To Contact Us
To our page back through previous editions click here Index is in right hand column

May 2016 Edition

To peruse our extensive evidence that the Feltex IPO was a Government sanctioned robbery of hard working but modestly educated New Zealanders to raise funds to enable the country’s athletes to cheat Olympic gold medals click here.

Here Are some tweets we posted.

Ellen France has received a big honour. We suspect that she had filed a judgement for the continued robbery of Feltex Carpets subscribers

The Court of Appeal’s judgement in Houghton v Saunders should be released soon. Justices France Randerson and Winkelmann were on the bench.

The Court of Appeal panel in Houghton v Saunders I think might have been all female but Justice French the 3rd femail member of this court was to have heard in the High Court in Christchurch when she was a judge there.

Judge Jan Doogue of course got promoted to Chief District Court judge following her acquittal of 5 Feltex Carpets directors in MED V Feeney

A quorum of four female members of the Securities Commission: Diplock, Dunstan, Cotton & Perry decided Feltex Carpets issues in 2007.

The quorum of four female members of the Securities Commission in 2007 found the Feltex IPO ok but said Feltex debt at Dec 2005 was misclassified

The findings of the quorum of four female members of the Securities Commission in 2007 is here: www.justaccounting.co.nz/seccomfeltex2.html

Para 61(a) of Securities Commission findings on Feltex said 1% was stated to be below average growth rate. Was wrong but it did not say so.

Observing that something is said but not checking whether what is said is correct, as did SC with 61a, constitutes a crooked investigation.

From page 37 data in Feltex prospectus using latest 10 sizes 1994 to 2003 and least squares formula 2005 is forecast as 3% less than 2003

In para 62 the Commission said it was told about why Feltex assumed a 1% growth in its market share but did not say what it thought of this

Feltex Carpets bought Shaw’s Melbourne plant in 2000 but not its brands. Carpet tariffs were falling. Feltex was losing 2% market share p.a

Feltex claimed to make 2% loss in market share p.a. into an impossible 1% gain. A gain in 2004 no doubt a cash injection from IPO proceeds.

In the case MED v Feeney the female family court specialist judge over-ruled four commerce specialist female securities commissioners.

On 1 June 2016 the file on my website containing the 2004 Feltex IPO prospectus was hacked 277 times from an Otago University computer.

Jim Cheetham replied to our complaint of computer file hacking on behalf of Otago University. Said was peculiar but he would take no action

Jim Cheetham said hacking our file seemed more like a computer malfunction than malicious action. Couldn’t explain why he reckoned that

Jim Cheetham did not say whether he had identified or spoken with the person who accessed my Feltex IPO file between 2 and 3pm on 1 June.

Another strong link between my Feltex IPO file and Otago Vasity is the former Chancellor Eion Edgar who chaired IPO brokers Forsyth Barr

Eion Edgar who chaired; the IPO brokers of Feltex FB, the ACC Investment com who made NZ’s biggest subscription at $9m and NZ Olympic Com

It is abundantly clear that Eion Edgar with Aust and NZ Gov’ments used the fake Feltex IPO to rob NZ investors to fund NZ Olympic cheating

Eion Edgar was Otago University Chancellor prior to the 2004 Feltex “IPO” but the University continues to applaud him such as here http://www.otago.ac.nz/business/alumni/otago090613.html

Jim Cheetham would not discuss the various activities of Eion Edgar in relation to the Feltex Prospectus except to say they were political

Jim Cheetham said the association of Eion Edgar with the Feltex was outside his jurisdiction but would not say in who’s jurisdiction it was

