PM: Fraud? Crap!
Joe Bloggs
fraud? What a pile of crap! If you seriously believe the PM deliberately
sought to commit an act of fraud, you need your head read (unless of
course you ascribe to that other failed party; what was it now?
National? Ha! What a joke!)
Patrick Dunford
Tue, 14 May 2002 00:09:20 +1200, Joe Bloggs(joe_b...@hotmail.com)
said...
Well obviously YOU subscribe to the flaky left, Labour or the Alliance
So tell me why Jim should flout his own law, when he and helen campaigned
on supposed integrity
Steve
I'm sure you meant to say it's a fraud.....now a far-right party dressed
up in Centre clothing.
But the 'Don Brash' buttons gave the game away.....
Steve
Jim went down a notch ot two in my books when he pressed to hat law.It
was a virtual certainty that some situation would arise that the law
couldn't cope with.
Imagine! The *majority* of the caucus off-side and walking out of their
party....... Ha!!!!
Miche
<joe_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So if I commission an artwork and sign it as being my own work it's not
fraud? How?
Miche
--
And you may say to yourself "Well -- how did I get here?"
-- Talking Heads, _Once in a Lifetime_
Roger Dewhurst
"Joe Bloggs" <joe_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3CDFACF0...@hotmail.com...
To sign one's name to a picture one did not paint is simply
dishonest.
We do not need dishonest politicians. Many of us suspect that
most of them are dishonest in some way or other but at least most
avoid being caught. Dishonesty coupled with stupidity is
something we can do without.
R
Bruce Simpson
What does her intent have to do with anything?
If I accidentally kill someone (ie: I didn't intend to kill them) then
I'm still going to spend time in the pokey because I took a life.
---------
Jet engine manufacturing business for sale
http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/agents.shtml
Bruce Simpson
<dewh...@NOSPAM.wave.co.nz> wrote:
>We do not need dishonest politicians.
Based on my own observations, the word "dishonest" is redundant.
Joe Bloggs
on the part of the PM is hardly comparable to murder. Go bang your head
against the wall again.
Joe Bloggs
Bruce Simpson
<joe_b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>What clearly can only be interpreted sensibly as a lighthearted gesture
>on the part of the PM is hardly comparable to murder. Go bang your head
>against the wall again.
"Lighthearted gesture"???
Oh please!
She signed a painting that wasn't hers in "a manner likely to deceive"
any prospective buyer.
Should we laugh off credit card fraud as lightly?
"My client is innocent your honour, this was nothing but a
lighthearted gesture on their part. That the sales clerk mistakenly
assumed that the card actually belonged to my client is irrelevant"
Oh yea, that sounds like a great defense eh?
E. Scrooge
> What clearly can only be interpreted sensibly as a lighthearted gesture
> on the part of the PM is hardly comparable to murder. Go bang your head
> against the wall again.
You either know what is legal, or you don't. It's quite clear that Clark
should never have signed the "front" of those painting, as damn near
everyone realises that only the original artist is entitled to do that.
Clark herself has since admitted that it was a mistake for her to do so.
Even the school that she gave the art to for their auction, was under the
impression that Clark herself had painted them.
If someone were to later sell these pictures (that you call a light hearted
gesture), as being painted by Helen Clark her very self. Then they would be
quite clearly wrong in unknowingly making such a false statement. If it
hadn't been all bought out into the open now, then it's quite possible that
the shit could've really hit the fan over them in the years to come.
You're not Jim Anderton, are ya?
E. Scrooge
rag
klark has signed over seven paintings
as hers!
Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
Fraud
She must take responsibility for her actions.
If she isn't guilty why is she interfering with the police investigation of
her case?
rag
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> You either know what is legal, or you don't. It's quite clear
> that Clark should never have signed the "front" of those
> painting, as damn near everyone realises that only the original
> artist is entitled to do that.
It is a known and accepted practice in the art world. Clark,
being the arty farty person that she is, would more than likely
be aware of this. Therefore it is quite likely she thought, like
almost everyone involved in the art world, absolutely nothing of
the act and saw nothing wrong in it. Unfortunately for her the
paintings happened to cross over into the non-art world and an
almighty fuss was kicked up.
> Clark herself has since admitted that it was a mistake for her
> to do so.
Yes, it was.
