Here follows a list lifted from the JFRB site of people who have posted on Trade Me.
Name - Nature of Recorded 'Activity' on TM
DCameron - Defamer
Annette Curran- Stalker, who has revealed posters identities, serial defamer.
Catherine Kennedy - Stalker and defamer.
Lindsay Kennard - Defamer of Counsel in particular, makes unfounded accusations.
Maryanne Newton - Stalker and defamer, readily reveals poster's identities.
Glenda OBrein - Stalker and defamer, readily reveals poster's identities.
Mike Stockdale - Stalker and defamer.
Christine Williams - Stalker and defamer.
The total number of JFRB members identified so far as being posters is 12, 8 are listed above the additional 4 whose identity cannot be confirmed all are recorded as having conducted similar activities to those listed.
To summarise, of known JFRB members that post, or have posted on TM all have either stalked or posted defamatory comment, the majority have done both. Of the total amount of JFRB members who additional to the above 8 are known to be members of JFRB but whose user names on TM are not confirmed at this point, all have conducted the same activities as the known group. Both totals are a 100%. What do they all have in common, being members of hate-sites in a trail that leads back to Kent Parker. A man on a 'crusade' who clearly believes the end justifies the means when it comes to his member's public activities.
User names of the above listed JFRB hate-siters:
DCameron - DCameron
Rita Cochrane - Ret1
Annette Curran - Golfergold
Catherine Kennedy - Cookingwithgas
Lindsay Kennard - linz4me
Maryanne Newton - dustproof
Glenda OBrien - kalnovitch
Mike Stockdale - supersleuth
Christine Williams - misspw/millie231
Of this 8, 6 are now either permanently or temporarily banned. Among the banned are 2of the original 'twisted sisters.' Many of those listed are among posters TM was warned about in November 2009 as to their activities and conduct on TM. It has only been since July 2010 that TM have stopped posters linking to the hate sites. TM have been slow in responding all the way down the track, while TM have dithered or ignored reality these posters have had a field day, many being involved in criminal stalking. They must be stopped and the cybermedia in NZ needs to record they're publishers not dissimilar to the print media, if dissimilar at all.
Footnote;
I have named the above having considered firstly that none of these people are bound to anonymity by any implied or actual confidentiality contract with me in this blog space, and secondly, that no defamatory comment has passed because everything written here is truthful according to the records I have and those within my knowledge.
I've started this blog to share with those that may be interested in sports, books, topical news and the justice system as it applies to cyberspace and generally.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Letters to Kent Parker
1/
From: nostalgia-nz
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Counterspin
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:26:41 +1300
Hi Kent,
I have listed the following matters in paragraph order as a broader perspective of my earlier 2 letters to you, which remain unanswered. I guess you are busy and no one is home at Counterspin because they're out to lunch.
Para a….
I’ve been made aware that following your decision to ban me as nostalgia-nz, you started a thread on the subject (Banning) in which you made comments about the decision and about me which of course I was unable to answer on your site anyway.
I now formally ask you to forward the posts I made and all the responses to them. I also request a copy of the thread you started about me titled Banned and any responses to it. I need to study what I said, and compare it with what others on your site say, to determine if you are not simply running a site preferential to your own views and indeed a site fostering hatred and exclusion of those that don’t share your views.
Para b….
I also would like a copy of your site rules generally, and specifically on the matter of 1) banning those that don’t agree with the sites intention to vilify David Bain (or others) to ensure that he is not compensated for false imprisonment, and to further vilify the Christchurch Jury who found David innocent. There is much hateful and inflammatory material on your site about the Jury. And 2) The site being used (or not used) as a rallying point to encourage or undertake illegal, immoral, activities not in the public interest.
Para c….
I assume that if you believe your site can withstand scrutiny against my allegation that it is a hate site you will be forthcoming in co-operating with my inquiries.
Para d….
I have told you that material from your site has been copied and saved and it could very well be that I have full access to that, however, I think it would be a fair assumption that a site controller on a public message board you will have no objection in releasing the material to me in a formal way so that I can satisfy myself of a position before considering if I might bring your site to the attention of the appropriate authorities including the host of the site or the Ministry of Justice. You're not operating a secret site are you kent, it looks that way.
Para e….
I am aware that prior to Christmas you placed your site into ‘close down’ and I am interested in the reasons for that and what the Counterspin Site’s policy is on the matter of complaints from the public or from legal authorities to reconcile with your ‘close down’ decision prior to Christmas. The ‘closedown,’ along with anecdotal and other material evidence displayed that Counterspin operate in at least two distinct ways. Firstly, by largely excluding any views countering your own, fostering others to reach Counterspin’s views with inaccurate and misleading material, and by failing to respond in a measured, ordered fashion to complaints. Secondly, by encouraging members to heckle, band together against other posters on other sites and complaining at any opportunity to have them banned. In both these ways members of the public are targeted, information is sought about them and members are encouraged to stalk and harass them. Included in this is a claim by a one of your sponsors, Mike Stockdale, that he approached a Crown witness to scrutinise their evidence, which I have said earlier may be an attempt to pervert the course of justice (by attempting to have the witness change their evidence, or by using the information on your boards or elsewhere in an attempt to gain support for your petition,) and now say, additionally, that had that witness been aware, or become aware of Stockdale's connection to your site and others she may have considered she was being intimidated. I am also aware of identities being revealed, of calls to ‘go get’ people, of physical threats, of solicitations to source information about those yourself and other Counterspin members consider as a threat to your activities and purpose. This happens on line, and there is much anecdotal and material evidence that it happens off line by email and other means of communication - some of this was displayed during the ‘close down’ and would indicate a propensity to initiate strategies that display a willingness to adopt subversion. This all happens on your boards without comment, clearly showing the sites acceptance, tolerance, and initiation of such behaviours.
Para f...
Do you personally accept full responsibility for the activities on your site and that which might follow from them? And do you understand that your site might be seen as a party to all illegal behaviour resulting from the activities of your members and that private transmissions between your members that result, or have resulted in, any illegal behaviour are recoverable to the appropriate authorities in the instance of a complaint from myself or others?
You may feel assured that I have strong and complete supporting information regarding everything I have said in this letter, everything I said on Counterspin and everything I said in my two previous letters to you.
Additional to the material I have requested from you, I feel it is very important that your answer, in detail, issues I have raised in Para e and f above. I note that on your site much is made about suppression orders, the truth being told and so forth, if you are consistent in those beliefs I feel confident that you will respond with the information I have requested and explanations regarding the issues in Para e.
Resulting from your full, and anticipated co-operation, and at your request, I will consider a response to your material as to what I believe a reasonable, informed, person could conclude is (or, is not – as the case maybe) in fact evidence of your site not being a hate site active in cyber stalking, bullying and harassment before considering my options.
On the basis that this is a straight forward request, I invite you to respond by Tuesday the 23rd March or sooner. Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully
Nostalgia-nz
2/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Your site.
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:05:46 +1300
Hi Kent,
Clearly you don't have what it takes to try to disguise that your site is not a hatesite. I gather you're no spring chicken but anyway education is one thing but pure intelligence is another and it's obvious you missed out on both. You should reconsider your position, you are achieving nothing, only proving that you are a adminstrator of a hate site that refuses alternative views and whose ambition is to persecute others with misinformation and ignorance. You may think you are holding a position that will prevent David obtaining compensation and of course, like your dream that Karam asked the courts for a Pardon, you're wrong. Good luck with that.
Nos.
3/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Hate Sites
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:25:33 +1300
Hi Kent,
This is something else to lose some sleep over. Your site is plainly full of derogatory posts about real, named people. Your site identifies targets on other message boards to 'go after.' Your site outs, or attempts to out, real people's identities on other legit message boards. Members of your site target other posters on other sites to have them banned. Vic Perkiss has made public threats against Bain and Karam and he is a member of your site. Your site is home for a poster named 'supur' who brags about contacting a Crown witness and speaking with her about her evidence. Supur is so stupid he doesn't see that contacting a Crown witness about their evidence may well be a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course justice. I have numerous examples of your members cyber stalking and harassing. The common core event is that it is all linked to your site Kent. That is why your site is hopeless, infiltrated and recorded but you already knew that didn't you Kent? It's an unsolveable problem for you in that you know can't divorce yourself from your own activities or those of your fellows - you'll all lumped together, achieving nothing in a hate site. I could go on Kent, but I suspect you're incapable of absorbing anything but the smallest doses of reality. You will have noted that I anticipated being banned from your site and said so in at least two posts, you're very predictable Kent, incapable of walking into traps you set yourself, incapable of seeing that your closed up, only for hater's site, is visible for what it is to the outside world and that despite your claims you're not aligned with 30% of the population, although perhaps 30% may disagree with the verdict, the greater NZ population (including the 30%) don't agree with Jury's and the Justice system being attacked. Congratulations on the evidence you have provided so far and thanking you in anticipation of the more that will follow.
Nos
And the most recent, 18/7/10
Kent,
You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.
As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.
Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.
All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.
yours
etc
From: nostalgia-nz
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Counterspin
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:26:41 +1300
Hi Kent,
I have listed the following matters in paragraph order as a broader perspective of my earlier 2 letters to you, which remain unanswered. I guess you are busy and no one is home at Counterspin because they're out to lunch.
Para a….
I’ve been made aware that following your decision to ban me as nostalgia-nz, you started a thread on the subject (Banning) in which you made comments about the decision and about me which of course I was unable to answer on your site anyway.
I now formally ask you to forward the posts I made and all the responses to them. I also request a copy of the thread you started about me titled Banned and any responses to it. I need to study what I said, and compare it with what others on your site say, to determine if you are not simply running a site preferential to your own views and indeed a site fostering hatred and exclusion of those that don’t share your views.
Para b….
I also would like a copy of your site rules generally, and specifically on the matter of 1) banning those that don’t agree with the sites intention to vilify David Bain (or others) to ensure that he is not compensated for false imprisonment, and to further vilify the Christchurch Jury who found David innocent. There is much hateful and inflammatory material on your site about the Jury. And 2) The site being used (or not used) as a rallying point to encourage or undertake illegal, immoral, activities not in the public interest.
Para c….
I assume that if you believe your site can withstand scrutiny against my allegation that it is a hate site you will be forthcoming in co-operating with my inquiries.
Para d….
I have told you that material from your site has been copied and saved and it could very well be that I have full access to that, however, I think it would be a fair assumption that a site controller on a public message board you will have no objection in releasing the material to me in a formal way so that I can satisfy myself of a position before considering if I might bring your site to the attention of the appropriate authorities including the host of the site or the Ministry of Justice. You're not operating a secret site are you kent, it looks that way.
Para e….
