Kent Parker - it did get crazier.

I got the answer to my question yesterday about whether things with Parker could get any crazier, because they sure did today. If I have the framework correct Kent Parker swore or affirmed an affidavit, which is the same as giving evidence under oath, in which he admitted today that he lied. The legal term for that is perjury, punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment. The chances are that someone may lay a complaint with police, or indeed the Judge may order that it be brought to their attention that Parker has admitted perjury.

Many people have known for years that Parkers whole campaign has been built on lies but to learn that he acknowledged it in the Auckland High Court is 'out there' by any definition. He also apologised. It seems that Parker was always going to fold but what is inexplicable is the fact that he didn't do so years ago when the cost to him would have been less. Now even his freedom is at question. It's difficult to imagine how he must feel, no doubt sorry for himself, but it is bewildering to consider how he possibly sees the evaporation of his own hate campaign pass in the dock at the High Court. The man obviously has a martyr's type complex, but one he generated from his own ambition without the apparent ability to see that an argument cannot survive on foundation of lies. It is almost as if he pushed the envelope as much as possible knowing full well he was headed for disaster. I've often written of my belief that he has unfortunate psychiatric history and today seems to underline that.

That is not to forget that he attracted, or was attracted to like minded gullible people who bonded for a 'noble' cause, a cause that they have effectively destroyed. They have added to the ignominy of the memory of Robin Bain, not only as killer of his family, but as someone capable in death of becoming the figure head of a cult. Consider how many of Kent's 'good people' are disturbed that Robin couldn't defend himself of the charges, when in fact he made the decision not to defend the charges but kill himself instead, along with the allegations of incest from his daughters. Robin wanted out. Parker and co wanted his 'salvation' even though by their efforts Parker's 'crew' have forever underlined that which Robin wanted hidden.

I've been told that Parker has taken his 'site' off line, this on the same day he apologised and agreed that he was a liar and perjurer. So what now? I'm unsure but no doubt there is 'exposure' on the way for a number of people. Parker has handed over the 'secrets,' he has coughed and the prize of what went on behind the scenes is now in Karam's hands and from there a new journey, I suspect begins.

Kent Parker - can it get any crazier?

I know a number of people have looked forward to today with some anticipation of finally seeing Kent and Vic Purkiss's defamation trial start. It was long ago predicted that the trial would not become a venue for Kent's ego and wacky ideas. In fact much of his intended defence was struck out earlier, some of the dimwits he intended to call weren't considered either credible or material to a defence against defamation. I've suggested in the past that maybe Kent or Vic would do a runner, and it appears that Vic Purkiss has indeed 'hit the toe.'

I have mixed feelings about that because of reports that his wife is poorly. Taking into account many of those that objected, or do object, to Counterspin and JFRB is because of attacks on family members or threats of attacks against the children and families of those that oppose the hate-campaigners - I feel with certainty that there is no pleasure felt for the difficulties Parker and co have caused their own families because that would make those that oppose them no different than them. An importance difference between the sides has always been to observe the truth knowing how dangerous, and what harm lies can cause. When Auckland school teacher Christine Williams threatened to send Mongrel Mob members to my house, or to 'rescue' my children and wife to the chortles and glee of other hate-siters there was no response in kind. No debasing a protest that it wasn't right to 'stalk' and threaten others to prove who was right and who was wrong. When Williams and others laid false complaints raised from their imaginations with police, and anyone else who would listen, it was important not to be drawn down to that level. To have done so would not honour an interest in Justice, in fact it would dishonour it in the same way the hate-siters have done.

Another reason I have mixed feelings is because of how unworthy an opponent Parker and co have shown themselves to be - something which has been indicated throughout by their lies. If somebody is right, why do they need to lie? Detective Jones showed that during the retrial where he admitted to lying in order to help the Jury understand the truth. How apt those words were for the description of what Parker, Williams and others have done. Here now is the reason not to have responded in kind because the very argument used to persecute David Bain has been a lie, and to respond with lies would have been the same as using the logic of Jones. The same also as Martin Van Beynan stalking jurors and demanding information from them, writing about the trial but leaving out key evidence that would have exposed that he too was on a campaign. Elsewhere in this blog are shown links between the hate-sites, their members and Van Beynan. Make no mistake the machinations of the hate-sites was wide spread, used as they often were by those that 'fed' them lies to compliment their own

By now it will have been decided if a summary Judgement has been entered against Vic Purkiss and no doubt tomorrow or soon after the Judge will find against Parker. It seems, predictably that Parker was cautioned many times today not use his opportunity to cross examine in order to make statements - read speeches. So a prediction of mine that he may well be placed in Contempt of Court may still happen. Michael Reed expressed in his opening what has long been obvious: that there was no campaign for 'Justice' for Robin Bain but that it was a vehicle to express hatred against Karam, Bain or anyone that might not agree with that expression of hatred.