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
Quite frankly I would expect a person charged with the responsibility
of leading the country to be a little less careless than to:
1. offer sharemarket advice with inside knowledge (resulting in a
severe telling off from the stock exchange board)
2. defame a citizen by improperly accusing them of being a murderer
requiring an out of court settlement (with taxpayer funds)
3. sign a painting that wasn't her work in a manner liable to mislead
a prospective owner, buyer or seller into believing that it was her
own work.
Let's face it -- if Clark's performance in the area of commonsense is
the best we can expect from our politicians then we're in really big
trouble.
Of course, the fact that she was elected to the position and retains
the confidence of the voters is a stinging indictment on the standards
and intelligence of the average citizen.
Me thinks that this being the case, we're in even bigger trouble than
I first thought.
E. Scrooge
"Bruce Simpson" <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote in message
news:sas0eu4f7ksksrdro...@4ax.com...
It's like having a shoe salesman in charge of a large shoe dept. Yet for
the life of him he hasn't figured out something as simple as being able to
tie up his own shoelaces.
It's doubtful that Clark knows much about the running of a large network of
banks, yet despite the research of how little support it might get, Clark
gave it the go ahead for the (then) peoples bank anyway, just to keep her
political partner Jimmy happy.
E. Scrooge
pau...@diplomacy.com
<see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote:
>Let's face it -- if Clark's performance in the area of commonsense is
>the best we can expect from our politicians then we're in really big
>trouble.
>
>Of course, the fact that she was elected to the position and retains
>the confidence of the voters is a stinging indictment on the standards
>and intelligence of the average citizen.
Is the grass greener on the other side of the house. It's not the
average citizen to blame, it's the lack of an alternative. National
seems to be hell bent on self destruction making one bad leadership
choice after another.
Bruce Simpson
>Is the grass greener on the other side of the house. It's not the
>average citizen to blame, it's the lack of an alternative. National
>seems to be hell bent on self destruction making one bad leadership
>choice after another.
I have to agree with you there.
If there were only a few more smart people amongst the masses a "no
nonsense" party might be in with a good chance of scooping the polls.
Unfortunately I fear that most people will simply vote for the
Labour/National lollie scramble -- making their selection on whether
they want to receive more money from the state or pay less to it.
This country needs an administration that takes care of business and
calls a spade a spade.
Draw a line in the sand over treaty settlements -- it's not a living
document, it's a contract and as such its terms and interpretation
should remain those which were contemporary at the time it was signed.
Pay teachers, nurses, radiographers, and other essential workers what
they're worth in a global market -- and it *is* a global market now.
Axe all post-employment MP perks. Very few other workers get such
things and our MPs are paid quite adequately for the work they do --
and if they feel this isn't the case then they can always change
careers.
Eliminate taxes on retirement savings -- such investments save the
government money in the long term by making NZers more self sufficient
and less of a burden on the superannuation system.
Trebble taxes on tobacco -- it's a more addictive drug than heroin
with no redeming qualities and (according to medical studies) it even
has a significantly adverse effect on the innocent children of smoking
parents by lowering their IQ and increasing their predisposition to
strokes and heart disease.
Acknowledge that the arts and culture, while important in the
development of a balanced society, must be considered a lower priority
for public spending than healthcare, law enforcement and other
*essential* services. It is criminal to have a government funding
painters, musicians, Maori language and other culturally important
activities while people are dying from cancer because they have to
wait four months or more for essential radiation treatment following
cancer surgery.
Introduce some discpline into the debating chamber. The behaviour
currently seen in the debating chamber would not be tollerated in the
boardroom of a $100,000/year business -- why should the public have to
put up with it in the institution that runs a multi-billion dollar
nation? How much money is wasted by this juvenile behaviour and what
kind of example does it set for our youth?
Give people the chance to become responsible for their own welfare and
future. This doesn't involve dismantling the welfare/healthcare
safety-net -- it simply provides education, help and incentives for
those who are prepared to become more self-reliant and take
responsibility for their own lives.
Introduce (and I don't mean "pretend to introduce") some real
accountability within government and the civil service. No more
dodging bullets or passing the buck -- people need to know that
they'll be held fully accountable for the results they achieve -- and
this goes far beyond simply having an election every three years.
