Would evidence of being a stalker be admissible against Kent Parker in the defamation proceedings?

Short answer yes, it would.

Would evidence of the conduct of specific hate-site members be admissible evidence against Kent Parker in the defamation proceedings?

Short answer again, yes, it would.

To be frank Parker has no existing defence as it stands, nothing that endures, he can't say he wasn't the publisher because he clearly was, he can't say the material wasn't defamatory because clearly it was, he could enjoin the actual person that wrote the defamatory statement in an effort of mitigation but I doubt there is sufficient 'distance' between Parker and the writers of the defamatory comment to offer as an excuse. I say this because Parker's sites were setup with relatively straight forward objectives many of which were simply trimmings rather than the key purpose.

But it is one thing naming a site, setting out it's objectives in a credible way and another to immediately use the site for its true ulterior motive, the persecution of David Bain and an attack on Joe Karam. Because that's exactly what happened from the outset, Kent's failure (or compliance) with these attacks underwrote the true purposes of the site and which were actually taking place on a number of different venues by way of site-members. Any effort by Kent (and he may well try it, such is his desperation) to say he was a mere spectator to events that were the fault of others will not be accepted because all the surrounding facts oppose this claim.

Those surrounding facts are therefore relevant to the 'distance' between Kent and the defamatory remarks and show even if were not the author he certainly wasn't a passive publisher promoting 'free speech.' He could have stopped it, but was happy, despite some of his own warning him, to fly in the face of common sense or prudence. He acted like an idiot and while the defamation continued he dreamt of power he imagined he had, and would have in the future. Things had gone to his head and he didn't have the good sense, or common sense to see the danger, he merely saw how 'great' his 'power' was. He was striking down Karam and others, many of whom were well known people such were his powers and 'leadership' abilities.

Kent was unable to comprehend that his 'secrets' were always open secrets. Or to understand that his sites were so haphazard, rushed and easily able to be breached that he was in a dangerous situation, not some kind of dream of becoming a famous nzer, or political figure as he imagined. These are the reasons I answer yes to my two questions above. The behaviour of Kent and his 'followers - now isn't that a cult type setting?) show not only their true purpose but the environment of hate in which the defamation was conceived. So the 'conduct' of the Annette Currans, Stockdales et al, in stalking the Jurors and others completes Kent's total involvement in his member's illegal activities but also tellingly their published defamatory comment.

I agree the pending trial isn't about hate-sites per se, this trial will be about defamation, and additionally it could be argued that the hate-sites, the manner in which they were constructed and how they operated led to the defamation and show that Parker is ultimately responsible. From what we can tell, that is how the various allegations were constructed and laid, against only Parker and the once loud-mouthed Perkiss.

That is why TM will I assume have nothing to do with Parker or any of his members, probably most certainly will enjoin them because they're a business after all nothing more or less, but they have potential to completely distance themselves from the designs of the hate-sites. I think if they don't settle they'll go tooth and nail to establish a separation from the hate-sites. Unfortunately, they have some problems there, considerable problems in that I'm confident that they were warned about the use of their boards by the hate-site stalkers and defamers. Not only that, they did not 'err on the side of caution' when warned by Joe Karam and fell into the same trap as Parker and co in thinking they were bullet proof. But most telling by not 'erring on the side of caution' they are unable to demonstrate to the Court, that upon notice they stopped the threads, even considering they were not the publisher, at a point when there was no 'loss' to them but a considerable relief to Joe Karam.

Of course what they share with Parker is that they are the publisher, and are responsible for what they print, the comment was defamatory, Joe Karam's reputation was damaged and they're liable.

I repeat for the benefit of Kent Parker evidence of the conduct of those belonging to his site, evidence of his stalking and encouragement of stalking, threats, false complaints etc are material to the allegations of defamation brought against him. It should be a lot of fun kent.