Grant King t/a NZ Sleepouts convicted/sentenced on 30/7/12

[Letterman]

http://www.voxy.co.nz/business/bankrupt-sentenced-managing-companies/5/130377

[TheLiberalLeft]

Will you now, finally, be able to sleep well at night, Letterman?

[Simmo]

Nice work Letterman...

[Letterman]

Thanks Simmo.

I have been sleeping just fine, TLL, because despite the cynicism of a minority of people on this forum, I always knew that I was going to do what I said I was going to do, and that eventually, I would nail him.

Just the Civil case to go now - I am awaiting the Defendants Information capsule from Grant King & David Swale - I have served them both a 160 page document with a 58 clause affidavit, a 48 piece brief of evidence, and a list of 21 witnesses which they now have to respond to wihin the next 17 working days.

[Davo36]

Yeah good on you mate.

Plenty of people seem to think we should kind of go easy on these con men, and that's why they keep doing what they're doing.

I reckon they all need to be brought to justice and stopped from conning anyone else. And even if it takes quite a lot of effort to do so, it's worth it.

[Letterman]

Hi Davo,

The Judges summing up was revealing in a statement that she made at the sentencing: "If I was looking at a raft of victims and offences committed in front of me Mr King, you would be going to prison". Only a minority of the over 60 victims I have found to date of Kings have ever taken formal action against him. If they all had, the Judge would have been availed of an aforesaid list, and King would now be in prison. Those who failed to take action against King have thus perhaps contributed to the perpetuation of other victims. What I do know is that King got stopped in his tracks when I went public on him, and has not been able to commit a fraudulant act or rip off since December 2011.

[Davo36]

Yep, I agree.

When taking this guys to court, you never recoup your money or anything, but you are making a stand and stopping them from doing it again - at least doing it easily anyway.

And it's the same with landlords taking bad tenants to the tribunal etc. You often don't get your money back but at least they have a judgement against them and it makes it much harder for them to pull the same tricks with the next landlord.

[Shalodge]

Hi Davo,

The Judges summing up was revealing in a statement that she made at the sentencing: "If I was looking at a raft of victims and offences committed in front of me Mr King, you would be going to prison". Only a minority of the over 60 victims I have found to date of Kings have ever taken formal action against him. If they all had, the Judge would have been availed of an aforesaid list, and King would now be in prison. Those who failed to take action against King have thus perhaps contributed to the perpetuation of other victims. What I do know is that King got stopped in his tracks when I went public on him, and has not been able to commit a fraudulant act or rip off since December 2011.

The news item says that he was convicted of two charges of owning or managing a business while an undischarged bankrupt. That is a technical offence and does not mean that the business was operated in a fraudulent way or that everyone he dealt with was automatically a 'victim'.

Has he been charged with a Crimes Act offence or anything in relation to the Building Act or RMA?

[Letterman]

Shalodge: Keep an eye out for the Herald on Sunday this or next weekend. Quite how you desire to defend the indefensible is frankly beyond my capacity to understand. Please feel free to quote "technicality" to the host of people this person has ripped off. In fact, email me off site and I will put you in touch with some of them. I will be uploading the sworn affidavit to the www.grantnormanking.com website after the civil claim - readers can then make their own minds up as to what was fraudulant, and what was not.

[Shalodge]

No I am not defending Grant king, I am defending the right of every man not to be 'lynched'. If you have evidence of fraud then that is a Criminal offence and the proper agency is the Police. Have you made such a complaint and what was the outcome?

[drelly]

No I am not defending Grant king, I am defending the right of every man not to be 'lynched'. If you have evidence of fraud then that is a Criminal offence and the proper agency is the Police. Have you made such a complaint and what was the outcome?

Hey Shalodge, I know what you mean but don't you think that over the years, as we have lost the sense of social pressure that used to exist in say the 1950's, we have also lost the sense of social responsibility. Now everyone does whatever they want and no one else is allowed to put the spotlight on them because it's "none of their business". I think there is a point where you can go too far but I don't think that's the case here. Also, you could put the shoe on the other foot and say that if Grant King believes he's been wrongfully targetted by Letterman, he can contact the Police or go to court as well.

Addendum: This has led to the decline of modern civilzation to the point where we now see dumb girls walking through town in pyjamas without any fear of public ridicule. Is there any more telling situation, I ask you!?!?!?

[TheLiberalLeft]

In my opinion, he did go too far when he ridiculed this guy about his relationship with some woman. I forget the details now, but when questioned about it, Letterman thought "it was funny". Personal attacks do go too far.

[drelly]

In my opinion, he did go too far when he ridiculed this guy about his relationship with some woman. I forget the details now, but when questioned about it, Letterman thought "it was funny". Personal attacks do go too far.

Yeah fair enough. If you're going to target someone, you've got to keep to the issue. Otherwise, it ends up being malicious and you lose the support you should get.

[Letterman]

Shalodge: I think this might help:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10778843

Yes, a complaint to the Police was made, and they directed the matter to a Civil Proceeding - not all fraud cases are criminal, and the "technicality"
you speak of is actually an inditable offence with a maximum sentence of two years in prison. If more people who had beeen ripped off by King had taken the same sort of action I have against him, then prison is where he would now be, owing to the cumulative evidence trail.

[Letterman]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10824747