Ahh..common sense and compassion reigns for Kurtis Haiu.

The Auckland NPC and Blues lock diagnosed with a rare cancer earlier this year has walked free without convictions from the Pukekohe District Court. Kurtis fell under the spell of 'property developer, financier' Glenn Cooper and lost between 4 to 5 hundred thousand dollars. Glenn Cooper weaseled himself into the Mangere Cook Island community through the Church with promises of good returns on property investment.

The good people naive though they might have been, brought the story, took mortgages against their properties, borrowed and raised money to buy properties in Taupo on which there were 'agreements' of some sort to cover their money, by guaranteed 'buy back' options along with profits insuring the safety of their investments. So this small part of our community inadvertently fell in beside thousands of other nzers taken in by similar schemes, not knowing that the properties they brought had inflated prices and were immediately on sold to allow Cooper's wallet to thicken.

Kurtis called on Glenn Cooper punching him a couple of times and was arrested and charged. At the previous hearing of this case Glenn Cooper made the incongruous statement that he wanted Kurtis punished but didn't want him convicted. That was in a victim's report. Yes, Cooper who now faces fraud charges, proposed to have a say in what should happen to the man he stole money from and whom retaliated.

There was a lot at stake for Kurtis, a young man with a family and already battling cancer that has at least in the meantime has curtailed his rugby career. Everything he had worked toward with his rugby career appears to have been gone although the he has vowed to recover that money (if it still exists) through the civil courts. Yesterday he was discharged without conviction, leaving the opportunity that he may yet be able to travel overseas to play rugby if he beats the biggest opponent of all - cancer.

I'm grateful to see Judge Gerard Winter's ruling on this matter because of not only what it represents to Kurtis and his family, the Cook Island Community at large, but more so  that the practicalities of modern life allow that somebody might want to punch on the nose a thief and not be punished for it. In the meantime all the best to Kurtis and his family, my best wishes most of all for his return to good health not only because he is a great rugby player but because I'm sure many others stung in such schemes with take quiet pleasure that despite the odds Kurtis bit back.

More from planet McVicar...

From the same 'press release.'

...'Mr. McVicar also took a swipe at Green M P Keith Locke and Mana's Annette Sykes who said Tasers were being used disproportionately on Maori and Pacific Islanders.'
"Mr. Locke and Ms. Sykes seem to conveniently overlook the fact that a corresponding 'disproportionate' number of Maori and Pacific Islanders are also committing the crime."
"Rather than blame the police, Mr. Locke and Ms. Sykes would be well-advised to have a look at their own ideology. The welfare state championed by the Greens and Mana Parties has created a festering resentment from those trapped by that mentality"
"The festering resentment and anger created by the "I want" welfare mentality is largely responsible for the violence the Police are confronted with."
"The feral environment the police face today has nothing to do with Tasers whatsoever."
"Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation. It is unfair and dishonest to try and make them the fall-guys."
"The Police job is to protect the public, not play nurse-maid to miss-fits and dead-beats created by badly mistaken social policies."
 
Poor old Garth he thinks the Green and Mana parties are responsible for the welfare state that superseded their own parties by over 70 years. Good arithmetic Garthy, you might get out of the dunces corner by christmas. But I can see his point, he may as well take a swipe everybody because it might relieve the pain of his haemorrhoid's. He must feel so frustrated being outed as a crook and having his henchmen wiped out of politics like a bad smell in the face of an air freshener.
 
He even borrows the word 'feral' from his mate Michael. He'll probably give him a call in the morning and ask Michael what he thought of the press release, point out that he's 'available' for a interview. So saucy.
 
Garth McVicar has nothing of substance to say, he's undermined by the fact that his most useful tool of trade, fear and anger, are spent commodities. He doesn't realise that people don't want walls built within our society, they want to be uplifted and realise what might have been the original kiwi dream - to give people a go, put a hand out to them, share respect, touch one another on the shoulder during difficult times and never to judge by race or colour, or choose something apparently unpopular to off load against with the sole intention of your own benefit. Bad luck Garth, you suck.

What planet is McVicar on?

'Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation. It is unfair and dishonest to try and make them the fall-guys
For Immediate Release:
Don't blame Police or Tasers for social failings says Watchdog
The Sensible Sentencing Trust says organizations and individuals critical of Police use of Tasers should look in the mirror before laying blame.
Trust Spokesman Garth McVicar was commenting after the Mental Health Foundation called for a formal review of police use of Tasers after figures released this week showed four out of 10 of those tasered in the past year were experiencing mental health problems.
But police say their use of force - including Tasers - against those suffering mental health problems is a symptom of a wider problem of how people with mental health issues are dealt with.'

He's trying to pretend he has something to say by way of reply, 'Dangerous mental health patients and volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders are not a Police creation.' Problem is that nobody has said they are. The issue that was raised is that 40% of those tasered in the last year were experiencing mental health problems and certainly not a suggestion that such illness was created by police.

Here McVicar shows how he goes for the low blow, instead of addressing with sound comment an issue that is of public concern, the treatment of the mentally unwell, he 'changes' the focus to safe ground for him -  support of the police. He sidetracks the debate to a issue of police operations when in fact the issue is of how we are dealing with the mentally unwell. He dresses this up with some accompanying issue of hysteria (bogey men) 'volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders.' His is the language of division. He cannot distinguish in his general myopia the difference between a person suffering illness or one deliberately breaking the law. He says correctly that the problem is not a police creation despite no one claiming that it is, using that to whitewash the real issue that dealing with the mentally unwell, unfairly or inappropriately (tasered) is a step backwards for many reasons but for one most relevant, using a more appropriate analogy that McVicars - the mentally unwell 'don't create' their own illness.

In a just society any group dissolved of compassion or humanity is a humiliation of the entire society, a step backwards. McVicar, sensing a foothold, begins a list - the mentally unwell, volatile Maori or Pacific Islanders and leaves the rest of us to wonder who else would be on the list if this idiot was emboldened enough to speak truthfully from his own, bigoted, frightened mind. The man is divisive. The man would lead others into beliefs that certain auto crash victims shouldn't be helped, that 'classes' of society should be punished for being poor, lacking in education or hope.