I am aware that prior to Christmas you placed your site into ‘close down’ and I am interested in the reasons for that and what the Counterspin Site’s policy is on the matter of complaints from the public or from legal authorities to reconcile with your ‘close down’ decision prior to Christmas. The ‘closedown,’ along with anecdotal and other material evidence displayed that Counterspin operate in at least two distinct ways. Firstly, by largely excluding any views countering your own, fostering others to reach Counterspin’s views with inaccurate and misleading material, and by failing to respond in a measured, ordered fashion to complaints. Secondly, by encouraging members to heckle, band together against other posters on other sites and complaining at any opportunity to have them banned. In both these ways members of the public are targeted, information is sought about them and members are encouraged to stalk and harass them. Included in this is a claim by a one of your sponsors, Mike Stockdale, that he approached a Crown witness to scrutinise their evidence, which I have said earlier may be an attempt to pervert the course of justice (by attempting to have the witness change their evidence, or by using the information on your boards or elsewhere in an attempt to gain support for your petition,) and now say, additionally, that had that witness been aware, or become aware of Stockdale's connection to your site and others she may have considered she was being intimidated. I am also aware of identities being revealed, of calls to ‘go get’ people, of physical threats, of solicitations to source information about those yourself and other Counterspin members consider as a threat to your activities and purpose. This happens on line, and there is much anecdotal and material evidence that it happens off line by email and other means of communication - some of this was displayed during the ‘close down’ and would indicate a propensity to initiate strategies that display a willingness to adopt subversion. This all happens on your boards without comment, clearly showing the sites acceptance, tolerance, and initiation of such behaviours.
Para f...
Do you personally accept full responsibility for the activities on your site and that which might follow from them? And do you understand that your site might be seen as a party to all illegal behaviour resulting from the activities of your members and that private transmissions between your members that result, or have resulted in, any illegal behaviour are recoverable to the appropriate authorities in the instance of a complaint from myself or others?
You may feel assured that I have strong and complete supporting information regarding everything I have said in this letter, everything I said on Counterspin and everything I said in my two previous letters to you.
Additional to the material I have requested from you, I feel it is very important that your answer, in detail, issues I have raised in Para e and f above. I note that on your site much is made about suppression orders, the truth being told and so forth, if you are consistent in those beliefs I feel confident that you will respond with the information I have requested and explanations regarding the issues in Para e.
Resulting from your full, and anticipated co-operation, and at your request, I will consider a response to your material as to what I believe a reasonable, informed, person could conclude is (or, is not – as the case maybe) in fact evidence of your site not being a hate site active in cyber stalking, bullying and harassment before considering my options.
On the basis that this is a straight forward request, I invite you to respond by Tuesday the 23rd March or sooner. Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully
Nostalgia-nz
2/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Your site.
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:05:46 +1300
Hi Kent,
Clearly you don't have what it takes to try to disguise that your site is not a hatesite. I gather you're no spring chicken but anyway education is one thing but pure intelligence is another and it's obvious you missed out on both. You should reconsider your position, you are achieving nothing, only proving that you are a adminstrator of a hate site that refuses alternative views and whose ambition is to persecute others with misinformation and ignorance. You may think you are holding a position that will prevent David obtaining compensation and of course, like your dream that Karam asked the courts for a Pardon, you're wrong. Good luck with that.
Nos.
3/
From: nostalgia-nz@hotmail.com
To: kent@counterspin.co.nz
Subject: Hate Sites
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 16:25:33 +1300
Hi Kent,
This is something else to lose some sleep over. Your site is plainly full of derogatory posts about real, named people. Your site identifies targets on other message boards to 'go after.' Your site outs, or attempts to out, real people's identities on other legit message boards. Members of your site target other posters on other sites to have them banned. Vic Perkiss has made public threats against Bain and Karam and he is a member of your site. Your site is home for a poster named 'supur' who brags about contacting a Crown witness and speaking with her about her evidence. Supur is so stupid he doesn't see that contacting a Crown witness about their evidence may well be a criminal offence of attempting to pervert the course justice. I have numerous examples of your members cyber stalking and harassing. The common core event is that it is all linked to your site Kent. That is why your site is hopeless, infiltrated and recorded but you already knew that didn't you Kent? It's an unsolveable problem for you in that you know can't divorce yourself from your own activities or those of your fellows - you'll all lumped together, achieving nothing in a hate site. I could go on Kent, but I suspect you're incapable of absorbing anything but the smallest doses of reality. You will have noted that I anticipated being banned from your site and said so in at least two posts, you're very predictable Kent, incapable of walking into traps you set yourself, incapable of seeing that your closed up, only for hater's site, is visible for what it is to the outside world and that despite your claims you're not aligned with 30% of the population, although perhaps 30% may disagree with the verdict, the greater NZ population (including the 30%) don't agree with Jury's and the Justice system being attacked. Congratulations on the evidence you have provided so far and thanking you in anticipation of the more that will follow.
Nos
And the most recent, 18/7/10
Kent,
You'll recall we've discussed defamation before on Counterspin, rather one-sided argument. Because I didn't agree with your interpretation of what defamation is, you as big boss of Counterspin kicked me off the boards. I wonder how you feel about the subject now? I feel a little vindicated.
As you'd imagine I'm not writing to pass the time but to move onto something else you perhaps don't realise about being a publisher. What ever you publish on your boards may well be judged as a release of material into the mainstream media additionally to any other point where it is published. Currently defamatory material is being released from your site into the mainstream cyber space. My suggestion that because you have a number of issues on your plate already is that you don't disregard the harm this material going into cyber-space is causing. In some ways you're granny Herald Kent, whatever you display on your sites (I use the plural) similarly to any printed matter in the Herald, you are responsible for. The printed matter being released from Counterspin could be moving beyond defamation.
Using a strictly pragmatic view you could well be advised to shutup shop with your sites to stop further damage, and using that opportunity settle the matters you already have at hand. You were always a biased publisher Kent, which I'm sure you'd at least generally agree with. But I don't think you appreciated that being a publisher without rules, changing poster's posts and leaving them on line and ridiculing them on the board after they'd been banned for not agreeing with you, holding silent when people made threats against others on your board, or hatched plans to persecute or stalk others was all your own decision, some things happening with your consent and most often with your input. Anyway, that's how I see it Kent and I might well be wrong.
All the best with sorting things out in the best interests of everyone.
yours
etc
My Letter To Kalnovitch
From: nostalgia-nz
To: kalnovitch
Subject:
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:08:56 +1300
Hi Kal,
I see you are also member of the counterspin site and you posted your email address there for contact. Throughout the day there has been some activity over there and I wrote two letters to Kent Parker, I understand the letters are available, along with a few posts, I made there, to 'priviliged members' of that site. If you care to request them I understand Kent, camp mother, will forward them on. Should you decide to read them I guess you'll understand that among the stalkers and harassers I was mentioning to Kent was you, when you mentioned going to Wellington and wishing to meet up with people for a chat and cup of coffee. It's quite a site you have going there and I guess other members congratulate you on your performance but it really needs to be abandoned or tidied up because it has gone way over the line to the point where members consider they can act illegaly with impunity. It's frightening for the people you have targetted in this way Kal. It's all in the letter anyway and I hope you take the opportunity to read it. I don't think you had any ambition to begin harassing people in the beginning, but that's where it has ended, you need to take stock. It's one thing having strong opinions, but belonging to a hate site is hardly warranted and I suspect that wasn't your intention when you started out. My own opinion is that you've been drawn into something that is uncontrolable and I seriously doubt that anything of this sort has featured in your life before. I'm sure you'd agree that we must all respect the Law and the right for a person to have his guilt or innocence decided by a Jury, and not by the uninformed or bitter. Also the right for a person to express an opinion without an offer of someone coming to their city to have a cup of coffee with them. Is that really you Kal?
In the meantime all the best, lol and all that stuff that amuses you.
Nos.
Much was made of the above letter to Kalnovitch the, 'little gang' claimed a number of things about it until it was finally published on TM when most fell silent. When kalnovitch returned she made all sorts of claims about the letter again, that the above wasn't the letter, that the letter was to her daughter (whom, I had therefore stalked) and so on. Similarly, she went on attack to another outed poster on TM whose children Kalnovitch had named.
I don't know Kalnovitch at all. When she began posting it was very obvious she was a friend of golfergold (another, since banned, twice for stalking.) They were among the originals of the first hate-site formed David Bain Free Forums. Kalnovitch use to like to post body counts and predict what bodies would be doing in their graves. Each day she would make proclamations about her fight for the victims and very soon be on the attack against them, Laniet and Margaret in particular. In the beginning Kalnovitch use to ask people not to use bad language and so forth but slowly over time her manner of posting changed. Some have said she became 'nostified,' of course if she did that was her choice. But when the stalking and outing began I genuinely thought she would have known where to draw the line.
The fact that she didn't is a good illustration of what hate-sites and crusades of persecution can possibly do to average folk if they're not careful. Being full of righteous indignation for victims you may not have known, believing that God - or some God or degree of right was on your side, all lead to lack of objectivity and finally to a descent to a place lower that which you imagine your victims habitate. It's clear that some people need to be protected from themselves, that they're vulnerable to a 'grand mission or crusade for good' as hate-sites and their members provide.
In essence that is why I believe the Justice Department have been remiss in their duty to the public and to Justice. The Department should never have allowed public vilification of the Jury, David Bain and others. The van Beynan article should have resulted in legal proceedings because it attacked the judicial system, a Judge, members of the Bar, Court Staff, the Jury even witnesses. All of which set the tone, in my opinion for what has followed, defamatory harassment and cybermedia persecution of a number of people, some who simply did their duty to the Adminstration of Justice. My assertation on this raises another question, was their any self-interest for The Department to see the verdict and jury attacked? That option might worry me most of all, why didn't they act? Perhaps in the same way it has been reported that The Department (but only after a complaint by a juror) warned The Press, and van Beynan in particular it seems, to stay away from members of the ChCh jury after the trial because the Juror felt harassed and pressured.
To: kalnovitch
Subject:
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:08:56 +1300
Hi Kal,
I see you are also member of the counterspin site and you posted your email address there for contact. Throughout the day there has been some activity over there and I wrote two letters to Kent Parker, I understand the letters are available, along with a few posts, I made there, to 'priviliged members' of that site. If you care to request them I understand Kent, camp mother, will forward them on. Should you decide to read them I guess you'll understand that among the stalkers and harassers I was mentioning to Kent was you, when you mentioned going to Wellington and wishing to meet up with people for a chat and cup of coffee. It's quite a site you have going there and I guess other members congratulate you on your performance but it really needs to be abandoned or tidied up because it has gone way over the line to the point where members consider they can act illegaly with impunity. It's frightening for the people you have targetted in this way Kal. It's all in the letter anyway and I hope you take the opportunity to read it. I don't think you had any ambition to begin harassing people in the beginning, but that's where it has ended, you need to take stock. It's one thing having strong opinions, but belonging to a hate site is hardly warranted and I suspect that wasn't your intention when you started out. My own opinion is that you've been drawn into something that is uncontrolable and I seriously doubt that anything of this sort has featured in your life before. I'm sure you'd agree that we must all respect the Law and the right for a person to have his guilt or innocence decided by a Jury, and not by the uninformed or bitter. Also the right for a person to express an opinion without an offer of someone coming to their city to have a cup of coffee with them. Is that really you Kal?
