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.