McVicar uses his crutch, he trys to frighten others into his conformity, to his own mind he 'champions' victims when in reality he doesn't speak for all victims he speaks for himself and his own ambitions - his is an unreasonable voice in times when reason is most needed. If there is anything to thankful for is that McVicar shot himself in the foot and those politicians mindful of the ease with which some members of the public are influenced by law and order issues, no longer take his calls, probably quietly take pleasure that McVicar destroyed his own credibility and that of his organisation by being a crook, and selective of other crooks in maintaining secrecy, whilst making accusations against others.

Kent Parker - the rambling diatribe of a self-righteous nutter.

As we ponder if the idiot Parker has finally got a defence together on his hundreds of defamation charges he presents this crap to show how crazy he is - who needed to know?

The counterspin website has been created in conjunction with the Justice For Robin Bain Group which consists of about 40 active members and 600 passive members. The aims of this group are as follows:
To exonerate Robin Bain by revealing the true nature of the campaign against him by promoting the counterspin website and defending against Joe Karam's defamation claims.
To prevent compensation being paid out to David Bain for "false imprisonment".
To prevent any further exploitation of the Bain case in the media and allow the Bain family to rest in peace.
David Bain now has his not guilty verdict. We wish him well and think that he should be allowed to get on with his life and make a contribution back to society.

The idiot thinks the law provides remedy for the allegedly defamed dead. Well, the law doesn't Kent. Wake up. If you are going to have an aim make it realistic pea brain, like getting to the toilet in the High Court without crapping yourself. However what the law does provide is Trial by Jury for those accused of crimes. The man you now wish well, had 2 such trials, in the first evidence was withheld that showed clearly enough that the investigation hadn't been proper and thorough, a target was picked - then evidence 'found' that suited and that which did not was ignored, and in some cases destroyed. It was plain enough for a Privy Council decision that there had been 'an actual miscarriage of justice' and a re-trial was ordered. He claims that the defamation case is the chance for him to 'defend' the Bain name and highlight the aims of the hate-siters, when in all reality the idiot never thought he would be sued and in moments of weakness has portrayed his real fear and having to defend his filth in public.

25 Police spent 2 years preparing for the re-trial. People such as Kent and those few in his dirty club went to work with rumour telling lies about the evidence, suggesting there had been confessions and all manner of things that would prejudice a fair trial. That's what Kent Parker and his dog mates did on the pretence of defending a man they never knew. But despite those efforts a jury returned a not guilty verdict 5 times in record time and David walked free.

At that point Parker and Purkiss (also charged with defamation) mounted a public smear campaign against Bain and his chief supporter Joe Karam. They made threats, published a bunch of lies in advertisements before the papers turned away from them. Meanwhile their 40 members (it was once hundreds if you can believe them) went stalking and threatening who ever they could they felt might jeopardise their plans to harass Karam and others, deliberately and criminally harass them.

Which arrives at the 2nd 'aim' of the depleted morons to prevent David being paid compensation. They're such idiots and continue to be that they don't recognise what due process is, they think they can interfere with it and that is why so many of them are now in Court.

The 3rd aim to prevent exploitation of the Bain case and to allow the family to rest in peace. I guess suckers are born all the time - but Parker continues to use the Bain name and uses it on his websites. He is the prime exploiter of the Bain case and the Bain name. He keeps it alive, more so now because the burbling idiot has the name re-entered into the Court system for a case that was never any of his business anyway and which he was always, like his twisted sister mates, incapable of understanding. This dirty piece of work is even shown in print to have encouraged his supporters to multi-vote in polls. He's a cheat and a liar. He cares nothing for anybody but himself and if he was to be believed he would be supping with kings now and be the leader of his own political party when in fact he's in 'last chance' saloon having not been able to understand the defamation charges against himself let alone a simple murder/suicide.

Perhaps most disgustingly of all he wishes David Bain well, while at the same time has a hate-site filled with hate and lies about David Bain. The man is a 24 hr spinner with no idea how transparent he is.

What has he achieved? 100s of charges against himself, being on the doorstep of bankruptcy, made himself a figure of mirth and ridicule constantly changing his position in an attempt to continue to mislead others and elevate himself in some way. And what does he have,? At least a feeling of what he has done to David Bain, because now he must frequent the Courts where he claimed he would never spend a minute with Joe Karam. And what does he have ahead? More of the same, more than he can handle. I doubt any of the Bain family approve of what he's done, stealing there name as an easy way to get cyber-space recognition for himself. And what has he achieved, ridicule, complete ridicule. Because people understand that if you have a proper cause, you never, never, never, break the law, abuse the trust of others, use without consent the name of others, try to utilise advantages for yourself. If you have the truth, you need never lie, promote lies, encourage others to lie because the truth is what will win through - perhaps that was the lesson for Kent to take from David Bain.

And as for wishing David well, how disgusting. Parker co-operated in publishing false confessions, putting abroad false stories about the jury and witnesses, encouraging biased radio and tv shows. He did everything a dishonest, hateful man would do and more. He need not worry about David, he need worry about what he owes this society for all the harm he has done.

Incidentally, up yours Kent.

Is the SAS being politicised?

The Prime Minister John Key has stated that the SAS corps remain in Afghanistan, in part, because they want to. I recall that he made that statement at least once this year. Whether John Key appreciates what he has said or not, he has intimated that the NZ armed forces play a role in political decisions when that can never be the case. NZ is a democracy and what any part of the armed forces 'want' to do isn't on the same page. No soldier I know, believes he carries more than the responsibility to serve his country, no matter what he might want else to do.

I wonder when it was that John Key chatted with the SAS about what they wanted to do, or when he could even think that political policy was in part played by the military. There is something wrong here. After those comments by the Prime Minister I recall a recent announcement that the elite force, SAS, was to be made a preference for new recruits that they could flag on their entry into the armed services - all chummy chummy like the road ahead was flag posted in some comfortable, convenient way.