I started off this blog by asking the question as to whether or not Parker can get any crazier. Of course he can because we have already seen a lunatic leading a bunch of other nuts on a hate-campaign, culminating in a High Court Trial where a defendant(s) is given the attention so desperately craved. One who sits looking a paperwork with interest as though the written word and truth were the currency of his endeavour, rather than spite and evil.

What's in store for Kenty and Counterspin now?

It's no secret that Kent's defence to the defamation charges he and Vic Purkess are facing is sinking in deep water. What is interesting to observe is the apparent associated panic that has set in, not only is Vic no longer a site administration but also recently Aunt Fanny is gone. It hasn't much been in focus to this point, but it's questionable where liability stops with the members of Counterspin and Justice for Robin Bain. Invariably, they have all been party to the defamatory attacks on Karam, it has been their 'work' for many years, in which they have 'shared' the commitment and costs, a combined effort by a group with clear intentions.

Of course there has been a united effort in attacking Karam by the hate-sites. Even in respect to the defence of those attacks members have pooled their resources and 'money.' It's has always been clear that it hasn't been just silly Kent attacking Karam and Bain, it's been the administrators, the members and the 'feeders' to the hate sites. So Vic and Aunt Fanny apparently attempt to 'divorce' themselves from the attack against Joe Karam as the defamation case nears. By no longer being administrators for the 2 hate-sites they apparently that it absolves them from blame for the dirty war they waged. Likewise, the vocal attackers, the contributors to the financial fund have also displayed liability when tested by what could be lost or gained by their activities. Yet I wonder why they think they can escape. The hate-sites have a common purpose, one shared by their members, financial contributors and 'feeders.' They are able to be observed over a long period as having a common cause.

I look forward to finding out what steps are available to Karam to satisfy any award the Court might make. This could involve an analysis of the Constitution of the two hate-sites, the administrators, advisors and in particular the 'contributors' to the 'fighting fund.' Some readers will recall an early proposition that donations to the 'fighting fund' could be seen as an investment. The administrators of the time presented that scenario, which in their minds, would result in good returns for those that fronted up with money. In other words a 'share holding' with the intention to profit. Everyone knows that shares can increase or decrease in value, yet if the 'investment' was an attempt to obscure civil  or criminal offences, the penalties for which cannot be paid, then that 'instrument' may well be scrutinised for potential vicarious liability. There is another avenue that is also a potential opportunity for recovering the debt, examination under oath of the administrators of the time over their comments, calls for money and so on - what was raised and where it came from. Of course there have also been public claims by a now ex-administrator (one who has 'resigned' in the last few days) to fund the litigation and by implication 'bank roll' the case and therefore the dividends if the case met with success. Furthermore, there are others on record, the Remuera housewife, who have also made public pledges to fund the entire case, pledges it seems which were encouragement for site-members that they were 'on track' with their hate-site 'business.'

One hardly needs to point out that the pledges, calls to invest and so on were an effort to maintain defamatory attacks on Karam and others. One clear perspective is that if 'investors' expected to gain, as 'worldy and informed' they must have also expected they might also lose - but it is to what extent now which may well be the question. Just like the hate-siters have willingly accepted anything said against David and Karam, they have 'accepted' (it's in their writings, captured to file) that the hate campaign with all it's elements of lying, threats and so on is their responsibility or 'good work.' I think soon we will see the hollowness or fortitude of the hate-siters, the value of their words, and the value of their commitments - somehow I don't think it's going to be a pretty site. I believe, as they have always done, that they will display shallow character, prove that their word and pledges mean nothing - just as their hate-campaign has ultimately meant nothing good as it now flounders on the rocks waiting to sink. Look closely, and you'll see a steady line of rats deserting a 'noble' cause, scurrying back underground from where they and their evil came.

In certain quarters the defamation trial is seen as the prospect of a third trial for David Bain. How bewildered those poor souls are. The reality is that Kent and Vic will face cross examination if they give evidence. It would be material to that evidence for it to be determined who their 'contact's and 'feeders' were in order to establish a clearer picture of the attacks against Karam and who may have also been behind them. The same will apply to any witnesses they may chose to call. And who knows Karam himself might call some of the sisters, there are a few names I could recommend who might be able to inform the Court if Parker or Purkiss ever discouraged them from their defamation and other illegal activities. We might find out the links to van beynan, Weir, the members of Sensible Sentencing Trust who involved themselves in the campaign and who were willing to break the law both with false complaints and threats. Not quite the 'third trial' but a beaut nevertheless.