In the meantime all the best, lol and all that stuff that amuses you.
Nos.
Much was made of the above letter to Kalnovitch the, 'little gang' claimed a number of things about it until it was finally published on TM when most fell silent. When kalnovitch returned she made all sorts of claims about the letter again, that the above wasn't the letter, that the letter was to her daughter (whom, I had therefore stalked) and so on. Similarly, she went on attack to another outed poster on TM whose children Kalnovitch had named.
I don't know Kalnovitch at all. When she began posting it was very obvious she was a friend of golfergold (another, since banned, twice for stalking.) They were among the originals of the first hate-site formed David Bain Free Forums. Kalnovitch use to like to post body counts and predict what bodies would be doing in their graves. Each day she would make proclamations about her fight for the victims and very soon be on the attack against them, Laniet and Margaret in particular. In the beginning Kalnovitch use to ask people not to use bad language and so forth but slowly over time her manner of posting changed. Some have said she became 'nostified,' of course if she did that was her choice. But when the stalking and outing began I genuinely thought she would have known where to draw the line.
The fact that she didn't is a good illustration of what hate-sites and crusades of persecution can possibly do to average folk if they're not careful. Being full of righteous indignation for victims you may not have known, believing that God - or some God or degree of right was on your side, all lead to lack of objectivity and finally to a descent to a place lower that which you imagine your victims habitate. It's clear that some people need to be protected from themselves, that they're vulnerable to a 'grand mission or crusade for good' as hate-sites and their members provide.
In essence that is why I believe the Justice Department have been remiss in their duty to the public and to Justice. The Department should never have allowed public vilification of the Jury, David Bain and others. The van Beynan article should have resulted in legal proceedings because it attacked the judicial system, a Judge, members of the Bar, Court Staff, the Jury even witnesses. All of which set the tone, in my opinion for what has followed, defamatory harassment and cybermedia persecution of a number of people, some who simply did their duty to the Adminstration of Justice. My assertation on this raises another question, was their any self-interest for The Department to see the verdict and jury attacked? That option might worry me most of all, why didn't they act? Perhaps in the same way it has been reported that The Department (but only after a complaint by a juror) warned The Press, and van Beynan in particular it seems, to stay away from members of the ChCh jury after the trial because the Juror felt harassed and pressured.
Reader Said...
Reader said...
You are, of course, right. There is a need for the law to get on top of the misuse of cyberspace fora for harassment, defamation and similar issues such as the exposing of the identities of people with name suppression, publication of suppressed evidence and so-on. Agencies that fail to act against such things are in effect condoning and even encouraging such behaviour. It is prohibited in other media, so why should this one be exempt?
There appears to be a certain smug naivete among those behaving in this way. An apparent belief that if they were doing anything wrong they would be stopped: a dependence on authorities to control rather than exerting some self-control. Petty 'gangs' of petty bullies, egging each other on. Time it was stopped.
I've chosen this as a good general example of highlighting some misuses of cyber-space.
In respect of name suppression, I was recently told that the Courts were taking a continuing interest in breaches of name suppression. In my opinion for good reason, because as with 'cyber-trials' conducted on the net, the breach of name suppression usurps due process. When due process is undermined there is a real threat to Justice and a broader threat to society generally. Without due process, everyone can become a lawyer, Judge or Jury, by 'correcting' in cyber-space decisions they are not happy with.
Due process, is a friendly beast, it allows for all aspects of the law and the application of the law to be scrutinised for the safety of all citizens. The denial of due process is the denial of freedom and individuality. When a cyber-cowboy or stalker breaches name suppression orders, or breaches conduct codes and rules of message boards by outing people who have entrusted to the board owner a confidence that their identity and details are to remain anonymous it is a cowardly and criminal act.
Above reader makes specific comment about agencies allowing such breaches to happen are 'condoning and even encouraging such behaviour' by 'failing to act.' I can't see any other interpretation that suitably explains the behaviour of such agencies. They're acting recklessly and with little regard for the law. It's of no small moment to me that I warned TM (as an agency) that their boards were being over run by hate sites, who were in fact posting links to their hate sites and propoganda at will and TM failed to act, consequently they're now being sued, not necessarily as the result of my complaint, but because of being an agency that failed to act on published material that included defamation, breaches of suppression orders and evidence of stalking.
To repeat again from above:
'There appears to be a certain smug naivete among those behaving in this way. An apparent belief that if they were doing anything wrong they would be stopped: a dependence on authorities to control rather than exerting some self-control. Petty 'gangs' of petty bullies, egging each other on. Time it was stopped.'
You are, of course, right. There is a need for the law to get on top of the misuse of cyberspace fora for harassment, defamation and similar issues such as the exposing of the identities of people with name suppression, publication of suppressed evidence and so-on. Agencies that fail to act against such things are in effect condoning and even encouraging such behaviour. It is prohibited in other media, so why should this one be exempt?
There appears to be a certain smug naivete among those behaving in this way. An apparent belief that if they were doing anything wrong they would be stopped: a dependence on authorities to control rather than exerting some self-control. Petty 'gangs' of petty bullies, egging each other on. Time it was stopped.
I've chosen this as a good general example of highlighting some misuses of cyber-space.
In respect of name suppression, I was recently told that the Courts were taking a continuing interest in breaches of name suppression. In my opinion for good reason, because as with 'cyber-trials' conducted on the net, the breach of name suppression usurps due process. When due process is undermined there is a real threat to Justice and a broader threat to society generally. Without due process, everyone can become a lawyer, Judge or Jury, by 'correcting' in cyber-space decisions they are not happy with.
Due process, is a friendly beast, it allows for all aspects of the law and the application of the law to be scrutinised for the safety of all citizens. The denial of due process is the denial of freedom and individuality. When a cyber-cowboy or stalker breaches name suppression orders, or breaches conduct codes and rules of message boards by outing people who have entrusted to the board owner a confidence that their identity and details are to remain anonymous it is a cowardly and criminal act.
Above reader makes specific comment about agencies allowing such breaches to happen are 'condoning and even encouraging such behaviour' by 'failing to act.' I can't see any other interpretation that suitably explains the behaviour of such agencies. They're acting recklessly and with little regard for the law. It's of no small moment to me that I warned TM (as an agency) that their boards were being over run by hate sites, who were in fact posting links to their hate sites and propoganda at will and TM failed to act, consequently they're now being sued, not necessarily as the result of my complaint, but because of being an agency that failed to act on published material that included defamation, breaches of suppression orders and evidence of stalking.
To repeat again from above:
'There appears to be a certain smug naivete among those behaving in this way. An apparent belief that if they were doing anything wrong they would be stopped: a dependence on authorities to control rather than exerting some self-control. Petty 'gangs' of petty bullies, egging each other on. Time it was stopped.'
Friday, July 30, 2010
The Truth Stripped Bare by GNG.
Nos should get some help with his blog titles. Sounds like he's running a shady hotel or an editorial column about a comic strip. I don't mind strippers, particularly those that off with their clothes. Sometimes I think about that, strippers taking off their clothes, or a stripper putting clothes on because the money wasn't right or the blog title wasn't up to scratch.
When you think about it the whole world is a bunch of strippers taking their clothes on and off: and that would have been a better title than nos ever thought. The poor chap, he wants to sue everyone. He'd sue the whole bloody lot of them and sweep them under the mat, just for fun. Well, he wasn't the one that thought of it. I thought of it myself but nos reckons he did so there are some ownership problems going on that have resulted in my pen being dna tested for proof of pregnancy.
But make up your own mind surely. Surely, surely, surely the sun's not shining just because my pen is pregnant with words that are not blasphemous and nos is offended by that, the poor chap. He thinks that just because others are getting sued it's favouritism. Nos is spewing because no one will sue him. He thinks it's unfair that campy mother and vicky pal are getting sued but that no one has sued nos. So he's trying to make all sorts of reasons to sue everyone in nz to put things back on track.
I'm not saying anything about nos that a drunk psychiatrist wouldn't know - that nos gets all his information from me. He thinks just because he heard or read something that it belongs to him. He's a bloody plagiariser and watch out for the cat on the back step o'sookey.
I'm joking about all this of course. Really, as nos said I am off on a mission, one which doesn't require a disguise because it is searching records to find the co-relation of the number of hang-bainers that have been banned from TM for stalking and who may also have direct or indirect links to the hate-sites. To this point the number percentage wise is over 75%. A figure which you'll no doubt agree is very high and definitely a cyber space footprint that shows the exploitation of Trade Me by the hate-sites and its connection to ongoing defamatory harassment of David and others. It shows an orchestrated and deliberate intention to spread hate by the dissemination of prejudicial lies and it is traceable.
When you think about it the whole world is a bunch of strippers taking their clothes on and off: and that would have been a better title than nos ever thought. The poor chap, he wants to sue everyone. He'd sue the whole bloody lot of them and sweep them under the mat, just for fun. Well, he wasn't the one that thought of it. I thought of it myself but nos reckons he did so there are some ownership problems going on that have resulted in my pen being dna tested for proof of pregnancy.
But make up your own mind surely. Surely, surely, surely the sun's not shining just because my pen is pregnant with words that are not blasphemous and nos is offended by that, the poor chap. He thinks that just because others are getting sued it's favouritism. Nos is spewing because no one will sue him. He thinks it's unfair that campy mother and vicky pal are getting sued but that no one has sued nos. So he's trying to make all sorts of reasons to sue everyone in nz to put things back on track.
I'm not saying anything about nos that a drunk psychiatrist wouldn't know - that nos gets all his information from me. He thinks just because he heard or read something that it belongs to him. He's a bloody plagiariser and watch out for the cat on the back step o'sookey.
I'm joking about all this of course. Really, as nos said I am off on a mission, one which doesn't require a disguise because it is searching records to find the co-relation of the number of hang-bainers that have been banned from TM for stalking and who may also have direct or indirect links to the hate-sites. To this point the number percentage wise is over 75%. A figure which you'll no doubt agree is very high and definitely a cyber space footprint that shows the exploitation of Trade Me by the hate-sites and its connection to ongoing defamatory harassment of David and others. It shows an orchestrated and deliberate intention to spread hate by the dissemination of prejudicial lies and it is traceable.
Defamatory Harassment
Earlier I briefly touched upon what I called a new phenomenon 'defamatory harassment.' I also mentioned the Harassment Act 1997. The Bain case reached an interesting point much earlier when harassers and defamers of Bain were in full rein on a number of sites. That continued even after Joe Karam's law suit was filed in The Auckland High Court. I noted comment abroad that David wouldn't sue because it would 'open' him up to cross-examination. This revelation drove the rate of defamation against the man for some time, attended by a type of joy and self-satisfaction for the hate-siters and their allies. It is something I would like to examine but before doing so I raise the question of what is the 'value' of an acquittal.