In the last week SAS Corporal Doug Grant was killed while on a rescue mission in Kabul. He was shot and killed by what, according to released photos, was a gunfire from his right, unprotected flank. Something doesn't ring true about that, something operational is amiss - that he should be covering others in a vulnerable position to fire and not being covered himself. Of course the SAS, we are led to believe, is in a training role in Afghanistan despite the fact that we know they have featured in firefights and covert operations for many years. Today the 'Scotsman' newspaper makes the claim that the SAS were delayed by up to 4 hours on their mission to rescue hostages by conflict between Police and local military as to who was in charge.

If that is true and there was a delay, and confusion about who was in control, could explain why Corporal Doug Grant's right flank was left exposed while he performed other operations from a vulnerable to fire position. It could also mean that the SAS are being compromised by political ambition of government. There is little doubt that SAS and all troops serving overseas are part of a larger political plan. However, this revelation is very raw, in part it declares that the SAS are involved in operations over which they have no direct control as they risk their lives, and that therefore they're put to risk because of political designs.

Halatau Naitoko - Crusher Collins gets it wrong.

The Coroner's report into the death of 17 year old courier driver at the hands of a Police Armed Offenders Squad Member was released yesterday by Coroner Gordon Matenga. Matenga ruled that the killing was accidental but however drew attention to the fractured leadership control of the operation, the failure of 2 officers to establish a clear line of fire before shooting and what could probably be called inherent failure in systems of restraint, calmness and cool thinking by AOS members. Anybody watching footage of the aftermath would have seen many members of the police on the motorway that day speaking on phones at the same time - a clear indication that there was not one system of control, and that several different policing groups were being controlled independently of one another. That is a notable logistic failure.

A consequence of that failure is that it likely led to a competitiveness of sorts and stress between the conflicting groups of police and their controllers. There is no place in dangerous situations for multiple control and one would assume that priority of command directives were standing orders, but apparently we see here they are not. There should have been no competition or uncertainty that from the moment AOS were involved they were in control and all other policing units were in support, immediately that would have defused misconceptions of what role all police involved were to play. Instead it seems it was an 'all go' situation attended by the inevitable disorganisation that goes with people unaware of where the lines are drawn.

Many police commentators have spoken about the obvious difficulties of dealing with a mobile offender, agreed, and more the reason that those in control should have recognised those difficulties as this tragedy unfolded and made clear orders that the AOS led the situation and other policing units were in a supporting and containing role. What is most disconcerting is that the basics of 'clear lines of fire' were not appreciated by members of the AOS, in fact one had 'no recollection' of firing the fatal shot.

Assistant Commissioner Allan Boreham issued a statement that police 'deeply and sincerely regret' the accidental shooting and that 'it was right for that police power to use firearms be publicly scrutinised.' Fairly hard to disagree with the good sense of those comments, or with the findings of Coroner Matenga. Of course Police Association president Greg O'Conner was at odds with that, as he seems to be with rank and file police in these changing times. But the Ministers comments were the most odd of all, she claimed that the blame laid with the escaping offender and no doubt she doesn't have the courage or comprehension to follow what Boreham and Matenga in particular have said. The Minister wants the public to believe that a poorly organised pursuit under multiple, un synchronised control, which included personnel that were bereft of basic firearm safety usage, did not lead to the death of Halatau, that his death was solely the result of an armed, drugged up offender and unfortunate members of the public taken by surprise going about their lawful business finding them self in 'the line of fire' not sacrosanct to all members of AOS.

The Naitoko family have already filed a civil claim for damages and the Coroner's report strengthens that. Allan Boreham has made the frank acknowledgement of what the public expectation is when police use firearms, Gordon Matenga has reproduced the footprints, disordered by lack of control, that were part of this tragedy. Minister Judith Collins has shown she can duck walk. I hope the Naitoko family can settle quickly with the Government over this, there is every legitimate reason why they should despite the Minister being so out of touch that she cannot appreciate that poor organisation and practices by the police in some very difficult situations are not simply the fault of an offender.

Kent Parker - thick as a brick.

Old Kent is flat out on his 3rd attempt at finding a defence on the defamation charges he faces. He thinks 'just quietly,' as he puts it, that having his 2nd defence rejected was a victory because it left parts of his argument 'intact'. Poor stupid Kent doesn't realise that if he has no defence no weight is given to any other of his pleadings, like a horse race where a horse is disqualified, there is no solace for the owners or punters, that although the horse was disqualified it didn't fall over in the way Kent surely will.

Even after a year Kent still can't comprehend the charges he faces are both removed from the Bain case and Joe Karam. Kent wants the Bain case retried by way of his High Court defamation charges, additionally he wants to compare what he has allegedly done with what he feels Joe Karam has done. Kent is really a 3 year old in a sandpit, pointing the finger at somebody else for tipping sand all over himself and some of his playmates. He is a certifiable nutter. He says he is no longer afraid to go to Court which is an admission that he's been crapping himself for a year and permanently wearing diapers. I still recall his declaration that he wasn't going to spend a minute in Court with Joe Karam. He was right about that, to this point Joe hasn't even needed to attend because he would have little satisfaction in watching a moron shoot himself in the foot.

But Kent attests to being a veteran now, swimming around in his own crap for a year has emboldened him and one day he hopes to get a job swimming around in the Mangere sewerage ponds. He'll fit right in. Meanwhile one of his latest hopes is that he will tell the Court that dear old daddy didn't wash his hands because he still had blood on them. Way to go Kenty, just before you get shovelled out the doors of the High Court demand to have your fingernails swabbed to show that you haven't been using toilet paper for years - that could help out with your psychiatric report as to why you shouldn't be bankrupted.

Arie Smith, you may go free.

Finally the penny drops and Arie goes free attended by the newest excuse that he needed to be assessed as to his ability to commit the devious crime of rescuing light bulbs from a damaged building. Taking them home to place on the mantle piece as a point of pride and discussion with his friends of how interesting they were and where among the gloom of a fallen city 2 young men had taken them, been arrested and thrown into prison.

Dave Cliff, acting Assistant Commissioner of Operations, explained that an independent report was required. Dave missed the bus. A whole lot of folk in this country didn't need an independent report to tell them that a looter doesn't steal things of no value from a damaged building owned by a couple who never complained, or were even told that they had been 'stolen.' Police on the ground are well equipped and capable of assessing criminal intention, guided by common sense and not hysteria, they could tell, like the rest of New Zealand, that Arie was a vulnerable and insightful member of our society.

