Saturday, May 4, 2013

Kent Parker: The madness thickens.


The People vs Joe Karam
The defamation trial of Joe Karam vs Parker and Purkiss is to be held at the High Court in Auckland starting on 14 October 2013 and going for three weeks. The trial is to be held before a judge only. Joe Karam is represented by Michael Reed and both Parker and Purkiss will be representing themselves.
The legal action taken by Karam against the two Justice for Robin Bain (JFRB) group members consists of four actions:
  • Against Parker as admin of the JFRB facebook site for being 'publisher' of other people's comments on the page.
  • Against Parker as creator of this website for being publisher of other people's comments.
  • Against Parker for his own comments on the Facebook page and on his website.
  • Against Purkiss for his own comments on the Facebook page, on his website and on Trade Me messageboards.
Parker and Purkiss are defending using legal defences of Truth, Truth overall, Honest Opinion and Qualified Privilege. There are some 100 comments involved in the legal action allegedly published by Parker and Purkiss. They maintain that the defamation suit is improper and vexatious and will be presenting substantial evidence before the Court.


As can be seen by the above press release Kent Parker is still in goo gaa land. Before considering that point, it must be remembered that there was a actual reminder of how Parker could have avoided being the subject of defamation proceedings - when last week the leader of the Conservative Party put a blogger on notice that he would be sued if he failed to 'take down' certain material Colin Craig considered to be defamatory of him. The blogger complied and so it would seem the warning of legal action is no longer in place.

Similarly Parker and co we were warned by letter in 2009 that information published by them was considered by Joe Karam to be defamatory of him and he wanted it removed. Four years later Parker has had a date set for a trial, in which he publicly discloses the case as 'The People vs Joe karam,' in much the same way as some American States cite proceeding as The People against John Doe. Of course as Parker tries for sympathy he seems not to realise that the action is not by the state against Joe Karam - it is in fact a proceeding brought by Joe Karam against Parker and Purkiss. Two men who launched an illegal, opportunistic attack against Karam and others, feeling if nothing else that they might have had public opinion on their side. On the basis of such a calculation, they were unable to discern that 'public opinion' - which incidentally has never favoured them in a single poll, is not the basis of our law. Our Law is written and forged by precedent, no where in the history of our Law or it's foundations in Britain and earlier Rome is 'public opinion' an instrument of the law either to prosecute or defend a case.

If Parker, Purkiss and the other twisted sisters had argued opinions in public against Karam that were true, could reasonably be seen as true by a reasonable and informed person defamation would never have followed. So intent based on a reasonably held opinion is the basis for the defamation charges against Parker and Purkiss. But what was the intent? Ostensibly to defend Robin Bain who, by the course of time and Judicial proceedings, is seen to have been the killer of his family rather than his falsely imprisoned son David. An opinion by Parker and Purkiss? On the surface yes but underneath definitely not. Intention to promote the innocence of one man over another doesn't include defamatory attacks, and most certainly it doesn't include a campaign of lies by a group who thought that it was OK to stalk a Jury, harass witnesses after the trial and even begin a campaign against members of the public who opposed their views.

I've had information for 3 years that some supporters of Parker and Purkiss who belonged to Parkers web site and other groups set up for the same purpose were also members of the Sensible Sentencing Trust through whom they agitated for false complaints to be taken to the authorities in order to harm those opposing their views, and, unfortunately, their families. There is no small irony that the SST itself is now subject to proceeding under the Privacy Act and Human Rights Act which appear to be very strong against them and in which, according to a report from preliminary hearing, included a 'blackmail letter' and 'threats.'

So just to get that clear in the Parker defamation case, 'the people' stand accused of blackmail and threats, 'people' who forged their cause for 'Justice for Robin Bain' with threats, lies, false complaints and targeting other New Zealanders in a vendetta for simply not believing in the absolute absurdity that Robin Bain didn't kill his own family. Parker was warned and chose to ignore it, he wasn't warned to stop his 'Justice' campaign but rather to stop defaming Karam. He could have proceeded legally, working hard to satisfy himself of his own beliefs and bring the facts to the New Zealand public. Instead he just repeated lies and his 'followers' repeated lies. One of which I should mention as also 'finding the light' this year, a particular idiot and 'site administrator' of one of Parker's site has repeated for years lies about 'injuries' David was reported to have had the morning of the murders, and a denial that David was ever strip searched. Someone I know sought details of the correspondence of that site administrator and the Minister over the subject, something which the 'man' relied upon at length, only to find it proved that the man was lying his head off about the 'official' information he had. Proving once again that 'Justice' is encompassed in lies for Parker and his hate-site buddies.

