Why "likely"?
Printable View
Since we were talking about points raised in the Fran O'Sullivan article ... the fact you haven't read it is most unhelpful to intelligent debate.
You go on to defend the SFO conduct. You conveniently ignore the fact that the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard makes this case singular - the oppressive power of the state is complete, in this case - the power to investigate is also complete and beyond the evidential conventions that apply in the judicial system.
Then again, if you had read the article this point would have been clear.
You raise a number of points concerning your views of legal procedure and make the claim that the SFO is conducting business as usual. Further, you conclude with the somewhat startling assertion that given SFO obligations are being met that your standards are somewhat higher than mine.
Given your prior posts asserting how profit motivated Pike River investors were causal factors in the Pike River mine disaster followed on by this latest view that Allan Hubbard is being treated according to judicial convention, by the SFO - I have to seriously doubt whether you are in full possession of your faculties.
You are doing the intellectual equivalent of "dribbling".
You conveniently ignore the fact that the Statutory Management of Allan Hubbard makes this case singular - the oppressive power of the state is complete, in this case - the power to investigate is also complete and beyond the evidential conventions that apply in the judicial system.I notice a few libertarian/Randian types (including O'Sullivan) are desperately attempting to spin this into a spooky nanny state/govt power issue now that charges have been laid. And libertarians are supposed to be against fraud :scared:.
As an astute poster said at NBR "Does a ring come with those beliefs?"
No, just a cerebral cortex ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Capitalist
So, Balance, tell me how Destiny Church upholds the principles of objectivist libertarianism?
Capitalist may wish to explain how Statutory Management is consistent with "due process" and "natural justice" principles that have been foundation elements of our legal system since the Magna Carta. (Principles which incidentally are at the foundation of our political system, not just our legal system; and are certainly not exclusive to objectivism or libertarianism).
I know your intention is make a jokes rather than dwell on the serious issues at hand. However, jokes would be funnier if you demonstrated a basic understanding of the principles you are making light of.
I ask:
In reply:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enumerate
No Balance, you are dribbling again, go back and read the initial question. If you have any trouble with the big words ... you can always Google ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Balance
If Hubbard came around and burned Enumerate's house down he would find a reason to condone it. The SFO case is very strong and there is much more to come out. No point in arguing with irrationalists, as Rand said.
More than a few of these bullet points ring a bell from
http://whitecollarfraud.blogspot.com...-identify.html
- Make excuses as long as you can. Try to have your excuses based on at least one truthful fact even if the fact is unrelated to your actions and argument.
- When you cannot dispute the underlying facts, accept them as true but rationalize your actions.You are allowed to make mistakes as long as you have no wrongful intent. Being stupid is not a crime.
- Always say in words you “take responsibility” but try to indirectly shift the blame on other people and factors. You need to portray yourself as a “stand up” person.
- When you cannot defend your actions or arguments attack the messenger to detract attention from your questionable actions.
- Always show your kindness by doing people favors. You will require the gratitude of such people to come to your aid and defend you.
- Build up your stature, integrity, and credibility by publicizing the good deeds you have done in areas unrelated to the subject of scrutiny.
- Build a strong base of support. Try to have surrogates and the beneficiaries of your largess stand up for you and defend you.
- If you can, appear to take the “high road” and have your surrogates do the “dirty work” for you. After all, you cannot control the actions of your zealots.
- When you can no longer spin, shut up. For example, offer no guidance to investors or resign for “personal reasons.” Your surrogates and so-called friends can still speak on your behalf and defend you.
If Margaret Hubbard had not replaced the two other existing directors in 2009 do you think the Hubbard's would have been personally placed under SM?
You have no possible way of knowing this with out reviewing the evidence ... the case is the linked elements of evidence. How could you possibly understand the strength of the case when Allan Hubbard's lawyer has difficulty gaining access to the charges?
Are you in the SFO prosecution team? If you are, you are now guilty of a significant ethical breach. If you are not, you are speaking without any authority.
Fifty charges have been laid against Mr Hubbard under sections 220, 242 and 260 of the Crimes Act.
220 Theft by person in special relationship
242 False statement by promoter, etc
260 False accounting
What really matters is what Mr Hubbard is indicted for. If you commented on the strength of the case at indictment - you might have some credibility. At this stage of proceedings and given the "Hollywood" style of Feeley SFO - I would suggest you have no credibility.
Ah, but the fun will be lost, Capitalist - it is so amusing to watch a deluded person in action.
This is how Enumerate sounds like in real life :
http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Allan-Hub...5/Default.aspx