Thursday, September 20, 2012

Who's telling the truth?

Cactus Kate has done the lawyering bit, and discovered a disconnect in the Dotcom/Banks police statements; she blogs:

The New Zealand political media are neither stupid nor slow and can be terminally vicious. They know John Banks, they've sniffed and feasted on his blood before. It is not a fresh kill.

A large German with an incredibly dodgy past and dubious source of funds, now over-egging the pudding? That blood is interesting. It is up there with running around after Owen Glenn and Michelle Boag to spot carnage in a happy day at the office. That Dot Con obviously pre-warned them and Labour MP's made it even more comical.

Today it was delightful to watch the footage as they asked questions that bordered on taking of the piss. They are all too entertained thus far to come out and say it but if they have no real time for Banks they are kicking the carcass of the mad German around politically for their own pleasure. No sane individual involved in a Supreme Court case strolls up the day before to Parliament and offers themselves to run the foyer being attacked by reasonably sharp men and women with microphones and editing machines. It was the most awkward of stunts. Only Boag and Glenn would have had the temerity to pull it off.

The media even asked him was it all about the mattress? Dot Con was a little agitated at that moment.

''This is not about a mattress. I was in jail with two slipped discs and severe back pain and no one did anything about it. . . I think what triggered me coming out was that he declined to know me and that he said that I hardly had any contact with the guy, but there he was at my birthday party making a toast to me and there he was at the fireworks and everywhere. That was the thing that I didn't understand and I didn't agree with.''

So let me get this right, it vos vot avout ve mattress? It was about better rights for prisoners in jail because "no one did anything about it"? Then it was the idea of his lawyers to contact John Banks because he is the local MP?

What on earth was John Banks meant to have done to help him? If the MP for Epsom is now the MP for Mt Eden Prisoners then surely the boundaries need to be moved inwards for the no doubt very regular gripes prisoners have with their sub-standard lodgings.

It did not ring true to me for senior commercial lawyers to be so proactive especially around the long summer break, in anything but billing, so I went back and re-read the statement of Simpson Grierson's (aka Simply Gruesome) rather senior lawyer Mr Towers. He claims not to know John Banks just to have met him like most people have, briefly and superficially.





"It was actually the idea of my lawyers to try and reach out to John Banks".

This directly and quite clearly contradicts the sworn statement of his lawyer Mr Towers.
So who's telling the truth here? Is it the senior lawyer/officer of the Court, or the man refused permission to buy the Dotcom mansion because of his past criminal activities, and the man who has little respect for others' intellectual property, and considers jokes about rape and the Holocaust to be amusing?
Our money is on the lawyer. Mr Dotcom's stage-managed appearance at Question Time was nothing more than a stunt, and the Labour and Green MP's played to the (public) gallery right on cue.

John Banks pushed the local government electoral legislation to its absolute limit. He will not have been the only candidate to do that; far from it. The Government's response is to change the law so that the threshhold for anonymous donations is reduced to a bare minimum. 

That the Labour Party had to roll out Kim Dotcom to try and give the story extra legs yesterday shows just how desperate Mr Shearer and his troops are to "get" John Banks. So much for the promise of "gotcha politics" being a thing of the past under the new Labour leadership. If Labour is going to rely on the word of someone like Mr Dotcom, they need to ensure that his story stacks up.


23 comments:

Lynley Overton said...

Who's telling the truth?
Not John Banks.
Not John Key.
Does that answer your question?

Christine Walburton said...

Neither Banks nor Key are telling anything at all. It makes me very unhappy to be treated like this by people who claim to have nothing to hide. They are hiding alright!

Tony said...

It must have been hard for Dotcom to resist making a throat-slashing gesture to John Key from the visitors gallery in the House yesterday :-)

Phyllis Murgatroyd said...

Who is telling the truth?
Not David Shearer.
Not Metiria Turei.
Does that answer your question?

Edward the Confessor said...

While it's sweet that you're going the extra mile for him, John Banks is a proven liar. If it's a matter of he said, he said, I'd go with almost anyone else. McCully would be the only possible exception, as he's a psycho.

Lesley said...

The truth always comes out in the end. Suggest Mr Dotcom loses a bit more weight then he might find his back doesn't hurt so much. In fact jail did him a bit of a favour - I recall that he looked like he had lost a lot of weight whilst in jail.

Jenny Commerer said...