Not real buddies of course because Parker and Purkiss cannot find a lawyer to defend them despite having a 'bush lawyer' in their ranks and another 'qualified' Lawyer Racheal Membery at their disposal. This is of course a 'group' that bragged that they would 'finance' the defence of Parker and Purkiss who were reduced to relying on 'fund raising' concerts which no one attended. Leaving as it seems Parker and Purkiss preparing to defend themselves with 'truth' in October this year in a case in which they unaware of even who the parties are.

Just on that case and Trade Me mentioned in the 'press release' above. Trade Me didn't argue 'truth' when they negotiated a settlement with Karam last year, a settlement which included an apology. I also understand NZ Herald settled with Karam while proceedings against Fairfax Media, I predict, also won't go the distance to trial. Each of those parties no doubt spending 100s of 1000s before folding and 'waking up' to the fact there is no difference between print media and cyberspace when it comes to defamation, a fact that was obvious at least as long ago as 2009 when I cautioned Trade Me about the activities of Parker, Purkiss, O Brien, Cochrane, Curran and others many of whom share the membership of Parkers site and SST, so the shake out continues.

On another front, and to the very core, of what 'instigated' the hate-campaigns, lies and not the truth, the evidence against Robin Bain as time progresses get stronger, presenting something of a snag in the medium term for the current Minister whose decision making in David Bain's application for compensation is facing Judicial Review in the High Court also this year. I think it will be strike 3 against the Hate Sites, SST and the Minister for bad medicine costing a lot of money.

6 comments:

  1. Parker must be unbelievably arrogant, and apparently able to completely shut out the reality. If he had any viable defence, he would have defamation lawyers falling over themselves to defend it pro-bono, but they are not - Parker and Purkiss are defending themselves.
    Any grandstanding that Parker plans will not go far with a judge. Emotional appeals and attempts to subvert the case into a discussion of the innocence or otherwise of David Bain will not get any traction, because they are irrelevant to the case.
    His published intended defences are risible. Qualified privilege? Really? A quick read of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_privilege) shows that to be inapplicable - far too many examples of malice, and certainly neither fair nor accurate.
    Truth? Well, no, that fails too. Not surprisingly when opinions were formed on the basis of malicious gossip and incomplete media coverage, and then expressed as fact rather than opinion. Karam may be "prickly" as one journo had it; he may be determined and refuse to give up, but there is demonstrably no truth to the suggestions made by the counterspinners that he was in it for the money, nobbled jurors, knowingly lied to the courts etc. All that nasty stuff was just nasty, and they should have had the sense to know that if they were going to say nasty things of that nature they had better be very sure they were true - BEFORE they said them.
    As for honest opinion, well, they'll be stymied on that too. 'Honest opinion' has to be clearly stated as opinion (ie not as fact) and has to be based on truthful facts. Neither of those apply to the sort of comments made on Parker's website.
    TradeMe knew that, so the settled. The Herald knew that, so they settled.
    But Parker is continuing to cast himself as some sort of people's hero, a 'campaigner for justice'. Like Icarus, he was warned not to fly too close to the sun with wings that were fake...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Parker's whole position throughout has been arrogant, this best displayed when his predictions or promises have failed to eventuate - he just carries on as if being proven wrong is of no importance to him. He wouldn't have a humble bone in his body and his all consuming arrogance blinds him to reality.

      Delete
  2. When will these morons learn! they are unbelivably arrogant and stupid! What a joke, I think Kent somehow believes that it will be an opportunity to re litigate the case hence the 'facts' presented to the courts to justify the honest opinion belief. They haven't got a hope, not suprisingly there is not one 'fact' on the CS website that is not a distorted manipulation of whats been reported in the media. I wonder will his gutless wonder witchhunt following distance themselves from him, wouldn't suprise me! looking forward to the outcome

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may not know Rowan that when Parker and co first go sued, he aunty fanny and others suggested the case would net them a lot of money and proposed that people help finance the defence as an 'investment' from which they'd be paid back 'with interest.' As the months passed and the enormity of the struggle found home, Rita Cochrane, a very senior sister, proposed that they each put in another $5.

      Delete
    2. You have to laugh at the lack of braincells of the lynch mob, They somehow think it is going to be an opportunity to re litigate the case. Kent has openly said that he is going to use the 'honest opinion' defence that Joe used when sued by Weir and Anderson. Good luck on convincing a judge that they have established sufficient facts to justify there inane ramblings. They will certainly need it as there is not one 'fact' on Kents hatesite that hasn't been gained via the media and given the usual 'spin' by them. You just have to laugh, the moron states on his website that JK doesn't actually believe in Davids innocence!

      Delete
    3. Rowan, they have said that on every website they have ever posted on. I would love to see how they think that can be explained when they are using truth as a defense.

      Delete