Dave Cliff, can't think on his feet, when the country recognises a complaint is remedied the country doesn't need to be told that only an expert, (one that couldn't be found for 6 months,) could confirm what we all saw in this young man. Dave Cliff needed to remember what the ingredients of a crime are, intention being foremost, that a crime is committed and a victim recognised following that. But really Dave got the short stick, because those above him continue not to recognise that what resonates with the public is common sense and truth. If a bloke is limping he is limping, no one needs to be told that it couldn't be confirmed that he was limping for a particular reason until an expert assessed him because he might be limping for a reason that proved he wasn't limping at all. That it was an act.

Well, it has been quite an act, all explanations put aside an end is reached thanks to the Police withdrawing the charges against Arie and his partner Michael Davis. A shaking of hands has taken place, the ground has shifted, a country is empowered by that. The time for blame has passed. Arie said that his brain was wired differently and a whole country finally listened. Congratulations Arie and Michael, and the Police for stepping forward.

The Birds are always near.

Yesterday, 3 myna on the sand dunes -
oddly a pair but one you say.
Though things are odd when birds are near,
like the male pheasant
and the white-faced heron
coming when the spirits leave.
You may not have seen today
the kingfisher, perhaps though it was 3 or more,
so difficult to tell they are one from another,
though I think of it as only one.
Come for the summer of our love,
when touched we are
by the difficulties of life,
the sweetness of being with you
when lost I am wandering
the generations gone
and knowing that the birds are always near.
Generations, events together,
in a chain removed from that which
I don't understand but for 3 mynas
come visit the freshly cut grass.
So they watch upon us busy there
for me to give to you
all of myself but for parts not synchronized
in flight apart from watching the birds
that are always near.

David Tua - between the rounds.

Talk is rife that David has fallen out with his promoter Kushner. Kushner said as much and David isn't talking. For those that remember, when David slowly lurched toward a settlement with his former manager and mentor Kevin Barry a High Court Judge commented adversely on the way David engineered the business relationship to the point of a 'raid' type invasion to obtain paperwork. It was a bad scene and David stupidly put aside common sense and his career onto hold to 'engage' in the legal battle which saw millions lost.

Credit to David he reinvented himself to some degree after that with help from yes, Kushner, Tuigamala and others. Well, Inga has been struggling financially and Kushner has fronted with cash to fill the gaps as David somewhat meandered toward what was hoped to be a title fight. Now he won't talk to Cedric Kushner, and his lawyer won't talk whilst David has also closed up shop. Boxing promoters don't enjoy a great reputation but Kevin Barry in my opinion was blind-sided by David, that looks to be happening now with Kushner. I say that mostly because David isn't talking, a divided camp and silence speaks volumes louder that any talk or prevarication.

Time for David to take a hard look at himself. He's not a young man, he can't forever ride a sympathy ticket on the boxer ripped off by manager, particularly where there is so much visible between the lines - a bridge too far for credibility to extend. It could simply be that David doesn't want to pay Cedric Kushner back, has his eye on the total purse from his recent fight sponsored by SKY TV. David could be blaming others for what he has failed to do in the ring with his own fists.

Life is tough for fighters and that is why there is a fascination with them. David does humble and devout very well, but he does anger and surliness poorly. There was something wrong with the man for the majority of his last fight and for at least 2 weeks leading up to it. David might find being an assassin requires a different constitution than that of a fighter, stealth and deceit are not the ways of a fighter and not the way for someone loved by his own community and sports fans alike.

Great fighters have mental durability and toughness, the ability to get back up and cop the bad licks along the way. By his silence David does himself and his fans a great disservice, he should speak truthfully and now - he long ago chose to present himself as humble and truthful so time to front up, tell it like it is. He put himself down in a bad decision that could have been resolved around a kava bowl, brought disrespect on a man who had opened his home to him. Right now he looks like he's putting himself down again, no prayers ringside will do, no bitching about being ripped off will help. We've been this road with him before, he's learnt this lesson to not go quiet and hating while supping on paranoia. Time for Tua to front up to preserve his reputation into the future.

Clive Goodman and Milton Weir - what do they have in common?

How about we call them fall guys? Fall guys are never as they first seem, or as they're sold or ostracised. The former editor of News of the World Clive Goodman went to prison for an 'isolated' episode of phone hacking. Now letters emerge that he was negotiating his position with his employers through out that time and was paid out some nzd 470,000, copped a few months in prison but never got kept the job he naively thought he would return to once released. He was stitched up and a whole range of people had a stake in that, and that the public would naively believe that a employee goes rogue to benefit himself and not the company.

Did you believe it? That he was employing illegally gained copy for his own benefit and not the company's, well apparently the British Prime Minister did, good judgement PM - bet you never got any advantage out of it. So where does Milton Weir fit in? He was a go-to man in the Dunedin Police, no nonsense and dangerous if reports are to believed. Someone who saw the city as a type of fiefdom where a tough cop needed to keep things in check. A good old boy for the establishment up against a bit of bother when solving a case. But if he was that, did he do that for himself, for some particular personal gain or for the Police?

Goodman and Weir have something in common, being ostracised by their employers for something they are alleged to have done to benefit those former employers. There is nothing as far as I know, that says they benefited personally for what rules or law they might have broken, but someone did. In Goodman's case the News of the World and the Murdochs, you bet until now. In Milton Weir's case, the Police of his era. So that is one thing in common and the foremost other is that they got cast out, stepped on, avoided, left to sing for their own supper while those they helped put the boot in. That's why I hope Goodman, and Weir as well - front up and tell it like it was, recognise that people understand the way in which organisations protect themselves, casting out where necessary the tainted fruit, and that most people think that sucks. Stand up for the little guys Clive and Milton because the big folk sure dicked you. Tell the truth and be free.

Here, take my freedom.

I could be black or white, a mixture, most probably poor, likely to have been in trouble before, a less than desirable education, a quality of submission or hostility in the face of authority and I could be judged by an elite. Judged by one of 268 Judges now serving in NZ Courts, of whom only 20 identify themselves as Maori, 2 as Pacific Islanders, 1 Asian and 1 Indian. Those judges age averages around 58 years, few of them will have the full gambit of life time experiences that are brought together by a jury of peers.

