• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 10 of 24 FirstFirst ... 8 9 10 11 12 20 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 231
  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    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.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    12,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WBuffett
    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.
    .
    Try Radenbrea Studios for hand-made designer jewellery. Especially if you're looking for a great gift for your lady love.
    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

  3. #93

    Default 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by WBuffett View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xav
    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.
    Last edited by PeterEmpowerEd; 26-01-2010 at 10:06 PM. Reason: clarifying
    Peter Aranyi
    Blog: www.ThePaepae.com

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hastings
    Posts
    12,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xav
    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?
    .
    Try Radenbrea Studios for hand-made designer jewellery. Especially if you're looking for a great gift for your lady love.
    Want a great looking concrete swimming pool in Hawke's Bay? Designer Pools will do the job for you!

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perry View Post
    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:
    Quote Originally Posted by Xav View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
    That's the law.
    We're discussing ethics. Sadly they differ.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
    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.

  6. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xav View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by WBuffett View 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xav
    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
    Peter Aranyi
    Blog: www.ThePaepae.com

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
    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.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    High up above and deep down under
    Posts
    10,916

    Default

    Perhaps Sue cannot comment because of a Confidentiality Clause?
    "There's one way to find out if a man is honest-ask him. If he says 'yes,' you know he is a crook." Groucho Marx

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Christchurch
    Posts
    892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
    ... 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
    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?

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    3,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterEmpowerEd View Post
    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


 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Latest QV figures are out
    By LFCNZ in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 07:02 AM
  2. Latest Definitions
    By muppet in forum Forum Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 30-08-2005, 01:00 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •