Just a quick one as I have finished work for the day and the beach awaits.
Looks like Winston is going to attack others and defend himself over the use of the very secretive
The Spencer Trust . It's probably going to go a little like the Winebox, so as I am in the business I can do it for him now so please look out for these arguments.
In other words - here's how I would do it.
1. "I am not the Settlor of the Trust".
Possibly true at law. However IRD defines "Settlor" in a more broad sense of the word to include the use of a "nominee settlor".
Anyone can settle a trust with any amount of money, for example Winnie's brother could have settled it with $10. It could be a declaration of trust therefore no settlor at all, the trustees themselves take the trust property and declare a trust.
2. "I have nothing to do with The Spencer Trust".
Winston will not be a trustee of the trust, he will not be a Settlor of the trust. The only party he could be is a beneficiary. But likely the beneficiary will be an (officially unrelated) related party to Winston, ie. it could very well be Winston's lawyer to whom the fees are being paid. This would allow a direct transfer of funds from Jones and Glenn to a bank account in the name of the Trustees of The Spencer Trust, who just so happen to be Winnie's lawyers in the first place.
3. "Trust funds were not misused or misappropriated".
The Trust deed (which we will never see) governs how a trust is operated in conjunction of course with New Zealand law or the proper law of the trust (ie. Cook Islands or Samoa). If there is a clause in the deed that allows the trustees to pay money to a beneficiary for any purposes (ie the lawyer for legal fees) then the action wont be in breach of trustees duties at all. Likewise it is possible that the Deed is drafted widely enough so that money can be passed to Winston in any instance.
Trusts are wonderful things like that. An often abstract conceptual tool for the creation and distribution of wealth.
4. "I have no recollection of that transaction".
Classic Winebox. Of course when "Rich Pricks" have no memory its automatically a crime against Winston, Winston himself though can be as selective as he likes. He will use this when asked about his solicitation of "Rich Pricks" to help for his legal defence into The Spencer Trust.
5. "I have completed my pecuniary interest declaration correctly".
Clause 4(1)(d) - "the name of each trust in which the members has a beneficial interest".
Explanatory note - "list beneficial interests but not the pecuniary interests of the trust themselves".
I would say that Winston is not a beneficiary of The Spencer Trust at all. either his brother or his lawyer will be. That is, he doesn't have to declare an interestin his declaration unless it hits 4(1)(d).
Summary
Winston will not be lying when he explains any of this as his lawyers will fill his brain with the correct terminology. But then so did the very businesspeople Winnie made a career out of attacking. Lawyers are employed to ensure the client can make the statements above, all about the words and precision of the words.
Nice to see now Winston use the very same privileges of power that a legal team can buy in order for him to scrape around this. Trusts by their very nature are secretive and easily allow this sort of defence to them when questioned. I assume his current girlfriend is funding this current defence!
Questions for the Press Hacks (and Winnie's answers)
1. Winston, in the interests of full disclosure and to stop this story in its tracks right now can you please make available a copy of The Spencer Trust deed?
I have no authority to provide a copy of the deed. I am not a party to the Trust.
2. What is the governing laws of The Spencer Trust, in addition to New Zealand.
I have no authority to answer that question. I am not a party to the Trust.
3. Winston, please at least name all the beneficiaries of The Spencer Trust as they are listed in the Trust deed and any additions.
I have no knowledge of that.
4. If you are not a beneficiary Winston, why is the trust paying legal fees for a lawyer or beneficial distributions to one? What has the lawyer actually done to earn these fees?
I have no knowledge of that.
5. Were beneficiary distributions made on an arms length basis Winston if you were not a beneficiary? That is has anyone else supposedly unrelated to any beneficiary, benefited from distributions from the trust.
I have no knowledge of that.
6. Was a bank account opened in the name of the Trustees of The Spencer Trust and if so, what due diligence was provided to the bank?
I have no knowledge of that.
Conclusion
Get Winnie to agree to put the lawyers up for answering the questions.
After discussion and thought, the IRD will have a copy of The Spencer Trust deed if it is a qualifying trust but wont release it under an Official Information request. The best chances we have are a NZ First leak or an SFO enquiry. Both unlikely to happen but possible.
5 Comments:
You're speaking from "lawyer land" here CK and it's right next door to "La-la land." Another slick, charismatic lawyer once tried to wriggle out of an equally embarrassing predicament by saying "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." Bill Clinton didn't do all that well with that slippery line of argument either.
The most important question, and it badly needs asking, is "How is it that there are still people stupid enough to consider voting for this blatant manipulative HYPOCRITE?"
In the Court of Public Opinion elegant legal interpretations matter not a jot.
If it looks like a rort and it smells like a rort then to the great unwashed it is a rort.
Ethics and morals have no connection with the law never have never will how sad too bad.
All Winnies got to do is con another .8% on the baisi of the latest poll and hes back in the House and in control of the Gumint.
Wonderful thing this MMP 5% can control the other 95%
gd
Good luck getting Winston to be frank about the Spencer Trust. Some mothers do 'ave 'em.
Intersting analysis Kate - will any NZ journo have the nous to follow it through? We live in hope!
Dear Cactus,
Are there not lawyers on the dark side who make their fees by breaking open trust deeds?
[Or] if janet bloggs has 100 000k paid to her lawyer via a trust set up by moneybags bloggs, and moneybags is on record that it was the intention of giving that money to the trust was to pay this bill, wouldn't IRD see that as income and disestablish the trust regardless of the deed?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home