"So who's telling the truth here? Is it the senior lawyer/officer of the Court, or the man refused permission to buy the Dotcom mansion because of his past criminal activities, and the man who has little respect for others' intellectual property, and considers jokes about rape and the Holocaust to be amusing?"

It must be frustrating to put together a blog when your commenters lack either the comprehension skills or the integrity to treat your offerings with any sort of respect.
Each has attempted to sidetrack the discussion from your simple question to their own political ideology.
Not a constuctive comment from any of them.
Seems like destabilisation of the current Government is all they have.

Keeping Stock said...

Thanks for your kind words Jenny. I have challenged commenters, most recently Edward the Confessor to set up their own blog if they want to push their ideology, but generally, they would rather bottom-feed off the efforts of someone else. If nothing else, that is a microcosm of the divide between Left and Right.

Lofty said...

The rostered as you so eloquently put it "Bottom Feeders" are seen for what they are KS, laughable and silly.

Tribalists comments from any faction are usually worth about a nanoseconds consideration.

For my 2 cents worth, a very senior lawyer in one of NZs most respected law firms is in all probability unlikely to tell porkies that are so easily researchable.

Edward the Confessor said...

That's right Lofty, ignore the issue and go for the Ad hom. It's all you have.

How likely is it that a Minister in Key's government is telling porkes. Here's a hint: "I don't recall...."

D. van D said...

Banks said he couldn't remember. That wasn't true. Not true can also be rendered 'lie'.
Banks lied.

Neil Trimmer said...

KS - do you consider all who comment here to be bottom-feeders?
"generally, they would rather bottom-feed off the efforts of someone else."
Mostly, your commenters here are from the Right. I think you're being unkind to your kind.

Keeping Stock said...

@ Neil; not at all. And if you're going to quote, it pays to quote the whole sentence; what I said in response to Jenny's comment about people sidetracking the debate was:

"I have challenged commenters, most recently Edward the Confessor to set up their own blog if they want to push their ideology, but generally, they would rather bottom-feed off the efforts of someone else."

Seems pretty straight-forward to me...

Gillian Bridges said...

Why would anyone comment here, knowing the host regarded them as a "bottom-feeder"?
I wouldn't.
Won't.

Cactus Kate said...

Seems pretty straight forward as well that repeating Dot Con's sworn statement as some form of divine truth is nonsense.
The man can't even get his story straight.
He's clearly embellishing the situation and is now getting caught telling porkies. He should say he cannot remember.

Keeping Stock said...

@ Gillian; you just did!

Oh dear; so much for the logic of THAT argument!

Keeping Stock said...

He should indeed Cactus.

And there's an interesting disconnect with our rather large German friend. He claims to want to have his day in Court to prove that Megaupload is all above board. But on the other hand, he is resisting efforts to have him extradited to the US to face his day in Court.

Nothing is as it seems when it comes to Herr Schmitz.

Lofty said...

Oh Gillian you are such a silly goose...never mind.

@Ted the con, I am not ignoring anything, unless I am going totally crazy this post is about CK's report regarding Dotcom & his Lawyer. Not specifically about Banks or the Right Honorable & Prime Minister Mr John Key.....may the sun eternally shine on him.

I would say though that Banks has been a silly sausage, just so that you cannot accuse me of being a fan of his, which I ain't and never will be.

Carlos S. said...

Jenney Commerer believes that some here are destabilizing the current Government.
Wow!
They're doing well. Most of us are merely having a say on a minor blog.

Gillian said...

Lofty says that tribalists comments from any faction are usually worth about a nanoseconds consideration.
He then blows it with this: "Right Honorable & Prime Minister Mr John Key.....may the sun eternally shine on him.", making a mockery of his first statement. Lofty, you are such a silly goose!

Lofty said...

Oh dear Gillian..you have done it agin, you silly little thing you....but I like you.

Two things for you dearie

1 the sunshine thing is tongue in cheek

2 why are you here commenting ?

I am sure that only a few comments above you said and I quote....ahem...

Why would anyone comment here, knowing the host regarded them as a "bottom-feeder"?
I wouldn't.
Won't.

September 20, 2012 1:25 PM

Perhaps you could revise this statement?


Gillian said...

I will, Lofty, thanks for the opportunity.

"Why would anyone comment here, knowing the host regarded them as a "bottom-feeder"? I don't know, but I'll stick with it, if just to keep fellow bottom-feeder, Lofty, company"

Lofty said...

Good on you Gillian.

We all need a bit of company.