The long predicted suggestion that Kent would not only threaten to sell out on his members as he has done many times but would simply go ahead anyway. He kept this one very quiet but now it is in the public forum. I've never had any sympathy for the mad man Parker but of course the rats that desert the ship at the first sign of water coming on board are even less deserving of sympathy. They are the ones that chortled 'bring it on,' laughing about being sued, claimed that Karam wouldn't dare because they were telling the truth. Of course they scurried quickly when the pressure went on, only a few of the more bewildered, without a keen sense of survival, hanging about.
'There are outstanding questions as to costs on the plaintiff's largely successful application for an order to strike out the statements of defence and on the defendant's unsuccessful application to strike out the statement of claim.'
So starts the High Courts deliberation of costs it had already indicated had been found in favour of Karam in 2011. Eventually, an order was made which looks to be well over $9,000 once filing fees are included.
Karam had claimed that costs had increased by the lengthy, convoluted pleading in the statement of defence some thing to which the Judge had referred to when the matter was previously heard. The defendants 'resisted' the order for costs on the basis that until they came to court they had not understood how complicated it was to respond to a defamation proceeding and that 'they are now proceeding with the help of competent counsel, having already expended all of their initial resources on representation that did not assist greatly.' It makes me ponder how Kent has presented himself as an expert of defamation for years to reach a point to admit that he wasn't competent and that his efforts in a complicated case had not assisted greatly. Well, that was the truth all along and it took Kent years to admit and only when under pressure of increased costs.
So much for person who purports to be able to un-spin things when now see he spun himself into a knot and only in the High Court would he admit the fact. The Judgement goes on to point out that the defendant's application proceeded on two main grounds. 'The first ground turned essentially on whether it is the persons placing posts on a private site who are alone in their role as publishers or whether the administrator of the site also is the publisher.'
What did Kent do here? He submitted that his members were the publishers alone in their role and questioned whether he was also the publisher. And that's it folks what Kent promised he wouldn't do (though having implied the threat a couple of times,) he asked the Court to rule that he wasn't the publisher and that his site members were alone as publishers. Very nasty Kenty, but also very expected. Those that have read the earlier hearing from which costs arose will remember that Kent attempted to use a second albeit misconceived ground relied on in an English case that turned on whether or not there was a substantial tort that had occurred in the United Kingdom as opposed to another jurisdiction. The Judge decided that Neither ground was raised irresponsibly or unreasonably. Both warranted careful consideration - the first especially. Which I suggest indicates Kent had argued strongly his case of 'dropping' his members in it so that he might walk away.
He's kept that all very quite hasn't he? Even to the point of attempting to raise more money from those he dropped in it. When you consider the act of his deceit, it must be remembered that Kent set up the site for the purpose of attacking Karam and others. That is the only decision that can be made to my mind. Why? Because he never stopped it, even after several warnings he let the goons go on like attack dogs. He never tried to stop a single thing until he realised that it was at his own risk, and then he denied that and reinforced the attempted defence that he wasn't responsible for what was on a site he owned and which he never bothered to remove. I've always maintained that individuals who used Kent's site for their defamation might be sued, I even suggested that Kent would drop them in it, as he has done. Kent seems to think he moves in shadows, when in fact everything he does is seen.
If you look at Kent's past, he has a long history of being enthusiastic about many positions, all of which have the potential to make him rich and famous (e.g. politician, web developer, musician) I think he saw an opportunity with JFRB to be a campaigner. Jumping on an issue portraying Robin Bain as innocent. As a late comer Kent was hoping to be a 'leader', make fame and fortune. He saw a group of people floundering about an issue, which he could use. He thought the media and JFRB would embrace his leadership and he could use that to promote himself.
ReplyDeleteAnd use them, he did. He encouraged their participation in slagging off Karam, he egged them on, and facilitated placed for them to carry out their attacks. When things went quiet, Kent would appear and stir the pot, then step back whilst the rest of his group took the bait and continued the attacks.
Kent thought the public would support him, but alas, he has never gained any more support than when he began, in fact, his numbers have dwindled.
Now Kent has grabbed another opportunity, and is distastefully using Robin Bain's name to promote his music career, because he knows he doesn't have the talent to do it by himself.
He must have been very disappointed to know the media didn't pick up on his defamation campaign and promote him as the 'saviour of free speech'. Instead, as we saw from his recent TV performance, they edited their footage to show him as a fool he is.
There doesn't seem to be anything Kent won't stop at.
Of course they will now have further costs to pay since being 'knocked back' on discovery requests at the recent hearing where they 'fished' for a defence.
DeleteKent and Vic may just now be getting the impression of the depth of trouble they are in. They failed to escape by asking the Court to rule that their members were responsible for the defamation, they failed with a broad ranging request for discovery, that fishing expedition will have brought a substantial order for costs because it will show their claim of having help from competent counsel proved to be untrue.
You're right Kent doesn't seem to have any point at which he would stop, so it seems that the High Court will do that. If he and Vic don't pay the most recent costs (not those mentioned above which clearly have already been paid) the defence doesn't proceed, if that happens the Court may enter a finding of defamation and a subsequent award of damages. The ice is paper thin beneath their feet.
If anyone would think what he tried to do to his friends was outrageous we shall soon fully witness what he has inadvertently done to himself and Vic.
That explains why he has been so very quiet on his counterspin site. He won't want the troops to know that not only has he led them into an ambush, but he has turned tail and is trying to run leaving them to face the music.
ReplyDeletePoint number 1: whether the site administrator is a publisher. I think they can't make that stand: there have been too many rulings recently that the 'host' is definitely the/a publisher, and the editorial capability is what increases responsibility. If the administrators make other decisions indicating management and control of the site (such as permitting or not permitting members, deleting or not deleting material) then they unquestionably are taking responsibility for what appears. So that argument is a loser.
ReplyDeletePoint number 2: whether they or the posters are the publisher(s). See point 1. The posters are also publishers, obviously, as they make the posts, and as you say it's clear that Kent is using the "Bart Simpson defence" (itwasn'tmeIdidn'tdoit). This could set a course for making posters legally/financially liable for what they post: indeed, Kent could potentially sue them for the costs, although in the position of the posters I would argue that I relied on the administrators for guidance as to what was permissible. But the case is against Kent and Vic, not the other posters.
Point Number 3 - and this is very telling - the sheer arrogance of Kent. He is so certain he is right and so convinced by his own rhetoric that he didn't consider it necessary to get competent advice. In fact, he has continued to defame Karam for months after the original warnings, seeming to see this as some personal squabble. But who the hell does he think he is? He is a nobody. He has no achievements to lend him status or authority; his multiple websites detailing multiple grandiose and failed ventures only suggest a grossly inflated ego and very little clarity of thinking, and the latest 'musical' venture is quite literally ridiculous. It appears that Mr Purkiss may have seen the reality, as he has gone very quiet.
Point number 4. These types of people emerge from their murk around every major case where there are miscarriages of justice. If you take any major case either here or overseas you will find these 'witch-sniffers' as they were so aptly called in the recent North & South editorial. There are people who still maintain that Lindy Chamberlain, Arthur Allen Thomas, Ruben Carter et al are guilty. There is nothing clever or unique about the counterspinners and Kent, they are merely the usual vindictive idiots who for some unfathomable reason feel that they are capable of making a rational judgment based on popular press, rumour and gut feeling. Where so much hate comes from can only be wondered at; they are to be pitied. But they let their idiocy lead them to persecution and harassment. And now they have to take the consequences.