In my opinion the value of an acquittal is the ultimate proclamation of innocence, it is the complete an utter test of guilt or innocence. While it assumes that all admissible and relevant evidence has been placed before a Jury it allows a Jury of various backgrounds and experience to arrive at a decision based on the facts. No one apart from the Jury know how they decided on the merits of facts, and in some cases any Juror may not necessarily know why other members reached a particular decision of the facts. The legal systems has for a day a week or a month proceeded in the time honoured fashion of presenting evidence to the Jury, following which the Judge has instructed the Jury on the law relating to that evidence, until finally the Jury are asked to apply their common sense, experience and knowledge to decide the merits of the facts and whether an accused is guilty or not.
Courts will seldom interfere with Jury decisions, most orders for a retrail rely on the Judge not having explained the Law fully, or in some other way not properly instructing the Jury. In rare cases it is because of new or with held evidence. Ultimately David has the value of an acquittal, a sacrosanct value by old law and legal definition, something I believe the Law was originally designed to prevent fear or favour finding it's place in the administration of Justice. For hundreds of years the law has rested on that point - the value of a properly instructed and informed Jury deciding guilt or innocence, a precept that properly doesn't allow any investigation of that decision. A common law value of being judged by ones peers.
So who is this person that calls David a killer or murderer, or psychopath? Who is this person that enters an opinion of a deliberation or investigation of matters of which he or she were never involved, never having heard all the evidence, and never taking part in the deliberations of a Jury sworn, and under oath to do a job on behalf of the citizens of an entire country. He is a defamer. Who is this person who continues to defame David in the 'belief' that David can't or is unable to do anything. He is a cowardly defamer. Who is this person that spreads lies, misrepresents the evidence, makes claims of confessions, sexual misconduct et al, he is a cowardly defamer who lies. Who is this person that continues his comment ad infinitum? He is defamatory harraser to whom every part of the legal system has in his myopic site been seen to have failed, and all the individuals that took part in that 'failure' are to be equally condemned or defamed.
What of this defaming harasser, smugly sitting in a position of power, able to say what he/she likes without consequence? Sue him I say. Sue him for defamatory harassment. Sue him on the basis that his or her comments that David is any number of things are unproveable in law. Sue him and cite the continued harassment as proof that the 'defendant' yes, he has become a defendant (just like Kenty boy, Vic and any posters kent, Vic or Trade Me might enjoin.) Was has David to prove, not the defamation because that is a given - supported by an acquittal as the ultimate test in law of guilt and innocence as an enshrined centuries old right that speaks for itself and for David by its verdict under oath, only the harassment needs to be proved. Where is the proof of that, recorded in many thousands of cases, stored also in private files and provider files all of which note the harassment.
Does David need to speak. No, unless he wishes. Because he has the facts (yes, facts again - the domain of the Jury.) The fact he was held for 13 years under an actual Miscarriage of Justice, the additional fact that a fully informed and instructed Jury gave their verdict of not guilty. He need prove no more than the facts and chose whether or not to give evidence on facts which speak for themselves loudly as defamatory harassment. Ah, says a hate-siter persecutor, but I will call him to give evidence because I 'know' that David is guilty and I just need to conduct a fresh trial. But sorry Ralph, Bligh, the only trial would be your own. If David took the stand he would only need to give evidence regarding the issue before The Court and not to face further harassment as laid out in his Statement of Claim. But by then Ralph, Bligh, Kalnovitch et al your false 'courage and committment' will be spent because like all true cyber-stalkers and harassers the light of day will have defeated you.
In my opinion the value of an acquittal is the ultimate proclamation of innocence, it is the complete an utter test of guilt or innocence. While it assumes that all admissible and relevant evidence has been placed before a Jury it allows a Jury of various backgrounds and experience to arrive at a decision based on the facts. No one apart from the Jury know how they decided on the merits of facts, and in some cases any Juror may not necessarily know why other members reached a particular decision of the facts. The legal systems has for a day a week or a month proceeded in the time honoured fashion of presenting evidence to the Jury, following which the Judge has instructed the Jury on the law relating to that evidence, until finally the Jury are asked to apply their common sense, experience and knowledge to decide the merits of the facts and whether an accused is guilty or not.
Courts will seldom interfere with Jury decisions, most orders for a retrail rely on the Judge not having explained the Law fully, or in some other way not properly instructing the Jury. In rare cases it is because of new or with held evidence. Ultimately David has the value of an acquittal, a sacrosanct value by old law and legal definition, something I believe the Law was originally designed to prevent fear or favour finding it's place in the administration of Justice. For hundreds of years the law has rested on that point - the value of a properly instructed and informed Jury deciding guilt or innocence, a precept that properly doesn't allow any investigation of that decision. A common law value of being judged by ones peers.
So who is this person that calls David a killer or murderer, or psychopath? Who is this person that enters an opinion of a deliberation or investigation of matters of which he or she were never involved, never having heard all the evidence, and never taking part in the deliberations of a Jury sworn, and under oath to do a job on behalf of the citizens of an entire country. He is a defamer. Who is this person who continues to defame David in the 'belief' that David can't or is unable to do anything. He is a cowardly defamer. Who is this person that spreads lies, misrepresents the evidence, makes claims of confessions, sexual misconduct et al, he is a cowardly defamer who lies. Who is this person that continues his comment ad infinitum? He is defamatory harraser to whom every part of the legal system has in his myopic site been seen to have failed, and all the individuals that took part in that 'failure' are to be equally condemned or defamed.
What of this defaming harasser, smugly sitting in a position of power, able to say what he/she likes without consequence? Sue him I say. Sue him for defamatory harassment. Sue him on the basis that his or her comments that David is any number of things are unproveable in law. Sue him and cite the continued harassment as proof that the 'defendant' yes, he has become a defendant (just like Kenty boy, Vic and any posters kent, Vic or Trade Me might enjoin.) Was has David to prove, not the defamation because that is a given - supported by an acquittal as the ultimate test in law of guilt and innocence as an enshrined centuries old right that speaks for itself and for David by its verdict under oath, only the harassment needs to be proved. Where is the proof of that, recorded in many thousands of cases, stored also in private files and provider files all of which note the harassment.
Does David need to speak. No, unless he wishes. Because he has the facts (yes, facts again - the domain of the Jury.) The fact he was held for 13 years under an actual Miscarriage of Justice, the additional fact that a fully informed and instructed Jury gave their verdict of not guilty. He need prove no more than the facts and chose whether or not to give evidence on facts which speak for themselves loudly as defamatory harassment. Ah, says a hate-siter persecutor, but I will call him to give evidence because I 'know' that David is guilty and I just need to conduct a fresh trial. But sorry Ralph, Bligh, the only trial would be your own. If David took the stand he would only need to give evidence regarding the issue before The Court and not to face further harassment as laid out in his Statement of Claim. But by then Ralph, Bligh, Kalnovitch et al your false 'courage and committment' will be spent because like all true cyber-stalkers and harassers the light of day will have defeated you.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Fateful News for Message Boarders.
I ignored the temptation to call this 'Good News for Message Boarders' as a dig at GNG who seems to have gone rather quiet again. I haven't banned him as some may suspect. He's actually been on a mission the details of which I cannot disclose. But I am able to offer good second hand, third account, fresh off the cyberpress rumour mill disclosures that fateful, if predictable, news has come through that some nervous space boarders were dreading.
It is rumoured, alleged, whispered that Trade Me have sought a motion for an order allowing them to enjoin individually named posters as co-defendants in the suit brought by Joe Karam. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - gosh. If such a highly logical situation were true then TM's potential defence is transparently twofold. Firstly they are not the publisher, but rather the vehicle for the actual publisher (the message boarders) and two, if there is any liability it is the boarder's and not the host who is merely operating a message board type service, similar to a rugby's club's cork board. A further way it could be looked at (the defence that is) is that it was to mitigate or spread responsibility for damages. If that is the case the dear message boarders who thought they could defame to their heart's content, and who applauded TM's fight for 'free speech' now find themselves up a creek somewhat. And a lonely creek it is with twists and turns and no place to be naked or in a flimsy night dress.
How quaintly charming that the boarders must have seen the world of commerce as only having a role to help out poor, misguided boarders who got in a feeding frenzy, spat the dummy and powerful load of defamatory verbiage. To imagine that TM were not in business, and not in the business of protecting themselves (and their money) from a big law suit payout but instead were there to protect dear Mrytle venting her spleen in the big space outside, now might finally reside in the restless minds of the chattering, twisted ones of the cybercourt. But who will they blame? I'm sure anybody will do, finally it will be one another and it will be every man and twisted sister for themself. There'll be money to be made on highspeed wheelchairs.
But I'm only teasing of course because I don't think TM's defence, that they're not a publisher, will hold. The bad news however is that once enjoined (if it happens, should it happen) there is no guarantee that an argument mitigating or limiting TM liability won't see some of the liability found against the individual posters from whose poison pens the offending language originated.
Lots of interesting law ahead with this defamation exercise. I understand camp mother Kenty boy (has a sort of endearing ring to it, that name) and his erstwhile sidekick 'Victor - I'll be back in 5 minutes, I promise, and please start without me,' are now adrift with their case, flying solo and unable to attach to the much hoped for deep pockets of mother lode ship TM. How sad. What a picture of loneliness, Kent waiting for old Vic to never come back like he promised, leaving campmother holding the can, well, handcuffed to it actually. And equally, so we might see some boarders reluctantly holding the can for the written words that spilt from mouths, which they have so valiantly since, tried to disown. Oh heck. How did it happen?
It is rumoured, alleged, whispered that Trade Me have sought a motion for an order allowing them to enjoin individually named posters as co-defendants in the suit brought by Joe Karam. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear - gosh. If such a highly logical situation were true then TM's potential defence is transparently twofold. Firstly they are not the publisher, but rather the vehicle for the actual publisher (the message boarders) and two, if there is any liability it is the boarder's and not the host who is merely operating a message board type service, similar to a rugby's club's cork board. A further way it could be looked at (the defence that is) is that it was to mitigate or spread responsibility for damages. If that is the case the dear message boarders who thought they could defame to their heart's content, and who applauded TM's fight for 'free speech' now find themselves up a creek somewhat. And a lonely creek it is with twists and turns and no place to be naked or in a flimsy night dress.
How quaintly charming that the boarders must have seen the world of commerce as only having a role to help out poor, misguided boarders who got in a feeding frenzy, spat the dummy and powerful load of defamatory verbiage. To imagine that TM were not in business, and not in the business of protecting themselves (and their money) from a big law suit payout but instead were there to protect dear Mrytle venting her spleen in the big space outside, now might finally reside in the restless minds of the chattering, twisted ones of the cybercourt. But who will they blame? I'm sure anybody will do, finally it will be one another and it will be every man and twisted sister for themself. There'll be money to be made on highspeed wheelchairs.