In reality some of those Judges will be ground down to complacency by seeing so many faces like mine or yours so many times, that they reach a conception of you or I by virtue of our names I before we even enter the Court. When they drive to work or go to social gatherings they don't see the streets where you or I might live, they most likely will be unable to appreciate more that superficially any culture other than their own. Quite naturally, they live in an elite world, they could be tired, unwilling to sway from the path of conservatism which has for their whole life comforted them. There will be few among them that are sceptical of all evidence they hear or who tend not to question the construction of the cases they are likely to hear, not because of any reason other than their conservatism of their months, years of seeing the same sort of people appearing before them day and day out, separated only by name and on occasion a case out of the ordinary. Almost universally they will favour, even with consciousness, the authority that has brought the charges because they are part of that authority.

These are the same people our monocratic Minister Of Justice wants to hear more trials by Judge alone because he says it will free up to 16,000 hours of court time each year. He doesn't see the need for a wharfie to be judged by other blue collar workers, professionals, or those that have been through university and set course on another style of life, nor shopkeepers, taxi drivers or somebody like the woman or man next door. But this was the very need according to traditional law, the drawing together of life experiences to test the guilt or innocence of an accused, something which began because there was recognised dissatisfaction and potential bias by the former model by which the King himself, or his firmly controlled appointee, judged the King's enemies or those that were alleged to have transgressed the civil or criminal codes, or indeed might have their property desired by the King himself or a favourite ally.

Simon Power, who seems intent on knee-jerking his way out of office, has heartily failed to recognise that our existing system has elements of corruption, that the country has a recent history of miscarriage of justices - some which continue and he instead looks at how money might be saved. The clear message remains however, miscarriages of justices would readily consume the hours Power indicates would be saved. MOJs are extremely expensive. And so we have a Minister who right at the moment has at least 2 cases of mojs on his desk and who probably prevaricates with 1 eye on the election and the other on trying to recover his reputation damaged both by his involvement with The Sensible Sentencing Trust and for throwing out a centuries old law because of a particular case in which the law worked.

So he tinkers. Much like a young man with a car, more interested in it's cosmetic appearance than it's performance. Mr Power under his watch has a system that poorly, and without any appropriate appreciation that time is off the essence, is failing to recognise and remedy mojs. Surely, having a robust court and review system is more important than trying to take away a citizens rights to be tried, as near as possible by a jury of his peers, than by an elite who is fed by the same hand as those that prosecute? Simon Power is a product of the same system of those to whom he wishes to give more power over the masses from where, in the majority, Judges do not originate from. While agreeing that Power has considerably less experience than any of the 268 Judges doesn't discharge him from his myopic view that sees him avoiding creating laws establishing a right for compensation, and grimly holding to another law that is equally as undemocratic as that which he now trys to pass - The Royal Prerogative for Mercy.

Simon Power has proven that he sees a world where an elite have absolute power, he is centuries out of his time. He has no compassion, his speech and manner are robotic, he is difficult to read in that he seems to possess no real characteristics of personality that are not stitched up in his stifled view of the world and his own importance. Were it but now for the wise words of Peter Mahon to observe the importance of Justice and pursuit of the truth rather than of a man who willingly listens to the loudest mob. The real work is before this Minister but he chooses to ignore it. He should be intent on creating a fairer, self-analysing Judiciary, arm them with the vision of our current Youth Court Judge, make available sentences that have initiatives that can work, recognise the people and lift all to the same level not raise further those already privileged.

Remembering David Tua.

It's around 14 hours since Tua lost a unanimous points decision to American Monte Barrett. Even before the fight, years before in fact, David had more than his share of detractors, too short, one dimensional, overweight and so it went on. For most people if you'd heard of David Tua you owned part of him, he was public property for dissection. Everything he did was analysed, and it seemed, most times, to label David with terms less than his achievements. Perhaps it has been the public need to tear apart those that succeed, particularly those that achieve not through academic brilliance, diligent study but instead by raw ferocious talent. The opportunity to look at the gladiator in the pit and see nothing of his humanity but rather marvel or detract from his brutal instinct - in the way of surviving in physical mediocrity, cowardice even at never having stepped into the ring, or over a line where most others might not dare. It could be true to say that Tua represented all that many want to be while at the same time all that many don't want to be. A superb athlete on one hand, a boy from struggle street on the other - a kind of blend that characterises those that rise against the odds, but it seems we could never always recognise that in David because we were too often dissecting his personal life, his boxing style, his manner, to allow us to see the real man.

And of course David Tua is a real man, one with all the hopes, joys and disappointments of any other man. He is also a dreamer, one not afraid to share his dreams and hopes and for 20 years he has provided an often blank sheet for many to comment on, to pull away from him his hopes and aspirations, mostly it would seem - because he dared verbalise them with a naive courage too frightening for most to realise. Now at 38 he is still larger than life among us, not from him we hear of his financial nightmares, nor the sense that the legal storm to once he eagerly swum into might have been an opponent greater than he could ever imagine from a black and white simplicity of village, church life or even fisticuffs.

He was strangely quiet before this fight. For me there was a sense of foreboding in the city, a resignation of sorts of David's commitment for this fight as though something had happened in the last few weeks that was playing on his mind. Of course it appears the commentators weren't aware of it, and how often are they aware of anything other than their own opinions. They couldn't see that David wasn't distracted by the fight ahead - absorbed in what he needed to do and that only came slowly midway through the bout. Before then, he hadn't shown a fighter's arrogance or aggression, he was moving back at times and shovelling out a half jab and when hit no beast stirred in him. 4 rights to the Barrett's kidneys in the 9th showed me that David was coming back, once again he began to find that zone that might have disappeared from him weeks before the fight. Suddenly, he was again single minded, the boy fighting a man and not prepared to lose, bereft of pain and any thought other than to dispense with Barrett.

