Quote:
Originally Posted by
Enumerate
Clearly, you do not understand the concept of natural rights. These rights are in some sense primary - they cannot be overtaken. Rights cannot be contradictory.
Rather than quoting Wiki, perhaps you could give us the benifit of your understanding of what rights an individual has that are not already contained in the Bill of Rights and statute. We might then be able to advance this discussion on common ground.
[quote]Say what?!? The policeman tells you Allan is being treated fairly - you don't actually hear from Allan - no one represents his side of the story. He has no right of reply. THERE ARE NO CHARGES LAID. You are ok with this ?!?![\quote]
He does have a right of reply and I believe today he has engage Counsel to represent his interests. It was AH who had control over the timing of that decision so "yes" I am OK with that. I also recall he has partly exercised his right of reply, or certainly exercised his right to free speech on 21 June
Quote:
These people have rights and they are not diminished. It is possible to lay a charge under the securities act - this has not been done.
C'mon Enumerate, you know charges are not an automatic thing. The Authority (whichever it may be) has to firstly determine if an offence has likely been committed based on the information available or the information that comes to light. AH is being subjected to due process and isn't being unreasonably charged of any offence without the backing of some evidence - that is a good right he has been afforded
Quote:
Statutory Management has been invoked so the rights of the investors have been elevated above the extinguished rights of Allan Hubbard. Are you saying the investors have absolute rights and Allan Hubbard has none?
I think you'll find the rights of investors are being protected rather than elevated.
Quote:
because we are dealing with extinguishing Allan Hubbards primary rights and the enforcement agency has not chosen to use normal commercial statue to "defend" the rights of the investors.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not entirely comfortable with invoking Stat man on AH. I do see an inconsistent treatment of AH when compared with Hotchin, Watson et al. Perhaps naively I trust the State (on this occasion - but thats not a blanket trust) that they are truly doing the right thing by restricting the rights of one in the interests of the many.
Quote:
The State has effectively destroyed Allan Hubbard's investment business.
And therein lies the problem. It was not, or should not have been AH's investment business. It was the business of those who trusted SCF (and Aorangi) to place their hard earned cash in a manner that gave them a return which properly reflected the risk. You're not talking some corner money lender- your talking a multi billion dollar business, now propped up by the tax payer, which should never be run by one individual.
Quote:
No charges have been laiid - despite extraordinary powers of investigation being granted to the enforcement agency. They have had three weeks - they wouldn't give Allan Hubbard a week to answer their questions.
Give them time. Clearly the situation is much more complex than firstly imagined. They didn't even know about HMF prior to the Stat Man
Quote:
Rights are not contradictory. The principle you state could be seen as a foundation principle in the Communist manifesto. Are you suggesting we are a collectivist, communist state where individuals have no rights and collectives do?
Perhaps we could leave that discussion to another thread
Quote:
This is absurd. You have lost all credibility for rational debate. You twist the SCF structural divisions into some kind of dark plot ... absurd ... if not liableous.
Just trying to draw a picture. After all it is the Pro AH's that are keen for us to hear about his religious beliefs, his VW, his ethics on a handshake etc.
Quote:
Second point - because the Statutory Manager does not understand the business, this does not mean Allan Hubbard is guilty. Maybe the Statutory Manager is stupid?
Does anyone understand the business? No doubt the Stat man will have a better understanding once it is unraveled. And its probably better now 'cos there is probably no chance it would have been untraveled if AH had met his Maker.
Quote:
Fourth point - related party interests are not illegal
I understand that. But if you tell someone that their money is going somewhere, secured by something and you go and do something different, thats when the lines get blurred.
Quote:
Fifth point - the contractual terms between the parties are key
The contractual terms are going to be very hard to define when its done on a handshake.
Quote:
I repeat - the first report of the Statutory Manager had an obligation to put the case for the "public interest" being defended by the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard. This report completely fails to meet this obligation.
sorry I've missed your citation which supports this view - would you mind reposting.
Quote:
Now that you have constructed a gallows and hung Allan Hubbard
i don't believe I have. But then I probably don't need to because he may of being doing this himself. Time will tell what the story is behind those newly established trusts.