There are many other points which are largely commonsense and neither
particularly left or right wing -- they're just what you get when you
take out all the fluff, pandering, backhanders, stupidity and
self-interest that currently pervades our political machinery.
Surely someone's going to get off their backside and run for election
on a ticket like this -- and don't say that there are already parties
who are offering this -- I've looked around and their aren't!
But would you vote for a "no nonsense" party like this I wonder?
trouser
> rOn Tue, 14 May 2002 01:43:02 +0000 (UTC), ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> wrote:
>
>>E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
<snip>
> Quite frankly I would expect a person charged with the responsibility
> of leading the country to be a little less careless than to:
>
> 1. offer sharemarket advice with inside knowledge (resulting in a
> severe telling off from the stock exchange board)
Yes I remember that tv news article - I wonder what I could have done with a
spare 10k!. It Would be 30+k (and rising) by now. She would have been
comitting political suicide if she had been wrong, thus she definatley and
irresponsibly let the cat outa the bag on that one..
> 2. defame a citizen by improperly accusing them of being a murderer
> requiring an out of court settlement (with taxpayer funds)
Ahh...yes the typical politcal stuff up... Golden handshake anyone?
> 3. sign a painting that wasn't her work in a manner liable to mislead
> a prospective owner, buyer or seller into believing that it was her
> own work.
Yes - those familar with the concept 'ghost writing' that goes on in the
academic community would be very concerned if they were to discover they
could be liable for fraud!!!! IMVHO Its *is* fraud *but* is not treated as
such... Imagine if a proffessor got charged with fraud for publishing a
paper that it had been found was *actually* written by a student!! It Could
prove embarrasing to many an academic institution trying to maintain any
speck of integrity.. This happens *alot* but I guess will never be treated
as such. Has anybody actually found out whether she ever actually stated
whether she painted said artworks or signed them?
> Let's face it -- if Clark's performance in the area of commonsense is
> the best we can expect from our politicians then we're in really big
> trouble.
>
> Of course, the fact that she was elected to the position and retains
> the confidence of the voters is a stinging indictment on the standards
> and intelligence of the average citizen.
>
> Me thinks that this being the case, we're in even bigger trouble than
> I first thought.
You are not wrong there at all!!! Mind you consider the viable alternatives
- no thanks!
L8r
Trouser
PapaBear
"Bruce Simpson" <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote in message
<no-nonsense suggestions snipped>
> But would you vote for a "no nonsense" party like this I wonder?
Vote for it? I'd probably join it and run for Office!
PB
Bruce Simpson
<tro...@yeahrightspammer.free.net.nz> wrote:
>Yes - those familar with the concept 'ghost writing' that goes on in the
>academic community would be very concerned if they were to discover they
>could be liable for fraud!!!! IMVHO Its *is* fraud *but* is not treated as
>such...
I think that's because you don't see contemporary paperbacks being
bought and sold for thousands of dollars in the way that art works
are.
E. Scrooge
<pau...@diplomacy.com> wrote in message
news:3ce086d5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
You're not wrong there. It's hard to tell which one is the true leader of
National, English or Boag.
If Labour dominate the next election, with National getting even weaker in
the opposition seats. We could be in for Hell of rough ride with the
dictator Clark doing whatever she likes. Clark must be looking forward to
the day when Tau Henare joins National for the next election, after seeing
the damage in that bugger's political past.
E. Scrooge
Annemarie
<ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz> wrote in message
news:abpq36$ip6$1...@gate.clad.co.nz...
> E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
>
> > You either know what is legal, or you don't. It's quite clear
> > that Clark should never have signed the "front" of those
> > painting, as damn near everyone realises that only the original
> > artist is entitled to do that.
>
> It is a known and accepted practice in the art world.
No it is not!!!!! It is not accepted and people can be sued. Organisation
that exhibit such work can be sued. It most certainly is not acceptable.
slyeball
When is the No Confidence party going to run?
I'm sure there would be an overwhelming landslide victory.
--
Macintosh! Nothing less, Nothing else.
Patrick Dunford
Tue, 14 May 2002 10:16:27 +1200, Joe Bloggs(joe_b...@hotmail.com)
said...
> What clearly can only be interpreted sensibly as a lighthearted gesture
HAHAHAH
> on the part of the PM is hardly comparable to murder. Go bang your head
> against the wall again.
