Archive for June 2010
Vince Siemer returned to New Zealand this morning and was arrested at the airport.
It was a well-known fact that he was out of the country, he is a bankrupt and had to get permission from the official assignee to return to his country of birth, he also had to advise them that he was returning.
The mere fact that he returned knowing he would be arrested and sent to Mount Eden shows the calibre of the man. He could have absconded, but then that is probably what the powers that be wanted because Vince is a threat to the New Zealand illusion, the perception that we are corruption free.
Vince is bankrupt because he questioned the methods of Michael Stiassny whilst liquidating a company .
When you consider that those who suffer personal injury and are crippled for life struggle to get cost awards (ee RSA victim can sue Corrections) Stiassny a wealthy successful business man who did not get a scratch on him when Vince expressed his opinion of the methods which had been used , received a cost award of $940,000 . And so Vince Siemer was bankrupted.
Being bankrupted and having his family destroyed is not enough and now Vice is being sent back to prison for the third time all in an attempt to silence him. But why go to this length to silence him is it because what Vince is saying could actually be true?
And why in a country where we supposedly have freedom of expression is someone denied a defence for speaking the truth and penalised more than we sentence our criminals too.
Is crime a lesser offence than speaking the truth?
Why can’t we speak the truth? Is it because the truth hurts and reveals the reality which could destroy the illusion?
Why is Vince’s opinion of Stiassny being reacted to in such an over the top manner? And why is Stiassny getting all this protection from the state when others struggle to get compensation for real damage or have their complaints heard.
Does the fact that Stiassny is associated with a large number of public entities such as Vector have anything to do with his apparent preferential treatment?
Is he being supported by those in high places who know him and believe they trust him , just as Hubbard is being supported by those who personally trust him ?( but have no material facts other than their own belief)
When we judge the calibre of people by our gut instincts and not by real evidence and send people to prison rather than investigate, you have to wonder are we still in the middle ages.
The amount of public money that has been spent on silencing Vince could have been well placed in a proper impartial investigation which would have put the issue to rest once and for all.
Corruption in New Zealand is addressed by the hear no evil see no evil speak no evil philosophy. This is vital to our culture to ensure that our corruption free status is preserved.
Heaven forbid if the reality was to be seen.
What ever happened to sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.
If Stiassny’s reputation was that great wouldn’t Vince’s comments have been like water off a ducks back?
In my experience where there is smoke there is fire.
Why do we support some and not others? What is up with New Zealand ?
‘Loyalty can be a fine trait. Not, however, when it is unreasoning. That, regrettably, is the lot of those who have begun campaigns in support of Allan Hubbard, the 82-year-old South Island financier.
Newspaper advertising asking people who have been helped by Mr Hubbard to send protest emails to the Prime Minister or the Commerce Minister has begun, and yesterday hundreds rallied in support of him in Timaru”….. Editorial: Support of Hubbard misguided loyalty
While Government is investigating Allan Hubbard there are many jumping to his defence. I am pretty certain that none of them will have the facts in front of them and are apparently supporting him from nothing but an emotive point of view.
But what about others? Vince Siemer for example.. His crime was to question the activities of Michael Stiassny.
Michael Stiassny is a corporate Director, a liquidator and has many people in high places including fellow directors who are married to Judges. He has also been seen sitting next to the John Key ( the now prime minister ) .. Got to be a great guy
For this crime he has been denied a right of defence and has been sent to jail twice and will more than likely be arrested at the air port tomorrow morning on his return to New Zealand.
I have also suffered at the hands of questioning corruption.
I questioned why a council manager could collect donations for the ” voluntary” work his staff performed and prioritized over the council duties. The manager ” contracted” to an organisation which he had set up but had no evidence of having existed beyond a trading name for himself. The donations into a bank account which only he controlled. and it later transpired that he had written the legislation for this concept and had advised on the bill in situations of undisclosed conflict of interest .
This man is a fine upstanding citizen, A barrister , a Baptist Elder and a past president of the RNZSPA.. Great guy must be trusted.
No serious fraud office investigation on any of these matters and both Vince and I suffered the consequences which whistleblowers apparently need to endure.
It would be nice if all those who supported Hubbard took the stand that they supported the right to a fair trial a right to have every one made accountable to the same laws in the same manner and have this done based on verified facts and not on fiction.
What is New Zealand doing about corruption – why is it better to be a fraudster than Question corruption ?
Its time we judge people on facts not on perception .
The best con person knows that first you get their trust …..
Let the facts speak for themselves and do not shoot the messenger!
When there is an over the top reaction there is usually a nerve that has been hit.
Wilson moves to stymie panel
Thursday, June 24, 2010
‘Dangerous’ judiciary law needs to be repealed, warns QC
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Judge’s conduct questioned in second case
Friday, June 11, 2010
Judge challenges legality of inquiry into his conduct
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Deborah Hill Cone: To err is human, to judge, risky
Friday, May 14, 2010
Judge’s choice: Resign or face investigation
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Supreme Court judge to be investigated
Friday, May 7, 2010
Judge’s appointment was coup: Cullen
Friday, May 7, 2010
Editorial: Judges should make business interests public
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Wool case reveals a tangled web
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Pressure on judge to quit
Saturday, April 10, 2010
A matter of judgment
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Judge under investigation for bias
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Judge faces being first to go to conduct panel
Friday, December 18, 2009
The judge, the QC and the $8 million case
Monday, December 14, 2009