was just me and that punk kid Mark B that forced "the Purge". Yeah. Right. That makes a lot of sense.

Here's a picture of us coming out of a discussion forum ...



Speed camera shot, by the look of it.

[Xav]

THIS: "From what I can tell from the companies office the article is accurate."

That statement is entirely true. Go back and read the article.

I will break down the facts stated in that article for you:

1. Mortgages By Design Ltd name changed to Pin Ltd;
2. Pin Ltd liquidated as it could not pay its creditors;
3. One of those creditors was a 3rd party who had obtained judgment against the company;
4. The judgement obtained was for $70k;
5. New company called Mortgages By Design Ltd incorporated by Tierney;
6. That new company is trading as a mortgage brokerage under the same name etc; and
7. This appears to be a classic phoenix company arrangement.

All but 4, 6 & 7 are confirmed by companies office searches (which includes the liquidators report). 6 is confirmed by the Mortgages By Design website.

The amount of the judgment doesn't really matter for the purposes of my position so if 4 is inaccurate then so be it (seems unlikely though).

As 1-3 and 5-6 are confirmed then 7 is also accurate.

The article is in the second post. If you can point out what you consider inaccurate that would help us in understanding your position.

Ps. A picture of a boxer after a particularly difficult fight might have been more appropriate

[CJ]

Does it buy her guilt, my dear boy? Put yourself in her shoes. Exactly.

I do see your point but surely you see the point that I am making. If she has a reason that excuses her, then why doesn't she tell it. Which brings us onto ...

Only very partial "facts" are being "presented" here CJ. Surely you can see that?
As for "keep her silence" -- I said earlier I don't think Sue owes PropertyTalk any accountability at all -- nor disaffected clients who publicly slander her as 'dishonest' and 'dodgy'.

Maybe not property talk but she is an elected representative of an association to which I a paying member. The local gossip rags (NZH) have link her to the association and therefore I feel she owes APIA and its members some accountability.