No need to contest the decision because it's in the books now, but I saw a fighter emerge where earlier there hadn't been one, I saw power in two hands and adrenalin that made David jump with concentration. I saw a fighter dictating to the end against another who was drained. I heard the comments about it being last chance corral for David, read the headlines that screamed out nonsense as to what the result of the fight mean to David, reminded again how it seems we think we own the man. Well, we don't. Never have and never will. He's given a generation here in NZ and fans worldwide a chance to take a journey with him and he's never belittled another man along the way, he's proven what family and church is to him and he's gone where few would dare, to the very edge of fear and defeat and smiled. So David will decide as always what he will do, and this one grateful commentator applauds him for that.

As 13,000 unique visitor mark is passed the District Court Hearing approaches.

One common characteristic is those that were once the most vocal want to avoid Court. I can concede that might be for a number of reasons but I think purely it is because they simply don't have the courage. It's one thing to lie for years about a case and cackle and giggle as people with nothing to do with the case have their privacy invaded and strangers talking about them and threatening them on line. I suppose it's the safety in numbers situation, the ability to be all powerful from behind a computer screen and the reluctance to appear in the cold light of day to reveal a persona something less than powerful or even lucid.

How terrific they must have felt when one of their associates threatened my family with a visit from the Mongrel Mob, using in true hollywood fashion the line 'this is a promise not a threat.' How confident they must have been that such threats finally proved they were not persecutors but rather a voice that transcended what other might consider normal and made threats, and hate messages 'freedom of speech.'

The case remains quite clear in that harassment did take place, and that the respondents were a party to it. The only issue is whether or not the harassment took place as a group effort or as an individual effort, to prove the former I have information from the damned ones own sites, conversations of the respondents that shows a campaign not only against those that objected to them lying and stalking but their families and friends as well. Maybe, that is the reason for their reluctance now the sheer bitterness and hate of their actions recoils even themselves from self-respect and they don't want to face it.

It is with some irony that the frenetic 3 now drape their activities as 'public debate' totally overlooking the fact that I was not debating with them and my family certainly were not. One goes even so far to say that his was 'free speech' a situation by which in his disordered mind one can lie their heads off to harm others and call it freedom of speech. I need these individuals assembled to be cross-examined, and will appeal any moves for them to avoid it not missing the irony that these were once 'men' in full flight with fury against whomever they saw in their way and who now which to be silent and be sympathised with.

John Poynton

Something struck me about this work by John which he completed in 1977. I put this on my blog with the owner's permission. For months something has struck me about this particular piece, something which when I mentioned to the owner they didn't dismiss but noted that they hadn't 'seen' or thought of what this work tends to illustrate for me.
Anyway, I hope others enjoy it as I do.
Feel free to offer any thoughts about this crayon work.

George Gwaze: update on expert opinion.

Just after I posted my blog about the situation that George Gwaze finds himself in facing a retrial that he raped and killed his adopted daughter, a correspondent pointed out that Felicity Goodyear Smith whom I had quoted was married to paedophile Bert Potter's son and had something of a controversial career. I thought about that but reflected on the essence of what she and others said about HIV sufferers rather than on who was saying it.

Yesterday, another correspondent sent on material which indicated there had been a forceful thrust against the innocence of George based on a group that objected to Felicity Goodyear Smith, her association with ACC etc, interestingly using a full scope of evidence that existed from trials and inquiries against her fatherinlaw to promote, therefore, that George must be guilty.

I wonder where such arguments can go, they certainly don't survive a relevancy test, nor the accusations that Felicity Goodyear Smith's purpose is to 'get pedo's off.' How fragile our hold must be in needing to know the truth when it is filtered by the colour of person's skin or who might offer evidence on their behalf. Unfortunate as that it is, and something that must be called repugnant, it calls into question if George is going to get a fair trial when there is a network of a hate - campaign working against him based, at least in part, on an expert witness likely to give evidence of George's evidence.

All said and done, and no reflection of Goodyear Smith - whose evidence and findings from what I've read are very sound, George's lawyers appear to face a quandary now, indeed the Justice System does, will George get a fair trial anyway and will he get one if Felicity does give evidence on his behalf. If any Kiwi is proud of that I'm stunned. I hope the publicised effort made against George, and which I have a copy of, is used to avoid George needing to be tried again when it is clear he is obviously innocent and the only fear of him being convicted is on prejudice or other factors beyond his control.

Kent Parker - translations from a troubled mind.

Here's Kenty's latest..


As already reported, with respect to the Karam Parker Defamation case, members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group (JFRB) failed in the recent to hearing to have their application for strike out accepted and failed to foil the other party's application for strike out. While it would have been nice to have some kind of a victory at this early stage it mustn't be forgotten that the defamation case is the inevitable occupational hazard that accompanies any serious countering of the very public activities of Joe Karam and that the main activities of the Group remains the public promotion of the other side of the Bain story. This activity we are now fully prepared for, after two years of gathering evidence and establishing committment and is quite separate and independent of the defamation action being taken against us.
The result of the hearing has the following implications:
I am personally defending comments made by other people on the Facebook page which means that the defamation case involves the JFRB group as a whole more than it would otherwise. I am very grateful for everyone's support so far and this part of the case will reinforce that group commitment.
The other party attempted to have some of our arguments struck out but these attempts appear to have been ignored and all of our arguments are intact and we can use them all provided that we supply a valid defence statement by 28 August. This, quietly, is a win.
We have now enlisted the professional services of a defamation expert and will be meeting the given deadline and continuing with a positive defence to the vexatious and improper claims made against us.
It was always my impression that the only way to counter Karam's arguments was through the media. This remains the case, however, the opportunity of a defamation trial adds another dimension to the cause and the ability to make greater inroads than otherwise possible. Over the past year I have learnt a lot about legal process and so I am not longer scared of the prospect of appearing for myself in defence of my freedom of political expression.


Translation;


'Failed to foil the other party's application'


Defence wiped out and now is on final notice a 'valid defence' statement must be submitted by 28 August or an order will be made against him on the charges.


'While it would have been nice to have some kind of victory' etc,


ouch! Kent's arse got tanned and it's all because of naughty Joe not being willing to be defamed.


'I am personally defending comments made by other people made on facebook which means the defamation case involves the JFRB group as a whole more than otherwise. I am very grateful for everyone's support so far and this part of the case will reinforce that group committment.'


I'm not the only one to blame it's you others as well, don't forget that or I will drop you in it more than you are now.