But I'm only teasing of course because I don't think TM's defence, that they're not a publisher, will hold. The bad news however is that once enjoined (if it happens, should it happen) there is no guarantee that an argument mitigating or limiting TM liability won't see some of the liability found against the individual posters from whose poison pens the offending language originated.
Lots of interesting law ahead with this defamation exercise. I understand camp mother Kenty boy (has a sort of endearing ring to it, that name) and his erstwhile sidekick 'Victor - I'll be back in 5 minutes, I promise, and please start without me,' are now adrift with their case, flying solo and unable to attach to the much hoped for deep pockets of mother lode ship TM. How sad. What a picture of loneliness, Kent waiting for old Vic to never come back like he promised, leaving campmother holding the can, well, handcuffed to it actually. And equally, so we might see some boarders reluctantly holding the can for the written words that spilt from mouths, which they have so valiantly since, tried to disown. Oh heck. How did it happen?
Myth Making
Complaint about Bain article by Martin van Beynen, June 20, 2009
Thank you for replying to my complaint. I respond as follows:
1) you said: Martin van Beynen’s article on the outcome of the trial of David Bain was, as it was clearly labelled, one man’s view of the verdict, based on having conducted considerable research into the background of the case and having sat through almost all of the trial.
It was, in other words, van Beynen’s opinion based on a solid foundation of observation and fact. There is nothing to the complaint you have made and certainly no breach of any Press Council or other journalistic principle.
--I accept that the article by van Beynan was labelled as opinion. However, whether it was merely an opinion is doubtful, and if it truly was an opinion ought not to have been published without substantial explanation given to the 'other' side, being the defence or in fact the interests of the Jury. Not least as those being most likely harmed by the article.
It is my understanding that one “journalistic principle” is to provide a balanced view. This article failed to provide that balance. It is one thing to summarise evidence favourable to van Beynan's view and ignore evidence which is not, but most notably the assumption that any person reading the article would know the evidence generally is a dangerous precedent. Probably many thousands read the article and assumed it was a complete assessment of the evidence when it is clearly not.
2) you said: It appears that the substance of your complaint is that you dislike what van Beynen saw occurring in the courtroom and disagreed with the conclusions he drew about it. Van Beynen obviously raised questions about the verdict and about the jury’s conduct, but in doing so he was accurately reporting what he saw and heard, and recording his own opinions on it, as he was wholly entitled to do.
--You rightly note that I 'dislike’ what van Beynan said he saw, and my reason is because it is an uncorroborated claim, harmful to all involved. You say he accurately reported what he saw, but I repeat there is no proof of what he claims he saw contained in his article. He simply may have misinterpreted normal things for his own reasons or mistakenly.
3) you said: It was not, of course, incumbent on him to do anything about what he saw – it was all in plain view of the judge and court officials who could see it for themselves. In any event, the fact that he did not report it to anyone does not detract from the fact that he has accurately reported what occurred. No-one apart from you has questioned the accuracy of van Beynen’s account.
--I note that your response does not touch upon the source of van Beynan's claim that he received second hand information from another member of the press about the apparent comprehension abilities of one member of the jury. Of course if were true, that he did have such information, and had researched it to a reasonable level, it may have been something he could or should have brought to the authorities attention. Because he didn't, along with his 'observations' of the jury it renders his judgement and credibility questionable, something that would have best been placed under a disclaimer that no information that van Beynan printed was corroborated by any official of the trial.
Regardless, even if the rumour about the single member of the jury were true, van Beynan ought properly, short of naming that Jury member (obviously then becoming a Contempt of Court issue or worse) not to have mentioned the matter at all because the damage to the credibility of all the jury members.
van Beynan did not disclose anywhere in his article that his claims about the jury were not corroborated nor indeed supported by the administrators of the trial. To have done so would have been more balanced for any reader reading the claims about the jury, as would (as I have said in my earlier letter) an observation that juries do converse with one another (it's part of their job,) pass on information and may share jokes or disquiet.
4) you said: The article did not attack the defence’s right to make applications to seek orders for the dismissal of the case before trial. It merely pointed out that comments by a Bain supporter that he was always confident that a jury would acquit were at odds with the several attempts the defence made to try to prevent a jury hearing the matter.
--If this is the case, then van Beynan ought to have balanced his opinion by mentioning what the applications were, to give any reader a balanced picture rather than the one-sided implication contained in his article. A good example to have provided balance might have been the application decided on March 2nd 2009 where the COA appeal noted that some prosecution evidence had been obtained through illicit means.
If all the information regarding the various applications was unavailable to van Beynan, that alone should have prevented him making uninformed comment on matters which, as mentioned by him, were likely to cause disquiet and be poorly founded. If van Beynan had made mention of the visit by a detective to Victoria as described in the Judgement the March 2nd 2009 many readers may have been very concerned that due process had been ignored since the Privy Council decision. One might assume such information would have negated the single view van Beynan apparently intended to advance.
5) you said: I reject your allegation that the article was unbalanced in its presentation of the evidence. Van Beynen summed up a very long trial meticulously, putting the cases both for and against Bain succinctly but fairly.
--In my original complaint to you I noted that van Beynan did not offer the defence's case in any of the 'critical' pieces that apparently confirmed van Beynan's view. Your letter reconfirms this but does not point out where in van Beynan's article 'summed [it] up…meticulously, [and] fairly'. You use the words, but there is no evidence of that in the article. I would stress that van Beynan's suggestions about what various other juries may have made of the evidence is emotive guesswork and as such is unsupportable.
To provide specific examples:
· 'Bain won the lottery.' How is that be a carefully researched opinion? On the contrary, it is an emotive drawing of a poor comparison.
· 'What is a little surprising is not a single person out of the 12 in this, Bain's second Jury, was prepared to argue strongly for a guilty verdict with such a [damning] case in front of them.' The adjective 'damning' serves only to emphasise the bias in van Beynan’s opinion. Clearly the Jury didn't think the evidence was 'damning' and reached a decision. That is their domain, not that of a reporter in haste to conduct his own trial in the media.
· 'The fact is that Bain defence team did everything it could to prevent the case going to the jury and, when it was, it tried to prevent the jury giving a verdict.' This comment obviously lacks balance: a reader is left unable to judge the details of those various applications and form their own opinions of the merits of them. I note again, for example, the issue above of the evidence apparently being gathered on the pretence of a non-existent court order.
· 'I doubt whether Bain will apply for compensation because he must be aware, even if his legal team is not, that he is extremely lucky to get the verdict he did.' This is mind reading and has no place in journalism: van Beynan cannot claim to know what another person is thinking. Moreover it carries a clear and unequivocal implication that Bain ‘got away with murder’.
· 'At least half of NZ now believes he murdered his family, whereas before they might have been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.' I have all the published poll results, including those when the 'secret evidence' was revealed and none reflect this claim. Is this a spurious claim? If not, what was his source?
· 'Bain's clear and recent fingerprints on the murder rifle' van Beynan omitted to mention the evidence also given that the fingerprints were not 'clear and recent', nor in a firing position. Again this is neither a balanced or well-researched view.
· 'The bruises on his face and torso.' There were no bruises found on David Bain's torso on the morning of the murders/suicide. Balance would have mentioned that fact.
· 'no use to anyone else.' Here van Beynan is referring to the glasses. If he had left the word 'else' out it would have conveyed the true picture that the glasses were of no use to anyone, including David Bain, because they had no lens at all. In addition, the evidence about the glasses was so questionable that ‘balance’ would require at least some recognition of that ambiguity.
· 'We know this by the amount and quality of urine in his bladder.' This contradicts the pathology expert testimony - again, lacks balance.
· 'and then got up around 5.50am' This in respect of Robin Bain, whereas in fact there is no evidence of what time he got up or if he'd even slept.
· 'belying a frame that was described as cadavarous' Speaking here of Robin Bain, this is misrepresenting comment rendered by a professional who knew Robin. The ‘cadaver’ description was in fact of Robin’s emotional state, not his ‘frame’. If your reporter misreports to this extent, how can you claim his view was balanced or well-researched?
· 'but no underpants' This relates to the clothes worn by Robin when found dead, if somehow the fact that Robin wore no underpants is evidence against David we are beset by a disaster, this accepted fact is preceded by 'To meet his maker' and goes on to list what Robin was wearing, surely rather that proving anything against David it merely shows the haste and disarray Robin was in that morning. Objectively, it is evidence helpful to David but van Beynan turns it against him without a thought.
--The above are points which van Beynan, to use your own words, did not 'put the cases both for and against Bain succinctly.' In fact van Beynan is wholly silent on every point as to what the defence or its witnesses or even the Judge said in summing up. There are many other examples, but these make the point soundly. Importantly, van Beynan also totally ignored that blood was found inside the rifle when examined by Guersin - one of the most significant points indicating David Bain's innocence.
6) you said: It is regrettable if websites have used The Press’s article to generate hate but The Press has no control over those sites and you should complain to them.
--Your observation that the it is regrettable if websites had used The Press's article to generate hate is correct. I also accept that The Press have no control over them. However, it is as the source of the misinformation that they wave to justify themselves that is my concern in having written to you, and for the reasons pointed out above. A lot of harm has resulted from this one-sided, unbalanced, opinion hastily brought to Press. While I may well formally complain to the Press Council, I feel it is important to respond to what I think has been a short of the mark return to me.
Yours sincerely,
---------------------------------
Bloggers Note:
The foregoing is correspondence with the Editor of The Press. This was written prior to both the events of Joe Karam suing the hate-site personnel, and the news that van Beynan had been warned off further contact with any Jury member by The Ministry of Justice. It is also noteworthy that despite van Beynan's feelings about what David Bain might not do about compensation, we now all know that that the definition of an application/settlement of some sort is being considered with advice given by Lawyers from the Minister's Department.
Some might agree with my opinion, and to my knowledge, that attacks on the Jury, witnesses, a Trial Judge and counsel are unprecendented in NZ history. My own opinion is that the article of van Beynan is probably Contempt of Court in that he maintains that the Judge was unaware of what was 'really' happening in his own Court where as a paper-back writer saw and understood all, even things he did not attend (such as discussions in chambers) nor read about. More significantly, the 'article/opinion' piece and van Beynan's apparent contact with hate-site members (see Kent Parker's posts on Counterspin and Facebook - if you can get in!) leads to an irresistable inference that van Beynan's piece only sought to sensationalise events which had simple explanations for which van Beynan found (or what it pre-orchestrated) a beying pack on hate-sites ready to disseminate his 'thoughtful work.' Perhaps, one may assume, that in the fullness of time the van Beynan article/opinion might be held up for students of the media as a regulatory piece of one-sided nonsense more notable for what it didn't disclose and its lack of insight.
