What's in store for Kent Parker.

It seems the reserved Judgement is unlikely to be released this year leaving Kent the unwelcome opportunity to consider his 'fate' longer than he might have hoped for. The delay in itself is very interesting and something upon which speculation might be built. I personally think the Judgement may in some ways be a landmark. The reasons for that are numerous. First of all it's unlikely there has ever been a sustained defamatory attack of this nature and over such a long period of time before in New Zealand. Additionally, the fact that the offences took place on the internet as well as else where will likely be giving The Court pause for thought.

Kent, like all the sisters, has shown a remarkable ability to shoot himself in one foot then the other. It would be only a naïve sister who would consider that Kent's undertaking to the Court to take down his hate-site, only to do so and then reinstate it, would not have been brought to the Court's attention. There may in fact be definable elements of Contempt of Court in those actions. Whether that is the case or not, Kent has demonstrated how far he and the sisters are off the planet once again by showing their 'concerns' for justice actually, and at will, become straight out law-breaking. If Kent, wanted to further aggravate his situation (as if it needed it,) then misleading the Court was a good choice. How he might imagine that the Court would happily be deceived and not response was about as silly as the sisters swallowing the cover up of Robin Bain's suicide. That is not the point here however because Kent has 'successfully', along with Aunt Fanny and other dimwits, managed to get himself, The Herald, TradeMe and Fairfax sued - and in style. They alone have been singularly responsible for 'cyber space' starting to be 'clean up.' It was they and others that thought 'cyber space' had no borders. The word space must have confused them by comparison to the great empty space of their own minds where any bewildering thought could take flight and somehow become real.

The only thing real now is their fall to earth, and contemplation as to 'who else' will be legally brought to task. These, I think, could be observations contained in the Judgement when it is finally released. A construction, or definition, spelt out in simple terms not only of the damage done by Kent and the sisters but where those borders and boundaries of cyber 'space' fit within conventional Law to the point it is finally realised the reason why daily newspapers don't post anonymous attacks, or indeed threats, anticipating that it is legal. Or indeed why, they don't simply publish as 'facts' something which they read elsewhere, heard 2nd hand or indeed print anything that can't be established without doubt as being true. As I have written before, I had these conversations with Kent earlier. The fact is I also had them with TradeMe in particular as long ago as 2009. Nothing has changed about the 'argument' only the acceptance that legal precedent and principle have always applied in cyber place and that it was only 'space cadets' without boarding passes who were unable to understand that.

So what is in store for Kent Parker is literally unknown, he may have fled, may be thinking of doing so, pulling some psychiatric stunt who knows. He could simply be anticipating his fate feeling like a martyr without a real cause beyond his own aspirations. What is in store for the rest of the community is the possibility of a 'growing up' of use of the internet. Possibly 'class' actions against Facebook and others who for many years attempted to absolve themselves of their users care with a type of self-indemnity that is showing cracks and continuing to splinter. In that respect Kent Parker inadvertently may have done a good thing,

How Kent Parker explained the blood on Robin Bain's hands.

In all fairness to Kent things didn't go according to plan in his recent trial for the defamation of Joe Karm. First of all, his 'expert' witnesses were rejected as 'irrelevant' before he got to Court.
Having his 'experts' opinions rejected, Kent relied upon the arguments his experts would have tried to bring home to the Court anyway. Kent couldn't work out with the bulk of evidence being of no evidential values there was no point relying on it any longer. That was a hard one for Kent until he came up with the notion that he was out smarted by a smart guy and that wasn't fair. Of course we can't forget Vic's role in all this, he was second in charge after Kent. Unfortunately when Kent traversed the distant landscape he merely saw some settling dust resulting from dear Vic doing a runner. Way to go Vic, nothing like sticking with your mates when the pressure is on.

Seriously, because Kent's witnesses didn't make the grade - it might have been better if Vic had arrived to show if there's not one born every minute, then there's two. Credit's due though, if Vic thought 'f this, I'm goff and I'm off' he sure got his point across. Sometimes it seems that Kent has a competitive nature, if Vic had considered he'd dropped Kenty in it - then Kent admitted to the Judge he was a liar, just to make it a draw. In fact nobody was going to drop Kent in it better than himself.

Confused? Well don't be. There are some politically aspiring 'psychologists' who think any attention is good attention. For example they might tell the Judge at a defamation trial that that they were sorry for the harm they had caused and they were taking their hate-site off line, throwing in a few tears to boot. All good for awhile until old Kenty baby realises he's a 'forgotten' sister and no one loves him anymore, in fact people have even given up disliking him because he's such a dick so what does he do? Goes back on line of course. But wait a minute - he's 'removed' all the defamatory comment.

This is of course is the guy who firstly was an expert on defamation and then wasn't. I think that's kind of funny, if he's isn't an expert how can he 'decide' what is defamatory and what isn't? Tricky question. Not as tricky of course as to how the 'dear daddy' got blood and cuts all over his hands from praying in the lounge that morning not wearing any underpants. That's so tricky Kent can't answer it and nor could any of his hate site sisters so the Judge didn't want to know about them. Perhaps the Judge was concerned that having so many nutters in the Auckland High Court at once might create a black hole in the atmosphere causing hazards for planes flying in and out of Auckland. That's despite them all having little badges declaring they are fully qualified space cadets and refugees from the most distinguished asylums.

Well of course Kenty is fretting. He's not getting any attention and voluntarily sitting in the naughty corner naked except for panties on his head probably isn't much fun for old Kenty. Because he is really such a fun guy, why he once managed to put a forefinger in each ear and flick his nails to the tune 'Only the Loonies know the way I feel tonight.' I guess they do.

Is Kenty baby confused more than usual?