I look forward to a news 'scoop' from van beynan regarding the fate of Parker and Purkiss, or perhaps Kent or Vic's willingness to come clean about the 'feeders' and 'supporters' once the water reaches their feet.

The question between Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss

Predictably, Kent Parker is celebrating another 'victory'. In his normal style of misinterpretation he convinces himself that something is achieved when in fact something is lost. This 'state of mind' goes right back to when he was going to complete a petition with 20,000 signatures and present it to the Minister of Justice. After 3 years nothing gained on that front. Similarly, he told the world that Joe Karam would never sue  him, 2 years later and Kent is on his last legs heading toward a trial he can't possibly win and shutting out the fact that Trade Me, a fully resourced and financially powerful defendant in a similar action by Karam, apologised and settled.

There's no doubt Parker is delusional. If we needed a reminder we saw it on TV on Monday night, a 'musical protest' outside the High Court to an audience of none but for the delight of those that had confirmed what a nutter he has revealed himself to be. This was the man who was going to contest the election with a new party, a man with such 'deep' insight he can't connect that people remember all the things he has said he will do and achieve which over time he lets gradually slip off the table when a new 'venture' takes his fancy. The radio show last year where the host treated Kent like a fool but to which Kent remained blissfully unaware. We've been told about a concert tour last Xmas that never eventuated. Also how Kent claimed a victory last year in the litigation but this year admitted he had no idea of what he was doing earlier. We've seen him criticised for his lack of defence and Court Room nous by a High Court Judge year and then this year claim the same criticism against Karam as Kent endlessly reinvents the wheel.

So nothing new there. Kent deeper in it and still oblivious to reality, taking his own reading on the proceedings and being apparently unaware, or incapable, of understanding the reality that he's in a net of his own design. But suddenly the question between Parker and Purkiss emerges. Parker has acknowledged that Vic Purkiss is considering his situation with a view to settlement. One could observe that Purkiss has finally seen that the 'Emperor' has no clothes, is on the bridge of a sinking ship in a titanic storm and in blissful ignorance casting all others, including Vic, to perilous risk while playing a guitar.

If Purkiss has the common sense and guts to settle he should be applauded for that. His priorities can never have been over an old man he never met, or a spinner from Palmerston North, but to his family. Kent led Purkiss into the risky situation that he's in now. Purkiss was obviously unaware of the gravity of his situation and simply fed on the apparent insanity of Parker and the stirring of the witches of the hate-sites, those such as Curran and OBrien and others who were always supportive of others stupid enough to take risks to the applause of those who kept to the shadows. I recall on the radio show Vic saying that they were over the 'full bladder' scenario - something that had been significant to the misinformed in their persecution of David Bain. To me that was a positive sign that Purkiss had the ability to reason beyond the propaganda shoved down his neck by some ex cops and their media pals. There has always in the Bain case been time to consider in depth every point of debate, indeed there had always been plenty of time to consider all aspects of the case and evidence before the man was even charged. The stable door is open and the horse has fled, escaped into the truth of reasoning and logic all power to Vic Purkiss if he follows.

Kent Parker - a little pressy on his birthday?

Well, I know we celebrate Queen's birthday today with a holiday and in certain quarters Kent is considered a bit of an old Queen. He certainly thinks that Joe Karam has given him a present by reducing the Statement of Claim against Parker and Purkiss from 54 to 37 pages and the number of claimed defamatory comments from  around to 200 to approximately half that amount. Anyway Kent thinks it's a present, he even says that the drafted claim makes a 'lot more sense' than the original one.

An interesting event to celebrate if you were halfwit I suppose. Kent doesn't seem to consider that he's still facing a remarkable 100 individual claims. He solely sees it as some sort of victory without apparently considering that because he (Kent) hasn't managed any defence to this point Joe Karam could simply have decided on streamlining the process for Kent - something like helping a wayward soul walk the plank. The 'lot more sense' should be put into perspective against the scathing Judgement last year in the Auckland High Court where his defence was rejected and the Judge acknowledged the 'help' from Karam's own counsel in trying to expedite the process toward Trial. The result of this was an signal from the Judge that costs would be awarded against the defendants Parker and Purkiss for the failed effort of Parker in lodging an acceptable defence. Parker let this fact slip publicly, saying now 'my efforts this time last year were a dismal failure.' This was in response to the idiot 'bush lawyer' congratulating Kent on his 'efforts' which apparently saw Karam discard reference to a book by 'bush lawyer' mentioned in the original pleadings.