As we understand it the appeal in the cases Houghton v Saunders involving the issue of misleading information in the 2004 Feltex Carpets IPO prospectus is awaiting a reserved decision from the Court of Appeal. We believe that the understanding of all those involved in the case including the judges is that this action allegedly on behalf of 3000+ of the 8000 IPO subscribers will not succeed. This case is about a Government arranged fake IPO selling shares in a near worthless company to raise funds so that the country could cheat gold medals at the Athens Olympic games as happened. The appearance of action being taken on their behalf has quelled the anger of the duped shareholders for a very extended period of time. We hope we are wrong and the Court awards the subscribers all they sought and more. Ideally it should pronounce the IPO and the recovery action to be a fraud and jail everyone who has actively taken part in either event. But we are not at all confident of the Court of Appeal doing anything in favour of the subscribers. The president of the court the Honourable Justice Ellen France chairs this particular panel alongside her deputy the Honourable Justice Randerson (male) and we think Honourable Justice Helen Winkelmann. We think it fair to refer to these female judges as “Helen’s women” since both were appointed judges when Helen Clark was prime minister. France was appointed in 2002 and Winkelmann in 2004 about a couple of months after the Feltex IPO. Justice Dobson of the High Court who presided over the Houghton v Saunders hearing but didn’t see merits in the action was also appointed in that era along of course with the female appointments from Australia to the Securities Commission of Diplock and Dunstan. They happened to both be on the all female quorum that could find nothing significantly wrong with the Feltex IPO.

The third female judge of the Court of Appeal is the Honourable Justice Christine French. She was appointed to the High Court in Christchurch but not we think in the Clark era. She was scheduled to hear the Houghton v Saunders case with a Christchurch QC representing the plaintiffs but rather suddenly the case was switched to Wellington under Dobson. We think probably Justice French said no to a predetermined outcome. All three women have sat together but we can’t find out what sort of case that was. But a France and a French tends to suggest a bit of a Rainbow Warrior flavour. A trouble with women judges is they can change their name through marriage and it is hard to find out what they got up to earlier. Judges marrying judges or spouses of judges becoming judges does not seem right to us either. France has a husband in the High we think as we think does the Chief District Court Judge Doogue who just before coming chief dismissed an MED prosecution of five former Feltex Carpets directors. She had not specialized in commercial cases.

We wish now to take issue with the Broadcasting Standard Authority’s decision number 2015-005 concerning our complaint about its treatment of our complaint to it about Radio New Zealand’s (now RNZ’s) treatment of its Reeves Memorial Lecture for 2015. This lecture was delivered by former Prime Minister Helen Clark. She was particularly responsible for robbing 8000 amateur investors of about $200m by way of the fake year 2000 Feltex IPO. And many deaths have resulted as may have been expected from such a colossal scam. We say that as a broadcaster and newscaster RNZ had to treat Miss Clark as the crook that she is and not adulate her as was done in the program.

We wish to comment on this Decision sequentially. First up is the Summary, much of which is presented on BSA summary page. It was not the choice of speaker for this edition of the annual lecture which we complained about but the adulation which was accorded her prior to and after her lecture.

Now we come to the Introduction of this decision. In paragraph (2) it was correctly stated that it was the “adulation” we complained about. Our complaint here is that absolutely nothing was said about whether evidence was provided and consequently what type of evidence was provided for why it was alleged that the lecturer was very corrupt. We say the answer was yes, various, plenty.

Now we come to the final, presumably nitty gritty, section. In paragraph (5) the word “lecture” is put in quote marks as we have just done. Well if it was called a lecture and took the form of a lecture we can see no reason to suggest that it was anything else except perhaps an adulation festival.

Paragraph (7) seems to be headed in an ominous direction but we can’t take issue with it because it does not say that this section 11 is relevant to us.

The crunch comes at paragraph (9). The complaint is about the adulation accorded Miss Clark. The Authority says that it listened to the program but does not say whether it agrees that there was adulation. Tyrants the world over of course survive on adulation accorded them by internal news media which they effectively control. If the BSA thinks there was no adulation it should declare that but it does not say the complaint is not upheld so it might be assumed that it thought that there was adulation. But it says that it “appears” that our main concern was RNZ’s choice of “interviewee”. It was not a interview as such, it was a lecture with time for some questions or more correctly flattering adulation of the lecturer at the end. There was no justification for this perceived “appearance”. We offered an opinion as to why she was chosen but choosing her was not our complaint. We need to hear from these world leaders regardless of how corrupt they are so that we might try to deduce what they are getting up to. This “appearance” to the BSA that it was the choice of “interviewee” that we were complaining was no doubt dreamed up so that the complaint could aligned with other complaints that we have made. The Authority is not prepared to put any resourses into allegations involving Government corruption because its members are Government appointees and how they will come out of making a finding against the Government is uncertain in the short-term. But they are not doing their duty of keeping the Government free of corruption and should be punished for this. We think they will be in due course but any time delay is very bad for the country. Our rating on the Corruption Perception index is going into free fall and we will be on a par with North Korea if cases like this are not attended to.

