Kent Parker, you idiot.

I've just been reading the 'revamped' Counterspin site, this guy Parker is a raving lunatic. Earlier today I read something very important and which should be troubling to Parker but I doubt the man has the brains to follow it. This week (9/11/10) in the Auckland High Court a Judgement was released by Heath J in a defamation proceeding against a Korean newspaper and the two directors of the company which owned it. The Korean newspaper had several times published accusations against a NZ residing Korean businessman which essentially claimed that he was in breach of orders by a Fijian Court and was engaged in corrupt, dishonest and immoral practices. Of the three defendants only one attended the hearing and represented himself with the assistance of a Barrister who acted as a 'Mckenzie friend.'

Of course I was reminded of the venerable Parker and Purkiss, also unrepresented, and unwitting, however, as often is the case I viewed the underdog with a sympathetic mindset because he was against formidable counsel for the plaintiff and what appeared to be a too startling Statement of Claim that would seem improbable to be a proper discription of the conduct of the defendants - a reasonably sized publishing company and its owners. Very soon it became apparent that rather than being underdogs the defendants were as absolutely clueless as the twin ps. Not only were their claims beyond factual, but they had been reported to them by 'reliable' informants (sound familiar, Stockdale and co.) The defendant(s) built an argument on this which contradicted the law and common sense, because the publisher couldn't get hold of the plaintiff for comment 'and had no reasonable grounds to believe that the articles were inaccurate, the newspaper was entitled to publish, without further inquiry into the veracity of the information, or those that supplied it to him.'

The defendant (who appeared) Yoo, did not think his conduct was inappropriate. 'His opinion is (was) that because he had made an (unsuccessful) attempt to contact Mr Lee (the Plaintiff)' he was entitled to publish. Come in dear old Kenty baby, not only did he publish without any reference or attempt to reference the plaintiff in his case (Joe Karam) he relied on 'reliable' informants such as shit for brains Stockdale and Taylor, who even now (into the second year since the trial) daily display they have no grasp of the facts of the Bain case, but additionally have proven themselves to be liars time and again. Why would Kent Parker be so stupid to publish defamatory carbage from pedo supporting fiddlers and think he had a defence of truth or veracity? The reason is because he is an idiot. Why would Kent Parker wittingly allow material to be published on his site that any reasonable person would understand was defamatory if unproven, without first satisfying himself of the facts or the veracity of the material - because he is an idiot.

Yoo and co faced what the Judge said was alleged were not less than 10 defamatory statements. Dingbat ps are going for nearly 200, I suppose you could say that was ensuring that there was no room for error in having a case found against them. Mr Lee also based his claim against the publisher and it's owner on (shock horror) 'a website maintained by the newspaper. He alleges that the articles of which complaint is made continue to be accessible on the website. Mr Yoo accepts that.' But I like that website reference and I'm sure Trade Me and Annette Curran share a common interest in discovering that the law they thought that didn't exist in cyberspace actually does, and similarly the proof of any statement lies with both the writer and the publisher, and the onus for the reliability of the informant of that 'truth' also lies with the writer and the publisher.

There is other elementary information in the Judgement that I might refer to later, but which shows that even though Kent can be excused to some degree for being an idiot, he is still liable as are the 'cookingwithgas, ret1, nina_s, obooks, and goobergoofs of this world.'

Mr Lee was awarded $250,000 plus costs against the defendants jointly and severally. I wouldn't propose to say that the damages in the Joe Karam case would necessarily multiply by the number of additional defamatory statements, but if it did Kenty and Stockdale and co will be sunk for millions. No wonder Trade Me are being pragmatic, changing their position as it dawns on them the burden that the motor mouth hate-siters have imposed on them, and look now to spreading the liability to the 'reliable' informants.