WHat? You do that often?
Patrick Dunford
nz.general on Tue, 14 May 2002 14:13:37 +1200, Bruce
Simpson(see.my.sig...@l.address) said...
> rOn Tue, 14 May 2002 01:43:02 +0000 (UTC), ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> wrote:
>
> >E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
> >
> >> Clark herself has since admitted that it was a mistake for her
> >> to do so.
> >
> >Yes, it was.
>
> Quite frankly I would expect a person charged with the responsibility
> of leading the country to be a little less careless than to:
>
> 1. offer sharemarket advice with inside knowledge (resulting in a
> severe telling off from the stock exchange board)
>
> 2. defame a citizen by improperly accusing them of being a murderer
> requiring an out of court settlement (with taxpayer funds)
>
> 3. sign a painting that wasn't her work in a manner liable to mislead
> a prospective owner, buyer or seller into believing that it was her
> own work.
4. Promote through Parliament a bill designed to stop party hopping then
support party hopping when politically expedient.
>
> Let's face it -- if Clark's performance in the area of commonsense is
> the best we can expect from our politicians then we're in really big
> trouble.
>
> Of course, the fact that she was elected to the position and retains
> the confidence of the voters is a stinging indictment on the standards
> and intelligence of the average citizen.
Certainly that is true of 4 and makes a mockery of claims about
"integrity".
Patrick Dunford
on Tue, 14 May 2002 18:30:15 +1200,
Annemarie(annemari...@paradise.net.nz) said...
Karl Stead of Foxton...
--
=========================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears
the Lord is to be praised.
-- Proverbs 31:30
http://www.SearchGodsWord.org/desk/?query=Proverbs+31:30
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
You had better inform the various artists who do this sort of
thing and all the gallery owners who condone it that it is not
acceptable. It has been happening for years and involves many
famous names.
Consider that art is often about intent rather than execution.
Who executed the work is secondary to the intent of the
originator of the idea. Hence you get people such as Billy
Apple, Andy Warhol and others paying people to execute their
ideas which are then sold as Warhol or Apple or whoever
originals.
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
>> No it is not!!!!! It is not accepted and people can be sued.
>> Organisation that exhibit such work can be sued. It most
>> certainly is not acceptable.
> Karl Stead of Foxton...
No. Karl Stead was a forger and was convicted of forgery. There
is a difference. He did copies of famous works or works in the
style of famous artists. He didn't sign his own name to the
works (at least not until he changed his name to C.F. Goldie).
He signed the name of the artist and attempted to pass his works
off as the artist's works.
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 01:43:02 +0000 (UTC), ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> wrote:
> That is highly highly debatable. Many art people have slammed
> what she did as totally unethical while some have said that it
> isn't uncommon (but have failed to produce a single other
> example other than Jim Anderton)
Do you think Warhol personally created every single one of his
signed screenprints?
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 01:43:02 +0000 (UTC), ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> wrote:
> That is highly highly debatable. Many art people have slammed
> what she did as totally unethical while some have said that it
> isn't uncommon (but have failed to produce a single other
> example other than Jim Anderton)
Just to set the record straight. I think what Clark did was
stupid but I believe it the furore surroudning it is completely
out of proportion to the deed regardless of her position.
Gussie Fink-Nottle
wrote:
His name wasn't 'Stead', either - I forget what it actually was, but
Karl Stead is the former professor of English at Auckland Uni, who has
also enjoyed a long and (through no fault of his own) somewhat
controversial career as a novelist and critic. Talk about schoolboy
howlers...
--
Gus
mr-p
Karl Sim
Peter H Metcalfe
says...
> Annemarie <annemari...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> > <ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz> wrote in message
> > news:abpq36$ip6$1...@gate.clad.co.nz...
> >> E. Scrooge <e.scrooge@*ubdimen*ion.com (*s)> wrote:
> >>
> >> > You either know what is legal, or you don't. It's quite clear
> >> > that Clark should never have signed the "front" of those
> >> > painting, as damn near everyone realises that only the original
> >> > artist is entitled to do that.
> >>
> >> It is a known and accepted practice in the art world.
>
> > No it is not!!!!! It is not accepted and people can be sued.