'The other party attempted to have some of our arguments struck out but these attempts appear to have been ignored and all of our arguments are intact and we can use them provided we can supply a valid defence statement by 28 August. This is quietly a win.'


He still doesn't understand that no valid defence means that no arguments remain other than publisher's responsibility.


'We have now enlisted the professional services of a defamation expert and will be meeting the deadline.' etc.


The Court advised him to get legal advice because he didn't have a clue what he was doing and this was a final indulgence for the idiot.


'....I am no longer scared of the prospect of appearing for myself in defence of my freedom of political expression.'


I'm absolutely crapping myself that I won't find a lawyer who will represent me in the fashion I need rather than in terms of the law. I wasn't defaming anybody I was expressing political expression.


There there kent, buy a teddy ya bloody cry baby. Don't drag your mates into it, you set up your rotten hate-site, you shot your mouth off breaking the law, bragging about your musical prowess and political ambitions of your own political party. Even what you've written here shows you can't get over your hate, now you hate Karam because you and only you got yourself in the crap moron head. Your site remains full of lies and messages of hate, replete with defamation and your petulant idolisation of yourself - your a bloody loser Kent, plug ya brain in.

Keith and Margaret Berryman are

looking for a royal commission into their case that followed them being prosecuted for a the collapse of a bridge leading their King Country property, built by the NZ Army, killing beekeeper Ken Richards in 1994.

The legal costs of the battle saw them lose their farm and in November 2009 they accepted a 'take it or leave it' offer of $150,000 which a spokesman for Attorney General Chris Finlayson was an 'act of compassion.'

I seem to remember that an ex NZ Police Association president acted as the Berryman's lawyer and was able to expose through engineers reports that the bridge had never been built to required standards. It was a protracted battle of 15 years. Keith Berryman has some choice discriptions of the way he and his wife were treated pointing out that he and his wife 'were blamed for a crime we (they) never committed.'

It would be difficult to imagine that the settlement figure was not full and final as in the normal course of such events, however things like this have a way of resurfacing and at least on the surface the 'take it or leave it' offer would appear to exempt of compassion by those very words if true as reported. Other factors emerge, being the cost of a farm as only $150,000 - potential mortgages aside when over a 16 year period a farm would probably naturally increase by that value or more. Of course then is the personal aspect of what Keith describes of being blamed for a crime they never committed. What a bloody nightmare, then all the covering up before blame was finally accepted in a petulant 'take it or leave it' fashion.

Things go even deeper I suspect. Was the offer fair? Did the offer look only at the situation the Berryman's were in and what amount they might accept while in a situation compounded by 16 years of stress and worry, I think so. Was the offer itemised so that the Berrymans could note how much was allowed for being subject to coverups, faulty investigations and reporting, the suffering they'd endured, what they lost etc etc and moreover why an offer made in 'compassion' had qualifiers with it that still rankle the family 2 years later.

Ah, I remember. Rob Moodie, the kaftan wearing ex police officer and lawyer represented the Berryman's in at least part of their ordeal. No other country in the world might know more so than NZ that mistreatments of miscarriages of justice and so forth bear only poisoned fruit. It must be seen we have a poor record of settling grievances and a institutionalised mindset of grinding out to the bitter end rather than quickly looking to remedy Government and Government department failures. What could take only days or weeks to destroy might take a life time or more to remedy - how did such a beast grow inside our system of democracy?

Kent Parker - question from a correspondent.

Perhaps you can ask, on your blog, if Kent can explain how these 3 things, all written in the same blog on counterspin, can possibly make sense?"In this hearing two interlocutory applications were tabled, one from each side, attempting to strike out the pleadings of the other side. ""The result of the hearing is that the Plaintiff, Joe Karam succeeded in his application and the Defendants failed."And"All of the Defendants defenses remain intact"

If Kent wasn't such a moron whose single purpose was to persecute others in order to disguise his own frailties and weakness of mind he could be accused of writing great comedy.

But the joke is on you kent. Entirely on you. Throughout the nation, like this correspondent above, people realise you have arrogantly cooked your own goose and there is impatience with you now for still trying to fudge the truth and not being man enough to man up.

If you had but 1/64 part of a brain, you would take this latest decision and at least try to turn it into some small advantage for yourself, to lessen your fall by even a few feet. A full public and unconditional apology to Joe Karam. An immediate letter to Karam's lawyers and to the Court saying that you accept the ruling that you have no defence and that you will seek to settle with Mr Karam at the earliest possible time. Even if Joe didn't accept your apology or terms of settlement in full you would be at least displaying publicly that you were wrong and that you were seeking to mitigate the damage. You're on a hiding to nothing Kent, the longer you ignore the inevitable the greater the damage.

As for some of your supporters anonymous comments that I'm a 'nutjob' to this point my predictions about your being sued and having no defence, then having your defence struck out have all proven correct, the pathway ahead for you and Vic Purkiss is bankruptcy of that there is no doubt - however, while it is still within your power look to settle - that, and that alone, is your only hope now - as it always was.

Every minute now is absorbing a lot of money, Court time and public impatience that you scorned the system and sought to underwrite it with lies in order to harm others. Do the country a favour and face reality, offer to Karam to fully disclose who used you as a puppet and who silently watches you now flounder on the rocks. The country wants the truth Kent, the bloody good old truth and there are many of us that won't stop until that time.

Kent Parker - no defence.

Well, that's sorted out, that there was defamation and Parker has provided no defence against it. So the question is whether Parker is responsible for what he has published and the Judge has ordered that is for a Jury to decide.