Thank you for replying to my complaint. I respond as follows:
1) you said: Martin van Beynen’s article on the outcome of the trial of David Bain was, as it was clearly labelled, one man’s view of the verdict, based on having conducted considerable research into the background of the case and having sat through almost all of the trial.
It was, in other words, van Beynen’s opinion based on a solid foundation of observation and fact. There is nothing to the complaint you have made and certainly no breach of any Press Council or other journalistic principle.
--I accept that the article by van Beynan was labelled as opinion. However, whether it was merely an opinion is doubtful, and if it truly was an opinion ought not to have been published without substantial explanation given to the 'other' side, being the defence or in fact the interests of the Jury. Not least as those being most likely harmed by the article.
It is my understanding that one “journalistic principle” is to provide a balanced view. This article failed to provide that balance. It is one thing to summarise evidence favourable to van Beynan's view and ignore evidence which is not, but most notably the assumption that any person reading the article would know the evidence generally is a dangerous precedent. Probably many thousands read the article and assumed it was a complete assessment of the evidence when it is clearly not.
2) you said: It appears that the substance of your complaint is that you dislike what van Beynen saw occurring in the courtroom and disagreed with the conclusions he drew about it. Van Beynen obviously raised questions about the verdict and about the jury’s conduct, but in doing so he was accurately reporting what he saw and heard, and recording his own opinions on it, as he was wholly entitled to do.
--You rightly note that I 'dislike’ what van Beynan said he saw, and my reason is because it is an uncorroborated claim, harmful to all involved. You say he accurately reported what he saw, but I repeat there is no proof of what he claims he saw contained in his article. He simply may have misinterpreted normal things for his own reasons or mistakenly.
3) you said: It was not, of course, incumbent on him to do anything about what he saw – it was all in plain view of the judge and court officials who could see it for themselves. In any event, the fact that he did not report it to anyone does not detract from the fact that he has accurately reported what occurred. No-one apart from you has questioned the accuracy of van Beynen’s account.
--I note that your response does not touch upon the source of van Beynan's claim that he received second hand information from another member of the press about the apparent comprehension abilities of one member of the jury. Of course if were true, that he did have such information, and had researched it to a reasonable level, it may have been something he could or should have brought to the authorities attention. Because he didn't, along with his 'observations' of the jury it renders his judgement and credibility questionable, something that would have best been placed under a disclaimer that no information that van Beynan printed was corroborated by any official of the trial.
Regardless, even if the rumour about the single member of the jury were true, van Beynan ought properly, short of naming that Jury member (obviously then becoming a Contempt of Court issue or worse) not to have mentioned the matter at all because the damage to the credibility of all the jury members.
van Beynan did not disclose anywhere in his article that his claims about the jury were not corroborated nor indeed supported by the administrators of the trial. To have done so would have been more balanced for any reader reading the claims about the jury, as would (as I have said in my earlier letter) an observation that juries do converse with one another (it's part of their job,) pass on information and may share jokes or disquiet.
4) you said: The article did not attack the defence’s right to make applications to seek orders for the dismissal of the case before trial. It merely pointed out that comments by a Bain supporter that he was always confident that a jury would acquit were at odds with the several attempts the defence made to try to prevent a jury hearing the matter.
--If this is the case, then van Beynan ought to have balanced his opinion by mentioning what the applications were, to give any reader a balanced picture rather than the one-sided implication contained in his article. A good example to have provided balance might have been the application decided on March 2nd 2009 where the COA appeal noted that some prosecution evidence had been obtained through illicit means.
If all the information regarding the various applications was unavailable to van Beynan, that alone should have prevented him making uninformed comment on matters which, as mentioned by him, were likely to cause disquiet and be poorly founded. If van Beynan had made mention of the visit by a detective to Victoria as described in the Judgement the March 2nd 2009 many readers may have been very concerned that due process had been ignored since the Privy Council decision. One might assume such information would have negated the single view van Beynan apparently intended to advance.
5) you said: I reject your allegation that the article was unbalanced in its presentation of the evidence. Van Beynen summed up a very long trial meticulously, putting the cases both for and against Bain succinctly but fairly.
--In my original complaint to you I noted that van Beynan did not offer the defence's case in any of the 'critical' pieces that apparently confirmed van Beynan's view. Your letter reconfirms this but does not point out where in van Beynan's article 'summed [it] up…meticulously, [and] fairly'. You use the words, but there is no evidence of that in the article. I would stress that van Beynan's suggestions about what various other juries may have made of the evidence is emotive guesswork and as such is unsupportable.
To provide specific examples:
· 'Bain won the lottery.' How is that be a carefully researched opinion? On the contrary, it is an emotive drawing of a poor comparison.
· 'What is a little surprising is not a single person out of the 12 in this, Bain's second Jury, was prepared to argue strongly for a guilty verdict with such a [damning] case in front of them.' The adjective 'damning' serves only to emphasise the bias in van Beynan’s opinion. Clearly the Jury didn't think the evidence was 'damning' and reached a decision. That is their domain, not that of a reporter in haste to conduct his own trial in the media.
· 'The fact is that Bain defence team did everything it could to prevent the case going to the jury and, when it was, it tried to prevent the jury giving a verdict.' This comment obviously lacks balance: a reader is left unable to judge the details of those various applications and form their own opinions of the merits of them. I note again, for example, the issue above of the evidence apparently being gathered on the pretence of a non-existent court order.
· 'I doubt whether Bain will apply for compensation because he must be aware, even if his legal team is not, that he is extremely lucky to get the verdict he did.' This is mind reading and has no place in journalism: van Beynan cannot claim to know what another person is thinking. Moreover it carries a clear and unequivocal implication that Bain ‘got away with murder’.
· 'At least half of NZ now believes he murdered his family, whereas before they might have been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.' I have all the published poll results, including those when the 'secret evidence' was revealed and none reflect this claim. Is this a spurious claim? If not, what was his source?
· 'Bain's clear and recent fingerprints on the murder rifle' van Beynan omitted to mention the evidence also given that the fingerprints were not 'clear and recent', nor in a firing position. Again this is neither a balanced or well-researched view.
· 'The bruises on his face and torso.' There were no bruises found on David Bain's torso on the morning of the murders/suicide. Balance would have mentioned that fact.
· 'no use to anyone else.' Here van Beynan is referring to the glasses. If he had left the word 'else' out it would have conveyed the true picture that the glasses were of no use to anyone, including David Bain, because they had no lens at all. In addition, the evidence about the glasses was so questionable that ‘balance’ would require at least some recognition of that ambiguity.
· 'We know this by the amount and quality of urine in his bladder.' This contradicts the pathology expert testimony - again, lacks balance.
· 'and then got up around 5.50am' This in respect of Robin Bain, whereas in fact there is no evidence of what time he got up or if he'd even slept.
· 'belying a frame that was described as cadavarous' Speaking here of Robin Bain, this is misrepresenting comment rendered by a professional who knew Robin. The ‘cadaver’ description was in fact of Robin’s emotional state, not his ‘frame’. If your reporter misreports to this extent, how can you claim his view was balanced or well-researched?
· 'but no underpants' This relates to the clothes worn by Robin when found dead, if somehow the fact that Robin wore no underpants is evidence against David we are beset by a disaster, this accepted fact is preceded by 'To meet his maker' and goes on to list what Robin was wearing, surely rather that proving anything against David it merely shows the haste and disarray Robin was in that morning. Objectively, it is evidence helpful to David but van Beynan turns it against him without a thought.
--The above are points which van Beynan, to use your own words, did not 'put the cases both for and against Bain succinctly.' In fact van Beynan is wholly silent on every point as to what the defence or its witnesses or even the Judge said in summing up. There are many other examples, but these make the point soundly. Importantly, van Beynan also totally ignored that blood was found inside the rifle when examined by Guersin - one of the most significant points indicating David Bain's innocence.
6) you said: It is regrettable if websites have used The Press’s article to generate hate but The Press has no control over those sites and you should complain to them.
--Your observation that the it is regrettable if websites had used The Press's article to generate hate is correct. I also accept that The Press have no control over them. However, it is as the source of the misinformation that they wave to justify themselves that is my concern in having written to you, and for the reasons pointed out above. A lot of harm has resulted from this one-sided, unbalanced, opinion hastily brought to Press. While I may well formally complain to the Press Council, I feel it is important to respond to what I think has been a short of the mark return to me.
Yours sincerely,
---------------------------------
Bloggers Note:
The foregoing is correspondence with the Editor of The Press. This was written prior to both the events of Joe Karam suing the hate-site personnel, and the news that van Beynan had been warned off further contact with any Jury member by The Ministry of Justice. It is also noteworthy that despite van Beynan's feelings about what David Bain might not do about compensation, we now all know that that the definition of an application/settlement of some sort is being considered with advice given by Lawyers from the Minister's Department.
Some might agree with my opinion, and to my knowledge, that attacks on the Jury, witnesses, a Trial Judge and counsel are unprecendented in NZ history. My own opinion is that the article of van Beynan is probably Contempt of Court in that he maintains that the Judge was unaware of what was 'really' happening in his own Court where as a paper-back writer saw and understood all, even things he did not attend (such as discussions in chambers) nor read about. More significantly, the 'article/opinion' piece and van Beynan's apparent contact with hate-site members (see Kent Parker's posts on Counterspin and Facebook - if you can get in!) leads to an irresistable inference that van Beynan's piece only sought to sensationalise events which had simple explanations for which van Beynan found (or what it pre-orchestrated) a beying pack on hate-sites ready to disseminate his 'thoughtful work.' Perhaps, one may assume, that in the fullness of time the van Beynan article/opinion might be held up for students of the media as a regulatory piece of one-sided nonsense more notable for what it didn't disclose and its lack of insight.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Twisting by the Pool
I'd like to talk about the activities of some ex and current Trade Me Posters. Those I use to call the twisted sisters because of the way I felt they twisted everything. Generally they seemed a lonely lot with what I'd call a unhealthy interest in other people's lives along with an inflated view of themselves and where they sit in the world.
It must be a personality type that drew them together, that some how they were better people, better informed. In other words abundantly gifted with right. My experience with people that are unable or unwilling to challenge themselves is that they become patronising and impatient with others, but worse they can reach a point where they feel justified in doing or saying things that are just plain wrong. So it was/is with the sisters, nina_s (aka slimdusty2, jane jetson,) golfergold, Kalnovitch (aka laddiefatcat.)
Golfergold always took an unhealthy interest in other poster's families, trolling and searching for information. She is also the host of a hate-site who crossed over to become a stalker, posting the identities of anonymous posters, details about them and their families. In one case this led to threatening phone calls, gravely concerning and frightening her target. She did this in tandem with others, primarily a person called dustproof, another called misspw (aka millie 231) and kalnovitch and her new but barely disguised identity of laddiefatcat, luckytrader and others. For those of you that may not know stalking and harassment in cyberspace is included as an offence under The Harassment Act 1997 and specifically it can become a criminal offence under s6(2)a. This state of mind of these "sisters' portrays the 'positive' feeling of being right or righteous thus 'allowiing' law-breaking on real people and their families. Incidentally, I can prove all of this and it's repetitive nature.