> > Organisation that exhibit such work can be sued. It most
> > certainly is not acceptable.
>
> You had better inform the various artists who do this sort of
> thing and all the gallery owners who condone it that it is not
> acceptable. It has been happening for years and involves many
> famous names.
So the fact that other people were doing it makes it legal? Could
we apply this rule to sex with a minor? If not, why not?
--Peter Metcalfe
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> In article <abrk44$5cj$2...@gate.clad.co.nz>,
> ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz says...
>> >>
>> >> > You either know what is legal, or you don't. It's quite
>> >> > clear that Clark should never have signed the "front" of
>> >> > those painting, as damn near everyone realises that only
>> >> > the original artist is entitled to do that.
>> >>
>> >> It is a known and accepted practice in the art world.
>>
>> > No it is not!!!!! It is not accepted and people can be
>> > sued. Organisation that exhibit such work can be sued. It
>> > most certainly is not acceptable.
>>
>> You had better inform the various artists who do this sort of
>> thing and all the gallery owners who condone it that it is not
>> acceptable. It has been happening for years and involves many
>> famous names.
> So the fact that other people were doing it makes it legal? Could
> we apply this rule to sex with a minor? If not, why not?
Scrooge claimed that everyone realises that only the original
artist is entitled to sign a work of art. AnneMarie claims that
it is not acceptable. I dispute both points as over the years
there have been quite a number of famous artists who have openly
signed works executed by others and claimed them as their own and
sold them. It is accepted within the art world and by buyers of
fine art. If it were not I am sure we would have heard about a
number of famous artists being sued for fraud for just this act.
We haven't.
As far as I can tell the act within the context has not yet been
shown to be illegal. There has been a lot of huffing and puffing
by various people about Clark committing a crime (no charge, no
trial, no conviction); there have been a few comments by lawyers
about what laws Clark *may* have broken. However, (to my
knowledge) no one has been charged in similar circumstances, no
one has been convicted. No law explicitly states that this is
illegal. No precedent has been set.
Quite different circumstances.
Sumoddha
Peter H Metcalfe wrote:
Don't Computer software companies claim naming rights for software
written by others that they have bought? Don't all corporates claim
intellectual rights for works comleted by people commissioned to do so?
Peter H Metcalfe
says...
> Peter H Metcalfe <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > In article <abrk44$5cj$2...@gate.clad.co.nz>,
> > ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz says...
> >> thing and all the gallery owners who condone it that it is not
> >> acceptable. It has been happening for years and involves many
> >> famous names.
> > So the fact that other people were doing it makes it legal? Could
> > we apply this rule to sex with a minor? If not, why not?
> Scrooge claimed that everyone realises that only the original
> artist is entitled to sign a work of art. AnneMarie claims that
> it is not acceptable. I dispute both points as over the years
> there have been quite a number of famous artists who have openly
> signed works executed by others and claimed them as their own and
> sold them.
The fact that some artists have breached the conventions concerning
the signing of paintings does not make their actions any more
acceptable.
> It is accepted within the art world and by buyers of
> fine art.
It is known by the Art World to have _happened_ which is a different
thing again from saying that it is legal or even acceptable practice.
> If it were not I am sure we would have heard about a
> number of famous artists being sued for fraud for just this act.
> We haven't.
Who's we? Most of the famous painters who indulged in this practice
are dead.
> As far as I can tell the act within the context has not yet been
> shown to be illegal.
The facts of the matter as admitted by Helen Clark constitute an
act of criminal fraud according to New Zealand legislation.
> There has been a lot of huffing and puffing
> by various people about Clark committing a crime (no charge, no
> trial, no conviction);
Which alters the illegality of her admitted actions in what way? One
does not need to have a trial to see that John Davy's actions were
criminal and likewise one does not need a trial before observing
whether Helen's actions were fraudulent.
> there have been a few comments by lawyers
> about what laws Clark *may* have broken.
Which is a woeful misreading of what has been reported. The only
lawyers who maintain that Helen has done no wrong are her defence
attorneys. Every other lawyer that would be quoted said she had.
> However, (to my knowledge) no one has been charged in similar
> circumstances, no one has been convicted.
So? The relevant legislation states that her actions are still
fraudulent.
> No law explicitly states that this is illegal.