I hardly think old 'bushy' should be celebrating being 'culled' at this stage because nothing stands in the way of a simple suit against him once Parker has fallen foul as the 'publisher.' Interestingly, Parker now ignores that the Trade Me abandoned their position of not being the publisher and settled with Joe. Of course I know there is a significant difference between the 2 situations: Trade Me had top lawyers acting for them, covering up the mess left by TM's in house staff, while of course Kent has got sound 'advice' from old 'bushy.' 'How helpful for him,' the real Queen might say.

In a current circulation of gossip doing the rounds on the Trade Me settlement is something Kent might not enjoy hearing on his birthday - that a number of objections raised by Trade Me lawyers about some reported comment in the Statement of Claim were unceremoniously dropped by Karam. The number of pages in the statement of Claim were reduced, (streamlined if you like,) a number of the quotes objected to were withdrawn  and a settlement of some sort was soon reached. I imagine Kent dressed in his tiara and pearl earrings on his birthday wouldn't want to think about that too much - he might get a head ache or even feel sick.

On reflection of how Trade Me had struggled with their status as publisher, Karam might simply have seen that 'less was more' could also be the case with the intellectually barren Parker, made things more simple for him, sort of like painting a picture as one does for toddlers. After all Joe Karam was helpful enough in having his lawyers attempting to help Parker to complete a defence which so obviously is beyond him.

I don't think Parker and Purkiss are going to enjoy the next 'strike out' hearing because they may realise that the efforts last year that were a 'dismal failure' were actually far advanced on whatever it is Parker can now hope to produce that he wasn't the publisher of defamatory material. Simple really.

Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss - live on air!

Before moving to that I'll list 3 places that have completely stopped comment from the hate-siters.

1. The Message Board Seller, have a policy not to run Bain or Karam threads since an influx of posters there in 2010 led by Glenda O Brien and Christine Williams, the later making death threats as a way to promote her reasoned arguments.

2. The International Justice Conference, who had a influx of sisters protesting that David was speaking at the Conference in March. Yes, the same people who daily call for David to speak. Schizo?

3. Beatties Book Blog, who 'dared' to publish the foreword of 'Trial by Ambush.'

4.Trade Me, continues to host them of course, and allows them to post links.

This is all disturbing, most particularly to me the attack on a book blog. Most people appreciate books as wonderful things, some with a life of their own, a chance to learn more, to make discoveries or be transported in some ways. Attacking a book blog is the 21st Century equivalent of 'book burning' done in the name ironically of a deceased teacher of children. I know things have got bad with the sisters but what is next?

Well, one thing that was next was a radio 'show' somewhere out of Invercargill, the host Vinnie Eastwood, a rather disturbed individual it seems, who laughed loudly about defamation because of a broad cover of use of the word 'allegedly' he apparently attends to his defamatory, freedom of speech show. I did tune in to listen to Parker and Purkiss. Obviously interested to hear them speak, and to listen to what they said.

Generally, they tried to withhold information from a willing, giggling, Eastwood, who has the type of character that interjects over the top, and goes off into weird descriptions of what the speakers were intending to say in his mind. One might suspect that he was trying to get Vic and Kent to make some further defamatory speech, but they didn't need any help with that. Purkiss is a pom, Kent I would say had a pleasant radio voice. Both men however, by their voices, are very slow unless that was a deliberate perhaps to garner sympathy. They did certainly ask for money,despite claiming that they'd got a 'lot in' already. Kent gave a totally incorrect description of what 'hearsay' is, and Eastwood came over the top to assist with an equally incorrect description. Their 'case' for Robin bore all the hallmarks of general one sided sister diatribe.

Mainstream media it was not, with a howling DJ who must have been on drugs and unfortunately, for him, defamed a number of people including a prominent nzer who has taken and won defamation cases before. By far the most important thing for me was that I got an clear idea of how Parker and Purkiss think and their relative intelligence. Notably they seemed not to understand that the host, in order to get away with defamation, ran his show as though it were a comedy, no doubt in an effort to say that everything said was satirical. Calling somebody a thief might be funny to the host, but I'm not so sure about the person he named might feel about that. Indeed, the overall picture, including Vic's obvious anxieties, reeked of desperation and lack of wit - generally  showed the minds of 'book burners.'