There are a number of other erstwhile individuals who have done similar things, Mike Stockdale (superslueth) being one who has stalked and outed on the boards, but of greater concern approached witnesses who gave evidence in The Bain case. He, and his fellow hate-siters from JFRB and Counterspin have also stalked details of the Christchurch jury and it would appear have approached or know at least one member of that jury. These people don't afford anyone scanctity in pursuit of their 'cause,' they're driven by being 'right' and 'knowing' things, and knowing what lesser mortals even 'think.'
I'm one of a host of people who have been keeping files on these people. My first file was titled 'nina_s defamation.' Nina_s, (an entirely fictional name of course,) had a particular pendant for defaming Joe Karam and continued on until the whiff of law suits filled the air afterwhich she disappeared for a while and came back in a 'reformed' state. She also attacked trial witnesses and the jury at length, she was 'mightier and holier than thou' on a great level. However it is not known to me that she ever stalked or outed anyone deliberately apart from one ocassion when somebody was outed in a situation she knew was untrue and she let it stand by virtue of her silence, so it was an outing by omission of people with fictional names outing real people who suffer harm as a result.
At their height of power (or ignorance) these posters had somehow convinced TM that they could be defamed or insulted as fictional people in cyberspace while going about defaming real people. One of nina's closest allies was obook (rodney osook) who along with Nina took great pleasure in ridiculing the ChCh jury and several expert witnesses. One witness became 'a dancing bear' who 'had' to have Joe Karam's assistance to show Robin Bain's suicide. They completely overlooked the fact that the witness wore a skull cap to prove the trajectory of Robin's fatal shot into his own head. They made great purchase out of this, trying seemingly to destroy the whole case against Robin by this single event. Physically it is impossible single-handedly to feed a rifle barrel onto a steel rod of the length that was part of the skull cap when the cap was being worn, of course Robin didn't wear a skull cap. He merely needed to hold the rifle in a right hand dominant position and lean his head against the barrel. Many people who may have followed the case will know all of this, but some may not know (something osook and nina never revealed in their defamatory comments of Karam and others) that the skull cap was a crown exhibit by which the defence using the crown's own display of the correct trajectory showed Robin's suicide. I guess nina and osook thought they had a right to ignore that and make purchase out of situation where they hid the truth.
I may talk more about this later. But I will certainly however write about The Harassment Act 1997 and how it can be used for the benefit of any who may read this and who might have been in a similar situation of being stalked in the past or who may encounter cyber-stalking in the future. I also hope to write about what I think is a new phenomenon in law by which a new breach of harassment and defamation law prevails, something I refer to as 'defamatory harassment.'
Postscript. Someone has rightfully pointed out to me that I should note that The Harassment Act 1997 is a New Zealand Act of Law, which I duely record here.
It must be a personality type that drew them together, that some how they were better people, better informed. In other words abundantly gifted with right. My experience with people that are unable or unwilling to challenge themselves is that they become patronising and impatient with others, but worse they can reach a point where they feel justified in doing or saying things that are just plain wrong. So it was/is with the sisters, nina_s (aka slimdusty2, jane jetson,) golfergold, Kalnovitch (aka laddiefatcat.)
Golfergold always took an unhealthy interest in other poster's families, trolling and searching for information. She is also the host of a hate-site who crossed over to become a stalker, posting the identities of anonymous posters, details about them and their families. In one case this led to threatening phone calls, gravely concerning and frightening her target. She did this in tandem with others, primarily a person called dustproof, another called misspw (aka millie 231) and kalnovitch and her new but barely disguised identity of laddiefatcat, luckytrader and others. For those of you that may not know stalking and harassment in cyberspace is included as an offence under The Harassment Act 1997 and specifically it can become a criminal offence under s6(2)a. This state of mind of these "sisters' portrays the 'positive' feeling of being right or righteous thus 'allowiing' law-breaking on real people and their families. Incidentally, I can prove all of this and it's repetitive nature.
There are a number of other erstwhile individuals who have done similar things, Mike Stockdale (superslueth) being one who has stalked and outed on the boards, but of greater concern approached witnesses who gave evidence in The Bain case. He, and his fellow hate-siters from JFRB and Counterspin have also stalked details of the Christchurch jury and it would appear have approached or know at least one member of that jury. These people don't afford anyone scanctity in pursuit of their 'cause,' they're driven by being 'right' and 'knowing' things, and knowing what lesser mortals even 'think.'
I'm one of a host of people who have been keeping files on these people. My first file was titled 'nina_s defamation.' Nina_s, (an entirely fictional name of course,) had a particular pendant for defaming Joe Karam and continued on until the whiff of law suits filled the air afterwhich she disappeared for a while and came back in a 'reformed' state. She also attacked trial witnesses and the jury at length, she was 'mightier and holier than thou' on a great level. However it is not known to me that she ever stalked or outed anyone deliberately apart from one ocassion when somebody was outed in a situation she knew was untrue and she let it stand by virtue of her silence, so it was an outing by omission of people with fictional names outing real people who suffer harm as a result.
At their height of power (or ignorance) these posters had somehow convinced TM that they could be defamed or insulted as fictional people in cyberspace while going about defaming real people. One of nina's closest allies was obook (rodney osook) who along with Nina took great pleasure in ridiculing the ChCh jury and several expert witnesses. One witness became 'a dancing bear' who 'had' to have Joe Karam's assistance to show Robin Bain's suicide. They completely overlooked the fact that the witness wore a skull cap to prove the trajectory of Robin's fatal shot into his own head. They made great purchase out of this, trying seemingly to destroy the whole case against Robin by this single event. Physically it is impossible single-handedly to feed a rifle barrel onto a steel rod of the length that was part of the skull cap when the cap was being worn, of course Robin didn't wear a skull cap. He merely needed to hold the rifle in a right hand dominant position and lean his head against the barrel. Many people who may have followed the case will know all of this, but some may not know (something osook and nina never revealed in their defamatory comments of Karam and others) that the skull cap was a crown exhibit by which the defence using the crown's own display of the correct trajectory showed Robin's suicide. I guess nina and osook thought they had a right to ignore that and make purchase out of situation where they hid the truth.
I may talk more about this later. But I will certainly however write about The Harassment Act 1997 and how it can be used for the benefit of any who may read this and who might have been in a similar situation of being stalked in the past or who may encounter cyber-stalking in the future. I also hope to write about what I think is a new phenomenon in law by which a new breach of harassment and defamation law prevails, something I refer to as 'defamatory harassment.'
Postscript. Someone has rightfully pointed out to me that I should note that The Harassment Act 1997 is a New Zealand Act of Law, which I duely record here.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Golf-ball Size Nose
Adding a golf-ball size nose as a disguise when your own nose is already golf-ball sized anyway isn't a disguise. You remain identified as a person in disguise wearing two golf-ball size noses one of which is probably not real. For this reason it isn't really a disguise at all and I'd expect GNG will work that out some day and hopefully before he goes on his next mission.
I won't discuss the merits of the intellect of truck drivers here apart from saying that I can also drive a golf cart, a supermarket trolley and a scooter with training wheels. I don't imagine that camp mother kent thought that GNG was spreading good news at all, and I expect Kent hasn't got over it yet.
It is true that I wrote to Kent and maybe I will put a couple of the letters on here at some point. It's also true that I joined Counterspin under my own name nostalgia-nz and that I immediately sensed that I wasn't welcome for some reason. I'm very sensitive at times and have been known to talk to daisies and other plants when I fall into the garden on my way back from the cave after saying goodnight to my bats which by that time are generally flying about stealing peaches off Mrs McGantry's tree or doing low fly overs trying to grab my sleeping bonnet.
I won't discuss the merits of the intellect of truck drivers here apart from saying that I can also drive a golf cart, a supermarket trolley and a scooter with training wheels. I don't imagine that camp mother kent thought that GNG was spreading good news at all, and I expect Kent hasn't got over it yet.
It is true that I wrote to Kent and maybe I will put a couple of the letters on here at some point. It's also true that I joined Counterspin under my own name nostalgia-nz and that I immediately sensed that I wasn't welcome for some reason. I'm very sensitive at times and have been known to talk to daisies and other plants when I fall into the garden on my way back from the cave after saying goodnight to my bats which by that time are generally flying about stealing peaches off Mrs McGantry's tree or doing low fly overs trying to grab my sleeping bonnet.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Surviving a hate-site by guest blogger GNG
First of all I want to make it clear that I've no idea what's come over nos because he's made two blog posts without really offending anyone. It won't last I can tell you that. I thought I'd tell you my experience about entering a hate-site before nos gets onto the subject of his own infiltration. An event that was less effective than mine because he used his own name nostalgia-nz. He's quite a dumbo old nos even when he's pretending to be an intellectual truck driver - and who ever heard of an intellectual truck driver anyway.
It's not just because I'm smarter that nos that I decided to dye my hair and wear false glasses and fake golf-ball size nose, or that it was because I didn't want to be recognised. None of those, I researched Counterspin in advance and found out they all had blue hair, false glasses and golf-ball size noses after which it occured to me that I should do the same in order not to be recognised.
Well, these days Counterspin has more or less closed up shop, people are giving up their blue hair, false glasses and fake golf-ball size noses and going on holiday to the funny farm to get away from old kenty and his best pal Vic crying and wailing all the time because they're getting sued and no one cares except Rita Cochrane who offered to give them $10.
But when I visited a few months ago I thought I had some good news for Kenty and his pals, Annette Curran, Mike Stockdale to name a few. The good news was that they could look forward in my opinion to getting sued. But Kenty wanted to argue with me about it. He was quoting some lawyer's advice and pumping up his chest. Meanwhile Vic was acting all suspicious and asking if I thought David Bain was guilty. That's when I figured out the site had the wrong name and that it should have been called 'The David Bain Hate Site for People Afflicted with Madness and wearing silly Disguises.' I'd hardly adjusted my false nose and Vic was getting all agitated like a rotator washer on a wooden floor.
Well, I guess everyone has seen scavenger birds flocking in for food and that's what happened to me, suddenly there were posters all around pecking at my toes, fortunately I had on a pair steel-cap gumboots I got on special at the warehouse when I brought my nose. I got the impression they didn't like the good news I'd brought them about the prospect of being sued. It sort of got nasty after that even though I was attempting to be calm and objective. Kent, called for a vote as to whether I should be banned or not, everyone was voting that I should except old Vic who thought I could post privately. He was, it seemed, fascinated by the idea of seeing his own entrials observed in a law suit.