Whoop-de-shit. Just what law do you think Karl Sims was convicted
under? Helen by signing her name to a painting as indicated by
convention that she is the creator of that painting. Since she
was not and people have brought paintings on the reasonable
expectation that she was, she has committed fraud.
> No precedent has been set.
Wrong.
> Quite different circumstances.
Nope.
--Peter Metcalfe
--Peter Metcalfe
Peter H Metcalfe
> Peter H Metcalfe wrote:
> > So the fact that other people were doing it makes it legal? Could
> > we apply this rule to sex with a minor? If not, why not?
> Don't Computer software companies claim naming rights for software
> written by others that they have bought? Don't all corporates claim
> intellectual rights for works comleted by people commissioned to do so?
The convention does not exist that software publishers must have produced
every single part of their own work. The convention does apply in the
arts world.
--Peter Metcalfe
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> The fact that some artists have breached the conventions
> concerning the signing of paintings does not make their actions
> any more acceptable.
The fact that people know this and still buy their works
indicates that it is acceptable.
> It is known by the Art World to have _happened_ which is a
> different thing again from saying that it is legal or even
> acceptable practice.
Known to have happened and condoned.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=1592461&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
Auckland dealer Anna Bibby said it was a myth that
artists must create their own work, citing the examples
of Andy Warhol and New Zealander Billy Apple.
> Who's we? Most of the famous painters who indulged in this practice
> are dead.
Unsurprising considering that the practice has been happening for
hundreds if not thousands of years. Warhol was quite blatent
about it. His studio was even named _The Factory_ at one stage.
> Which is a woeful misreading of what has been reported. The only
> lawyers who maintain that Helen has done no wrong are her defence
> attorneys. Every other lawyer that would be quoted said she had.
Really? I could have sworn I saw the word *may* in the article I
read. It would be surprising if the other lawyers were so
unequivocal considering Clark hasn't been convicted.
> Whoop-de-shit. Just what law do you think Karl Sims was convicted
> under?
Sim was convicted of forgery - forging signatures I believe. Did
Helen forge her own signature?
Peter H Metcalfe
says...
> Peter H Metcalfe <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact that some artists have breached the conventions
> > concerning the signing of paintings does not make their actions
> > any more acceptable.
> The fact that people know this and still buy their works
> indicates that it is acceptable.
Wrong. What counts is the legislation.
> > It is known by the Art World to have _happened_ which is a
> > different thing again from saying that it is legal or even
> > acceptable practice.
> Known to have happened and condoned.
By whom? Not by NZ law.
> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=1592461&the
> section=news&thesubsection=general
> Auckland dealer Anna Bibby said it was a myth that
> artists must create their own work, citing the examples
> of Andy Warhol and New Zealander Billy Apple.
Whoop-de-shit. Her say-so does not make the practice legal anymore
than my say-so does not make bestiality legal. How many sheep do
you think get it in this country? How many prosecutions have there
been? So bestiality is legal so long as it's done with sheep? Fat
chance.
> > Who's we? Most of the famous painters who indulged in this practice
> > are dead.
> Unsurprising considering that the practice has been happening for
> hundreds if not thousands of years. Warhol was quite blatent
> about it. His studio was even named _The Factory_ at one stage.
So? Where is the relevant section of the Crimes Act that says
such a practice is quite alright?
> > Which is a woeful misreading of what has been reported. The only
> > lawyers who maintain that Helen has done no wrong are her defence
> > attorneys. Every other lawyer that would be quoted said she had.
> Really? I could have sworn I saw the word *may* in the article I
> read. It would be surprising if the other lawyers were so
> unequivocal considering Clark hasn't been convicted.
What has being convicted got to do with this? Clark has admitted
the facts as they are.
> > Whoop-de-shit. Just what law do you think Karl Sims was convicted
> > under?
> Sim was convicted of forgery - forging signatures I believe.
Wrong. There is no specific provision in the Crimes Act for forging
signatures. He was guilty of forgery because he created a false
document by adding a signature to a document so as to create the
impression that the document was created by somebody else.
> Did Helen forge her own signature?
The legal definition has been posted again and again. Helen Clark has
committed forgery because she has made a false document as defined by:
:: 264. Forgery---(1) Forgery is making a false document, knowing it to
:: be false, with the intent that it shall in any way be used or acted
:: upon as genuine, whether within New Zealand or not, or that some
:: person shall be induced by the belief that it is genuine to do or
:: refrain from doing anything, whether within New Zealand or not.
