Briefing of Brian Henry's evidence

From Stuff.co.nz 

*At 1.26pm on December 14 2005, Mr Glenn began a 6-minute, 41-second call to Mr Peters.

*At 1.33pm, Mr Peters began a 6-minute, 10-second call to Mr Henry. 

*At 1.40pm, Mr Henry e-mailed Mr Glenn in Sydney saying: "Further to your discussion with my client at 1.30 nzt I provide my bank details ..."

*Mr Henry said Mr Glenn's name was mentioned during the call from Mr Peters, which reminded Mr Henry he had asked for $100,000 toward the cost of the Tauranga electoral petition.

*He could not recall why Mr Glenn's name was raised, but said he would have remembered if Mr Peters mentioned a discussion about money because there was a policy of keeping donations from him.

*"It is not logical to say that there was a discussion over payments, because he [Mr Peters] and I would have had a barney, and I would have remembered that ..."

*He said the e-mail was simply to jog Mr Glenn's memory.

*"I'm telling him that I know he's had a discussion with my client, and I'm sending him my bank account details saying `Hey, I'm still here. Are we going to get a donation?"'

Brian Henry continues to Perjur

Brian Henry's statements before the Privileges Committee yesterday simply defied belief.

There was no substance, no evidence and simply no truth to be found.

Instead we found a calculated decision by Henry on behalf of his client, Winston Peters, to continue the lies that have surrounded this whole donation mess since it was uncovered many, many months ago.

We had Peter's style accusations and bluster to make up for the vacuum of evidence and what shred of credibility as a lawyer that Henry had left was wiped away in the extended lie.

The individual that came out the worst yesterday was clearly Helen Clark.

She continues to hold on to Peters, and lie herself, to protect her Labour Government from collapse.

Her greed for power seems to  know no bounds and if this is her idea of trust then I must be breathing the atmosphere of Uranus and not earth.

Must be.

c Political Animal 2008

 

Blood Brother unwilling to give in Glenn donation saga

D day has come for Winston Peters and the details over his donation from Owen Glenn, made to him or his party or his lawyer-the story is different whoever you talk to and what time of day it is.

The Privileges Committee sits this afternoon where Owen Glenn will give his version of events, which haven't differed in all his accounts.

Glenn has said he is there to "clear his name" whatever the consequences for the players and I don't blame him for his bluntness. He is a busy man.

The missing link in all of this though appears to be Peter's lawyer Brian Henry, Peter's "blood brother".

Henry is "overseas" and it is unclear as to whether he will be giving evidence in Peters defence tomorrow when the Privileges Committee sits again with Winnie giving his newest version of events, again.

I cant understand why a person that is supposedly at the centre of this whole scandal-Peters and Henry contend it was Henry that was the bag man, while Glenn has given affidavits that it was Peters-and a self confessed "blood brother" of Peters wouldn't be there in Winnies hour of need.

I'm guessing he isn't because his testimony would be deleterious to Peters than it already has been.

c Political Animal 2008

Winston's $40,000,00 question

In the latest in the Winston Peter's payola scandal, a revelation made on Monday at the privileges committee hearing into Peters secret $100,000.00 donation from Owen Glenn, by Winston Peter's Lawyer Brian Henry, that he paid a $40000.00 debt owed for court costs to Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson and a subsequent statement made by Peters that he had paid the $40000 has today taken a bizarre twist.

Peters has come out this afternoon, as reported in the NBR with this statement:

"Mr Henry paid the money to ensure the bill was paid in time -- and he was later reimbursed by myself," he said in notes for a speech to members of Grey Power's Upper Hutt Branch.
"He checked his records yesterday and found this was indeed the case."

Mr Henry intended to notify the committee, which would effectively debunk claims he had broken Parliament's rules, he said.

"This issue is the last one my opponents had to go on."


This causes Peters an even bigger problem than the initial statement made by Mr Henry on Monday at the hearing, because Peters and Henry had both claimed that for 15 years Peters had a monkey no see, no hear or no listen approach to funding of Peters, and his NZ First Party. Peters claimed that this approach meant he didn't know who gave him money and in addition no bills were ever sent to Peters for legal services rendered.

Apparently records were kept of such a $40000.00 transaction, where no bills were sent and Peters paid this debt himself.

That contradicts Peters and Henry's claim made on Monday that Peters didn't know where money was coming from, where it was going to and that a distance was kept by him in financial transactions between him and his lawyer.

Just an acceptation is this case Winston, or another lie?

Mr Peters was either lying on Monday or lying today to cover up the former one.

The trouble is he has told so many fibs he probably doesn't know himself anymore.

The problem is if you live your life by constantly lying, you have to keep lying to keep the initial lie perpetuated as the perceived truth.

Winston Peters isn't as perfect as he thinks he is and he has now been nakedly caught out.

Unfortunately Both Helen Clark and John Key seem unwilling to come out and lay the political sword into his back, up to the hilt.

New Zealand voters deserve much better.


Winston Peters payola scandal @ Political Animal

Planned ignorance no defence in Peter's case
VIDEO: Winston Goes to Wonderland in Parliament
Don't let the bastard go
Dompost reels in another Peter's Payment
Winston isn't a conspiracy theorist: Yeah right!
Winston Peters lost in Wonderland
Winston Circus hangover continues
Discretion was the essential part of Vela Donation
Winston Peter's Glenn donation scandal: But wait, there is more!
Peter's hangs himself in February Paul Henry Interview
Peter's admits lying about Glenn donation
Winston's silence is telling
Labour gets tangled in Peter's lies
Leaked Glenn Email
Winston got secret donations from Owen Glenn
The Owen Glenn Story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

Donations saga impacts Peters (02:00) -Related Video

c Political Animal 2008

Planned ignorance no defence in Peter's case

Donations saga impacts Peters (02:00) -Related Video


Winston Peters was belligerent, argumentative and highly flustered in his first day before a privileges committee tonight regarding suspect donations given to himself personally or his Party NZ First.

Peters has stated that he didn't break any funding laws because his lawyer never sent him a bill!

Peters as a lawyer himself should know that ignorance of a law is no defence against evidence that clearly condemns a defendant.

Peters defences against the $100,000.00 dollar donation from Owen Glenn was that the cheque was paid into his solicitor Brian Henry's account to help meet his legal costs and Henry did not tell him about it until July this year.

Another clear cop out, It is still in effect a donation to Peters.

There seemed to be a lax relationship between Winston Peters and his lawyer Mr Henry, with Peter's legal bills, most related to political matters, paid for by Henry after he himself procured funding from various sources, one such source of funds coming from Owen Glenn.

Peters is clearly guilty of at least accepting money, one way or the other, from various sources, and not openly declaring that money.

The fact that Peters "didn't know" is highly erroneous because Peters knew because of his casual relationship with Mr Henry and that it might mean money used to pay any "legal bills" might need to be declared. Otherwise why would they both insist that Peters shouldn't know?

So now having been caught he can claim innocence because he "didn't know"?

The committee presiding over the hearing will now decide whether to get evidence from any other player in the saga before preparing a report to be debated in Parliament.

c Political Animal 2008