Of course in considering that will be the nature of Parker's site, its bias against Karam etc. It's plain intention to continually misrepresenting facts and blame Karam for doing that instead. But what I have been talking about is the continued defamation, the continuing defamation Parker's site is full of it - most on public display showing his distorted and one sided views. Kent isn't listening so here's something from a lawyer to a client in another High Court decision regarding defamation..Hallet v Williams


'I appeared in Court in the defamation case yesterday [3 May]. In accordance with your instructions I applied for an adjournment. This was opposed with some vigour by Peter Williams who prepared and submitted a substantial document. He wanted the application for adjournment rejected and the hearing to proceed. I argued that – effectively – he was asking for the statement of defence to be struck out as he would be denying you the opportunity to present a defence. He put some pressure on the court. The Judge granted your application for an adjournment. He said it would be as short an adjournment as possible. Mr Williams wanted a date in May. It seems that is not possible and the earliest date we will be able to get will be in August. No date is set at this stage. If some other case falls over in the meantime this case might be put in its place. Mr Williams is not happy about everything concerned with this case and he has complained to the court that you continue to defame him. You may not get a Christmas card from him this year. I will let you know as soon as I get a new date for the defamation hearing. At this stage I am not recorded as counsel in the summary judgment matter [unpaid Architecture fee].'

To repeat 'Mr Williams is not happy about everything concerned with this case and he has complained to the court that you continue to defame him.'

That might sink in with Kent sometime.

Now, I wonder how the owners of other hate-site are feeling, particularly Annette Curran. I wonder how all the defamatory contributors are feeling knowing that according to last Friday's judgement they could be in line for defamation charges and, like Kent, have no defence - other than trying to blame the site owners that there was some binding or implied contract that Kent would, as he has to anyway, take the blame as a publisher but not (unfortunately for the defamatory rats) that the defamatory posts of others belonged to them first of all and Kent secondly.

Kent Parker - a victory?

In his own words the poor demented soul.

'The result of the hearing is that the Plaintiff, Joe Karam succeeded in his application and the Defendants failed.'

More on this later, but it was with some excitement Kenty blogged about his defeat, I guess it takes time for things to sink in with him. Why, yes it does because he thinks he has cleaned up his defamatory site but it is still riddled with defamatory comment and harassment. Depart from cyber-space Kent the world is filled enough with hate and jealously without your pathetic efforts.

Bad luck Kent, maybe you are confused and thought that the you were the Plaintiff and not the Defendant - who would know?

Kent Parker - breathless and clueless.

Kent, who has made great purchase out of publishing sub-judice material, suddenly doesn't want to reveal whether or not his defence was struck out, citing that to do so would be 'sub judice.'

This from the guy who happily printed Melanie White's false confession and who publicised 'evidence' from someone who had 'just' returned from overseas with 'important' information on the Bain case despite the compensation review being on going. What's good for the goose is good for the gander kent, and you certainly are a bit gander. In fact probably all the material on your site about Joe Karam is sub judice because it sets out to prejudice a potential jury in your favour. Maybe you need some time in the cells to reflect.

Pull the other one Kent. Grow some gonads and stop bull-crapping, what can be sub-judice about you having had a decision go against you in the Auckland High Court, how could it effect any other proceeding? Simply, your delusions of showing how 'bad' you think Karam has acted in comparison how you have acted has been rejected as irrelevant and not a defence. There is nothing sub-judice about that at all because if your case ever goes to trial in won't be based on the bullcrap defence you dreamed up, it will be based on something that a lawyer feels that fits the criteria of a lawful defence. We all know you've had legal advice and then dispensed with it. More seasoned observers note that such a situation arises when some idiot, like yourself, can't handle being told that your a dreamer and your defence is a dream.

Effectively, that is what appears to have happened Kent. Why not be honest about it? Your not a lawyer's shoeshine, everyone knows that. It's unlikely that anybody would take your case to the Appeal Court because it lacks substance, somebody however might by some miracle find something that was overlooked. However, that is unlikely because the Court would have offered you some direction about that as they ran black lines through your meandering, irrelevant pleadings, and no doubt earlier given you advice to get a lawyer.

You've been told before Kenty, cut your losses and hope that Mr Karam might come to some arrangement with you. I doubt that he's a vindictive man and he probably feels quite sorry for you considering your obvious impairments and difficulties. But even if you haven't got the fortitude to do that, admit that your are wrong, at least stop bullcrapping. Be a man for once in your life and stop hiding the truth just because it's stuck in your craw.

Kent Parker - feeling a bit testy?

Morning Kent,
Another rough night? That's good. You must feel disappointed being unable to release your stalkers to get revenge on your behalf. But if you think about it Kent you were told all about what was going to happen to you and now it has happened. I see that you are such an idiot you are still publishing lies for public view on your hate-site. I know this will be hard to follow, but when the award for defamation is made against you it will be an aggravating factor that you didn't stop when written to, didn't stop even after papers were served on you, but it might be worst of all that you continue even now when you've been told your multiple defences to all the charges against you have no merit - that they're about as useless as your multiple personalities.

You probably understand now Kent that there are other investigations going on looking into your activities and those of your associates. Some of them are even now in the Court system, a complete sketch of you and your hate-site buddies was framed 2 years ago and since then, by way of mistakes, arrogance, leaks and sheer stupidity you and your fellows have coloured that sketch so that it now a clear picture of the illegal activities you encouraged and undertook to undermine the justice system, the privacy of members of the public. You, of impetuous mind, no doubt saw gaps in the narrative as signs by which you could delude yourself that things weren't as bad as you sometimes imagined, but Kent they weren't gaps, they were procedural steps of a momentum gathering against you and others as you so willingly supplied more and more information.

You and your fellows made personal attacks against people and their families, people personally unknown to you. People, you felt you had some right to interfere in their lives, terrify them with phone calls and threats, lay false complaints to the police, stalk people, you sure did it all Kent even harassing a sick mother and young children when the mother was undergoing serious medical interventions. That's what you are kent along with your sicko mates and if there was ever any doubt that the individual acts were isolated you and your band of idiots have since proved otherwise and still more information comes. From the MOJ that this arose from, another picture emerges just as disturbing and affecting a lot more people. You Kent are one of the architects and by the time things are finished a complete understanding will have emerged of others behind the scenes using you and idiots like you to defend a corrupt investigation and prosecution. Should be fun Kent, and don't feel down. Look on the bright side, in a contest of idiots you'd stand out as only one of 2 men in NZ history to face hundreds of defamation charges, go onto defend yourself and be told you have no defence. That's classic idiocy and maybe you might feel proud of that in your pea-sized mind. Ring kal and golfergold and have a lol. Seeya.

Nos

Kent Parkers 'site' Counterspin is having some problems..

Hope it's not terminal.