By signing it, she has created a document with the intention as being
sold as something that she has painted.
:: (2) For the purposes of this section, the expression ``making a false
:: document'' includes making any material alteration in a genuine
:: document, whether by addition, insertion, obliteration, erasure,
:: removal, or otherwise.
Hence by simply signing something that wasn't hers, she has made a
false document. Documents do include paintings because
:: 263. Interpretation---(1) For the purposes of this section and of
:: sections 264 to 279 of this Act,---
:: [...]
:: [``Document'' means---
:: (a) Any paper, parchment, or other material used for writing
:: or printing, marked with matter capable of being read; or
Since it has been painted and signed, the canvas (a material used
for writing - remember the signature) has been marked with matter
capable of being read. This is not a twisted definition because other
definitions of document include:
:: (b) Any photograph, or any photographic negative, plate,
:: slide, film, or microfilm, or any photostatic negative; or
:: (c) Any disc, tape, wire, sound track, card, or other material
:: or device in or on which information, sounds, or other data
:: are recorded, stored, or embodied so as to be capable, with or
:: without the aid of some other equipment, of being reproduced
:: therefrom; or
:: (d) Any material by means of which information is supplied,
:: whether directly or by means of any equipment, to any device
:: used for recording or storing or processing information; or
:: (e) Any material derived, whether directly or by means of any
equipment, from information recorded or stored or processed by
any device used for recording or storing or processing
information:]
So if you attempt to argue that a painting is not a document as defined
in 263 (a), then you are still skewered by the catchall definitions in
(d) and (e). Given that a photograph is defined in section (b) as
a document, in what sense is a painting not a document?
So Helen Clark's actions are acts of forgery as defined by the Crimes
Act. If you still maintain they are acts of fraud or misrepresentation,
but not forgery then it behoves you to quote the relevant legislation.
The relevant act is the Crimes Act up at:
http://rangi.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/text/1999/an/020.html
--Peter Metcalfe
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> In article <abvmk9$jnv$1...@gate.clad.co.nz>, ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> says...
>> Peter H Metcalfe <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The fact that some artists have breached the conventions
>> > concerning the signing of paintings does not make their actions
>> > any more acceptable.
>
>> The fact that people know this and still buy their works
>> indicates that it is acceptable.
> Wrong. What counts is the legislation.
Has the legislation been shown to apply in this particular
scenario? I can think of at least one argument against such an
act being illegal and that is that the signature is as much a
part of the work of art as any other part. Take, for example,
the work of conceptual artists where the signature can be what
makes a common object a work of art.
> So? Where is the relevant section of the Crimes Act that says
> such a practice is quite alright?
Has it been tested in law that it is illegal?
> What has being convicted got to do with this? Clark has
> admitted the facts as they are.
She has admitted signing the painting. She has not yet been
convicted of any crime (let alone charged). Innocent until
proven guilty still applies in the country.
Bruce Simpson
wrote:
>She has admitted signing the painting. She has not yet been
>convicted of any crime (let alone charged). Innocent until
>proven guilty still applies in the country.
And let's be absolutely clear about one thing -- it is very unlikely
that she'll be charged, even less likely she'll be convicted and
without a doubt impossible that she'd receive any type of fine or
prison term for her actions.
This is the Prime Minister we're talking about. You don't hold that
position without gaining more than a little "clout" in the circles
where such decisions are made.
The effect of her influence in these areas will be easily dismissed as
"in the best interests of the nation" -- after all, we wouldn't want
other countries laughing at us because our PM gets a rap sheet for
fraud while in office would we?
Please remember that, despite the denials of those responsible, there
really are two sets of rules and penalties in this country -- one for
the rich and influential, the other for the poor and disempowered.
It's not as bad as it once was -- but it's still there.
Peter H Metcalfe
> Peter H Metcalfe <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > In article <abvmk9$jnv$1...@gate.clad.co.nz>, ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> > says...
> >> Peter H Metcalfe <metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> The fact that people know this and still buy their works
> >> indicates that it is acceptable.
> > Wrong. What counts is the legislation.