Of course not wanting to be left out, I voted to ban myself as well. Just to be a helpful person, besides that I was weary about doing things privately with Vic especially with the interest Mike Stockdale was showing. Fortunately the vote was unaminous.
Personally, I feel that nos should shoulder some of the blame. Because, one poster, whose name I forget at the moment, kept calling me nos and I reckon that put me behind the 8 ball. Apparently nos wrote kent and told him he was running a hate site, and that members of his hate-site were stalking and threatening people, some had even approached trial witnesses apparently. Well, I actually know myself that's true according to Mike Stockdale who has made the claim on Counterspin and elsewhere. I think nos may have even written that it was obvious the Government wouldn't accept a petition from Counterspin. Maybe nos might put the letter on here some time in the future. Anyway, even if nos wasn't right about the petition not being acceptable then, I reckon it is the case now because the site is being sued with many of it's members being banned from the mainstream cyber-media. Additionally, I imagine there are, or will be some investigations going on into it's activities and compliance with the nefarious activities of some of its members.
It's not just because I'm smarter that nos that I decided to dye my hair and wear false glasses and fake golf-ball size nose, or that it was because I didn't want to be recognised. None of those, I researched Counterspin in advance and found out they all had blue hair, false glasses and golf-ball size noses after which it occured to me that I should do the same in order not to be recognised.
Well, these days Counterspin has more or less closed up shop, people are giving up their blue hair, false glasses and fake golf-ball size noses and going on holiday to the funny farm to get away from old kenty and his best pal Vic crying and wailing all the time because they're getting sued and no one cares except Rita Cochrane who offered to give them $10.
But when I visited a few months ago I thought I had some good news for Kenty and his pals, Annette Curran, Mike Stockdale to name a few. The good news was that they could look forward in my opinion to getting sued. But Kenty wanted to argue with me about it. He was quoting some lawyer's advice and pumping up his chest. Meanwhile Vic was acting all suspicious and asking if I thought David Bain was guilty. That's when I figured out the site had the wrong name and that it should have been called 'The David Bain Hate Site for People Afflicted with Madness and wearing silly Disguises.' I'd hardly adjusted my false nose and Vic was getting all agitated like a rotator washer on a wooden floor.
Well, I guess everyone has seen scavenger birds flocking in for food and that's what happened to me, suddenly there were posters all around pecking at my toes, fortunately I had on a pair steel-cap gumboots I got on special at the warehouse when I brought my nose. I got the impression they didn't like the good news I'd brought them about the prospect of being sued. It sort of got nasty after that even though I was attempting to be calm and objective. Kent, called for a vote as to whether I should be banned or not, everyone was voting that I should except old Vic who thought I could post privately. He was, it seemed, fascinated by the idea of seeing his own entrials observed in a law suit.
Of course not wanting to be left out, I voted to ban myself as well. Just to be a helpful person, besides that I was weary about doing things privately with Vic especially with the interest Mike Stockdale was showing. Fortunately the vote was unaminous.
Personally, I feel that nos should shoulder some of the blame. Because, one poster, whose name I forget at the moment, kept calling me nos and I reckon that put me behind the 8 ball. Apparently nos wrote kent and told him he was running a hate site, and that members of his hate-site were stalking and threatening people, some had even approached trial witnesses apparently. Well, I actually know myself that's true according to Mike Stockdale who has made the claim on Counterspin and elsewhere. I think nos may have even written that it was obvious the Government wouldn't accept a petition from Counterspin. Maybe nos might put the letter on here some time in the future. Anyway, even if nos wasn't right about the petition not being acceptable then, I reckon it is the case now because the site is being sued with many of it's members being banned from the mainstream cyber-media. Additionally, I imagine there are, or will be some investigations going on into it's activities and compliance with the nefarious activities of some of its members.
Who am I anonymous.
After posting yesterday about anonymous posters claiming to have been defamed on message boards, last night I read a startling post on Trade Me. An anonymous poster, drunk though he might have been, gave notice that he/she was going to sue TM and four other posters. linz4me claimed to have taken legal advice, later he/she said that he would prepare the brief and send it onto a barrister. Now I don't know who gave linz4me legal advice, or if linz was truthful with the initial lawyer, but I'm very confident that even an inexperienced first year law student would have asked the question, 'how can you claim loss or offence as an anonymous person who nobody knows apart from a cyber name?' Effectively, that would be the end of the matter.
linz4me is an interesting cyber identity who blogs on the issue of law for the hate-sites Counterspin and Justice For Robin Bain. No wonder they're getting sued - this guy, guyette doesn't know who he/she is. Very interesting.
Slightly off topic but regarding the same issue, I've invited a fellow by the name of Goodnewsguy to make a guest blog on here at some point about what ever he feels like writing about.
linz4me is an interesting cyber identity who blogs on the issue of law for the hate-sites Counterspin and Justice For Robin Bain. No wonder they're getting sued - this guy, guyette doesn't know who he/she is. Very interesting.
Slightly off topic but regarding the same issue, I've invited a fellow by the name of Goodnewsguy to make a guest blog on here at some point about what ever he feels like writing about.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Somewhere to start.
I am a refugee trapped in cyber space, banished into the wilderness for daring to speak out about cyber hate-sites. Since entering the cyber world a couple of years ago my journey took me into the world of a fellow New Zealander who had languished in prison for 13 years for crime he would eventually be acquitted of by a jury of his peers.
I had joined a internet trading site called Trade Me, mostly to do trades for equipment useful to my work. The site also had a community message board which held a topic heading sports. The mention of sports was a natural attraction to me and eventually I began posting in what was at times an intemperate environment. Later I started looking at the Opinion's site until one day I came across threads in which the man I mentioned above, David Bain was a topic of conversation along with his retrial that had been ordered by our (in New Zealand at the time) highest Court - The Privy Council.
Prior to this I had taken no interest in what is popularly called the Bain case apart from noting that it was one of those cases that didn't go away. I was aware of the old adage that 'everyone in prison is innocent' but I knew there were certainly times when innocent men do go to prison.
I had no inclination to jump to any conclusions about the Bain case, mostly because like anyone else (I assumed) I didn't want to make a decision on the merits of the case without being sure one way or the other - to the best of my ability. What I eventually found out about the case by reading and applying my own life experiences convinced me that David Bain was an innocent man.
But not only that he was an innocent man but that a number (a small number generally) of my fellow nzers seemed to have a vested interest in spreading lies and misinformation about David Bain. One thing that has been with me a long time is that I don't like people being bullied or picked on and the enormity of realising that some people were treating David Bain's life as though it were a sort of game to be analysed and picked over by many with vested interests drew me like a magnet to help in whatever little way I could.
So I had begun to debate with other posters on the boards finally, convinced of David's innocence, in a manner that was, I admit, a little over the top. I was impatient that people could lie about evidence, misunderstand evidence, be more interested in gossip without seemingly realising that the topic of conversation was a real man charged with killing his own family of five.
I quickly realised there were three camps, those that thought David was guilty, those that didn't know and those that thought he was innocent. It became apparent that there was a lot of hostility from those that thought he was guilty towards those that didn't and I soon reacted in kind.
After David was acquitted in 2009 opposition to him flourished, mainly because of a biased article published in a daily newspaper. Two hate-sites were formed to join a third that had begun during the trial. Soon the hate-siters began an invasion of the boards of Trade Me posting lies, misinformation and deliberately harassing David and his long time advocate and supporter Joe Karam. This harassment included cyber-defamation.
At the time because I was relatively new in the cyberworld I mistakenly thought that TM would do something about the defamatory material and eventually wrote to them about it. I was soon banned, for the particular reason of calling an anonymous poster lucky-trader an ar.ewipe for not being willing to make his statements publicly. This conveniently added to a number of other complaints over a 6 month period of posting on the Bain threads by posters who eventually became members or supporters of the hate-sites. Many of the complaints oddly enough were from people who hold the view that an anonymous person can be defamed. I was shut down but my fight wasn't over and isn't over yet. I'll post more about this at a later date but I'll finish today by saying that I am one part of this situation of being marooned in cyberspace, a small part, David is a much larger part but together (that is you and I) are all part of a shift in time into what has generally been a lawless space of our time.
I had joined a internet trading site called Trade Me, mostly to do trades for equipment useful to my work. The site also had a community message board which held a topic heading sports. The mention of sports was a natural attraction to me and eventually I began posting in what was at times an intemperate environment. Later I started looking at the Opinion's site until one day I came across threads in which the man I mentioned above, David Bain was a topic of conversation along with his retrial that had been ordered by our (in New Zealand at the time) highest Court - The Privy Council.
Prior to this I had taken no interest in what is popularly called the Bain case apart from noting that it was one of those cases that didn't go away. I was aware of the old adage that 'everyone in prison is innocent' but I knew there were certainly times when innocent men do go to prison.
I had no inclination to jump to any conclusions about the Bain case, mostly because like anyone else (I assumed) I didn't want to make a decision on the merits of the case without being sure one way or the other - to the best of my ability. What I eventually found out about the case by reading and applying my own life experiences convinced me that David Bain was an innocent man.
But not only that he was an innocent man but that a number (a small number generally) of my fellow nzers seemed to have a vested interest in spreading lies and misinformation about David Bain. One thing that has been with me a long time is that I don't like people being bullied or picked on and the enormity of realising that some people were treating David Bain's life as though it were a sort of game to be analysed and picked over by many with vested interests drew me like a magnet to help in whatever little way I could.
So I had begun to debate with other posters on the boards finally, convinced of David's innocence, in a manner that was, I admit, a little over the top. I was impatient that people could lie about evidence, misunderstand evidence, be more interested in gossip without seemingly realising that the topic of conversation was a real man charged with killing his own family of five.
I quickly realised there were three camps, those that thought David was guilty, those that didn't know and those that thought he was innocent. It became apparent that there was a lot of hostility from those that thought he was guilty towards those that didn't and I soon reacted in kind.
After David was acquitted in 2009 opposition to him flourished, mainly because of a biased article published in a daily newspaper. Two hate-sites were formed to join a third that had begun during the trial. Soon the hate-siters began an invasion of the boards of Trade Me posting lies, misinformation and deliberately harassing David and his long time advocate and supporter Joe Karam. This harassment included cyber-defamation.
At the time because I was relatively new in the cyberworld I mistakenly thought that TM would do something about the defamatory material and eventually wrote to them about it. I was soon banned, for the particular reason of calling an anonymous poster lucky-trader an ar.ewipe for not being willing to make his statements publicly. This conveniently added to a number of other complaints over a 6 month period of posting on the Bain threads by posters who eventually became members or supporters of the hate-sites. Many of the complaints oddly enough were from people who hold the view that an anonymous person can be defamed. I was shut down but my fight wasn't over and isn't over yet. I'll post more about this at a later date but I'll finish today by saying that I am one part of this situation of being marooned in cyberspace, a small part, David is a much larger part but together (that is you and I) are all part of a shift in time into what has generally been a lawless space of our time.