Wednesday, August 3, 2011

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.

2 comments:

  1. When does 'struck out' = 'not struck out'? See Counterspin for an answer...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Extraordinary isn't it? I hope his dwindling following finally get the picture that Kent's 'campaign' was only for own benefit and with no concern who he might hurt along the way. Typical psychopath.

    ReplyDelete