> Has the legislation been shown to apply in this particular
> scenario?
It applies by its wording.
> I can think of at least one argument against such an
> act being illegal and that is that the signature is as much a
> part of the work of art as any other part.
That argument is negated by the fact that the signature created
a _deception_ in which someone paid good money for. Ergo her
actions consitute making a false document and is classified as
forgery under the crimes act.
> Take, for example,
> the work of conceptual artists where the signature can be what
> makes a common object a work of art.
Since Helen Clark never claimed her signature was an example of
this, this argument is irrelevant.
> > So? Where is the relevant section of the Crimes Act that says
> > such a practice is quite alright?
> Has it been tested in law that it is illegal?
Making such an argument like this shows that you don't understand
law (and I've noticed that you've avoided dealing with my point
about the sheep). Her admitted actions fall squarely within the
ambit of the relevant section of the crimes act and thus there is
no need for precedent.
> > What has being convicted got to do with this? Clark has
> > admitted the facts as they are.
> She has admitted signing the painting.
She has admitted _wrongdoing_ in signing the paintings.
> She has not yet been
> convicted of any crime (let alone charged). Innocent until
> proven guilty still applies in the country.
Wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a presumption that
the courts make. It does not bind anybody making a judgement
on the admitted facts as they are.
I've noticed that you've given up trying to claim that Karl Sims
was only convicted for forging signatures and since Clark's
signature was real, her actions were not forgery. It would be
nice though to have an acknowlegement of this concession rather
than delete it and pretending that nobody noticed.
--Peter Metcalfe
Redbaiter
da...@farrar.com says...
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 09:33:04 +1200, Bruce Simpson
> <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 16 May 2002 15:49:20 +0000 (UTC), ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> >wrote:
> >
> >>She has admitted signing the painting. She has not yet been
> >>convicted of any crime (let alone charged). Innocent until
> >>proven guilty still applies in the country.
> >
> >And let's be absolutely clear about one thing -- it is very unlikely
> >that she'll be charged, even less likely she'll be convicted and
> >without a doubt impossible that she'd receive any type of fine or
> >prison term for her actions.
>
> automatically expelled from Parliament and no longer PM of course.
>
> With that as the consequence I would be hugely surprised if she was
> charged.
>
> DPF
> --
> da...@farrar.com
> ICQ 29964527
>
A crime is a crime, the consequence should not be considered
when deciding whether the law has been broken. This is
merely acknowledging that there is one law for for the polit
bureau, and one for the proletariat..
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist lexicon, the lowest of the low.
Bruce Simpson
>Note if she was convicted (even if not fined) she would be
>automatically expelled from Parliament and no longer PM of course.
>
>With that as the consequence I would be hugely surprised if she was
>charged.
So if you're the PM, allegedly an intelligent, well-educated
professional earning a very healthy whack with an equally healthy
post-employment perks package, you're not likely to be charged for a
crime than someone who's down on their luck, of lowly position,
limited intellect and educational background whose scraping to make
ends meet.
That sounds fair to me --- NOT!
As I said....
One law for the rich and powerful, another set for the poor and
vulnerable.
It would be much easier for Clark to find a new, well-paying job with
a fraud conviction on her record than it would be for a humble,
uneducated shop-assistant or labourer me thinks.
So would really be more adversely affected by such a conviction?
ti...@ohmygod.clad.co.nz
> Making such an argument like this shows that you don't understand
> law
I certainly don't seem to have the knowledge on the subject that
you do. Sorry, Peter, but I don't think I am actually qualified
to continue this discussion so I will stop posting on the subject.
Patrick Dunford
nz.general on Fri, 17 May 2002 16:42:05 +1200, DPF(da...@farrar.com)
said...
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 09:33:04 +1200, Bruce Simpson
> <see.my.sig...@l.address> wrote:
>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>She has admitted signing the painting. She has not yet been
> >>convicted of any crime (let alone charged). Innocent until
> >>proven guilty still applies in the country.
> >
> >And let's be absolutely clear about one thing -- it is very unlikely
> >that she'll be charged, even less likely she'll be convicted and
> >without a doubt impossible that she'd receive any type of fine or
> >prison term for her actions.
>
> automatically expelled from Parliament and no longer PM of course.
On what basis?
There are MPs with criminal convictions as we all know.