Next the authority alleges that we have “previously made a number of similar complaints to this authority that did not raise matters of broadcasting standards”. We reject this allegation absolutely and intend again defending ourselves over them forthwith. But to continue considering this latest, Clark lecture, complaint note that this quoted allegation says nothing about it. Nor in fact does anything in the rest of the paragraph. There is merely a sly inference that that is the case. Regardless of the merits of this latest complaint it has been decided on the impressions the Authority espouses of previous complaints we have made.

With regard to paragraph (11) it is interesting to note that RNZ was not suggesting a fine for making a complaint to it. It possibly is keen to know where we are at a given time. It never says much and virtually just pushes a button to do the paperwork so the costs to it of a complaint are not great. Its concern is with an appeal to the BSA and has several times threatened a fine if a referral is made, but not for a further complaint.

Misrepresenting crooks as brilliantly fine outstanding citizens is very much within the ambit of broadcasting standards.

Right! back to the previous complaints. We say the broadcasting standards of accuracy and fairness forbid a broadcaster from presenting a person on a program as a presumably fine upstanding professional citizen when they know or suspect that this is not the case. The public have a right to know what sort of person they are listening to. RNZ’s mediawatch program did such a misrepresentation when they invited a former Dominion Post editor Tim Pankhurst onto its program two weeks running in January 2015. Mr Pankhurst was in the thick of a complaint we made to the Press Council in 2005 which was upheld. His newspaper published a statement that NZs exports per capita were markedly below that of Australia and the United States when of course the opposite is the case as NZ is a much smaller economy. This statement was made in an article on a paper presented by Kerry McDonald who was chairman of a major exporting company which was keen to see exports encouraged. When approached over the statement Mr Pankhurst continued to say that he believed that the statement was correct. Miss-statements like this de-educate the community. The Media-Watch team is generally keen to refer to upheld Press Council decisions but did not directly comment on this case because no doubt the Government arranged or endorsed the deception. Mr Pankhurst moved off soon after that and these Media-watch appearances were no doubt an attempt to bring him back into the limelight of respectability. The appearances had little or nothing to do with Media-watch’s focus. In its decision 2015-010 the BSA on this occasion conceded we “made numerous serious allegations”. But not serious or plausible enough to warrant a determination apparently. They declined to determine the case on the grounds that it was Trivial. Mr Pankhurst is currently CEO of Sealord defending it and the Government from University accusations of the industry illegally dumping huge quantities of fish over a long period of time.

Then we have decision 2015-002 2014-159 and 2013-028 which all relate to this major scandal of the Government under Helen Clark setting up a corrupt judiciary and financial regulatory bodies so that vulnerable investors could be misled into subscribing into the crooked Feltex IPO whereby some of the money has gone into cheating gold Olympic medals for the country. This cost them $200m and the scam has resulted in many deaths but RNZ and other media refuse to acknowledge the terrible scam. All four of NZ.s broad spectrum courts were headed by women for a time until Justice Winkelmann moved from heading the High Court to join the Court of Appeal, most if not all these women being appointed to the bench by Helen Clark, no doubt on the basis that they screw certain cases. These cases concern corrupt people and firms being brought back on air by RNZ as if they were fine outstanding citizens. This is not acceptable broadcasting and standards on accuracy and fairness outlaw it.

Advertising section

------------------------

Suitable Objectives

Register of Members

Members Forum - Topical
* open to all meantime:
 
Plenty of Opinion

Magazine Plans

Need an Accountant?
or Prepared to Change?

Users Forum
* have your say

Ready to Join?

Knowledge Tests
* being developed

What's Wrong with
the existing 
accounting body?

So called BNZ Audit
an extensive case study

 Visit our Advertising
page from 
Here