Kent's thought of a new name for himself a few weeks out from his defamation trial, he's now a 'self litigant' or an LG for short. Clearly he doesn't like the idea that he's one of the defendants in his own trial so he's thought up a new name. A secret source reveals that he's going to go the full hog with his new identity, buy a Davy Crocket hat to wear along with a pressed white shirt, a long black coat (borrowed from Aunt Fanny) and ask the Court to refer to him as Mr Litigant rather than as the defendant.

In his most recent writing he has revealed his subtle delight that Joe Karam is not going to be represented by Michael Reed, but rather by a 'very experienced' defamation expert Peter Mc Knight who 'however does not have his head around the issues anywhere like Reed does.' Clearly Kent thinks that not having Reed representing Karam is an advantage to himself in having a 'defamation expert' instead. I guess in Kent's world, being in the defendant in a defamation trial, it's an advantage if the plaintiff's lawyer is an expert in the field of defamation. Well, of course anything can happen in Kentsville, its a lonely bewildered mind that holds fort there. But I assume most folks wouldn't take much confidence in facing a highly experienced expert, unless of course you happened to be a LG. or more properly Mr Litigant.

Looking a little further into Kent's reasoning, and taking into account what his mad agents have been broadcasting, Kent the poor chappette still actually believes his trial is in fact the 3rd murder trial of David Bain and that he Kent, Mr Litigant, now has the advantage with Reed gone and McKnight stepping in who doesn't have his 'head around' things. I imagine Kents opening to The Court will be to point out that the 'defendant' isn't present only to be old that 'yes he is' that should get things off to  a bewildering start. Particularly, when Kent asks 'well where is he.'  'He is you, Mr Parker along with Victor Purkiss.'

Poor Kent, I bet when he got the big 'D' at school marked on every subject he didn't realise it was 'D' for deluded, or maybe he did and thought that he was on track after all. It's going to be an interesting spectacle. Kent walking in his long black coat exposing his 'lily' white legs and little bobby socks and casting a confident eye over Peter McKnight, perhaps even snickering at his advantage or sneezing because he is allergic to coon skins and cussing Davy Crockett for his dress sense. Casting his eye about for David Bain and probably convincing himself that because David 'hadn't turned up' the Judge would order his arrest. Go Kenty....

No answer from Kenty.

Sometimes I think old Kenty has got the huff with me even though I could never imagine why. I've always been pretty helpful to Kent. I warned him of the possibility of being sued, something which he chose to ignore. I offered advice once he had been sued that he didn't have a dog's show and that he should retract and settle. Now, by all accounts, his own twisted sisters are plating a rope in anticipation of him copping it in record time in  the Auckland High Court next year. One thing about the sisters is that they enjoy any lynching and apparently there is much excitement at the prospect of Kent's metaphorical hanging in 2013.

On the subject of Kent rejecting helpful advice, or painful remedies to help him recognise that his feathers don't have to have all fallen out to indicate his goose is cooked, I wrote him the following in response to receiving information that he was still at it publishing defamatory material on his rotten hate-site. But he's not talking, he's got the pip with me for some reason, either that or he's deliberately trying to hurt my feelings. Oh gosh.

Perhaps in Kent's mind he considers that not removing the defamatory material may prove that he's not responsible for it, an old and rejected argument he's used before.

Dear Kent

Kent the following are examples of public defamation on your site Counterspin. The yellow highlighted comments are from your site in the form of a blog of avid David Bain hater who purports in the circumstances of the blog to be an ‘impartial observer.’ The red comments point out why the comments are defamatory, these were sent to me by an appropriate party who monitors your site for defamatory comment and hate speech. In these particular circumstances the comments bring defamatory comments linked with the purpose of attempting to engender public hatred against David Bain and his legal advisers. Both yourself and the author are responsible for these comments. The comments can not be sustained with fact, and do not constitute reasonable opinion because they are divorced from physical evidence. As you are aware a verdict of not guilty in a New Zealand High Court has been entered on this matter, therefore the comments are most likely in contempt of the Court. Not withstanding any of the above, there are unconfirmed reports that Justice Ian Binnie has concluded that David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities. Therefore the whole concept of his implied guilt, alleged behaviour and conduct is dissolved in law.

I will be forwarding this on to other parties for their consideration. Due to your experiences of date you may, or may not react to my advice that you remove this material, the poster, and or shut down your site. It does you a great disservice with the charges that you already face that you continue to allow defamation and hate-speech on your public site.

Yours faithfully

Against David Bain first,as there is more evidence pointing to him as being the perpetrator than there is against his father.(no there isn’t and according to the leaked Binnie report this is on dangerous ground)

Just prior to the trial David Bain's lawyer told the Crown prosecutor that David was going to admit to wearing those glasses that were found in his room on the Sunday and the days prior. (This is disputed and there is no proof. Mr X's implication is that David lied)

Now to those scratches or bruises on David Bain's torso. How did they get there? The only person who can answer that question is David Bain and he says he doesn't know how the answer to that question.
Now his defence team say that those marks weren't there on the Monday morning because when Dr Pryde examined Bain he strip-searched him and didn't note those marks on a diagram on which he had noted those bruises on David Bain's head,that nick on his knee and the tattoo that David Bain on his left arm above the bicep.
But does this mean that Dr Pryde actually had Bain remove that T-shirt that he had been wearing?
When he was giving his speech at that Injustice Conference Bain said he was medically strip-searched and that every orifice was examined.
As an impartial observer I have to ask the question "How did Bain get those scratches on his torso". I can't help thinking that they are linked to those fibres from the green jersey that the killer wore that were found beneath Stephen's fingernails. (In this he is ignoring the fact that there is evidence that those scratches did not exist that morning and are therefore irrelevant)

However an impartial observer would have thought it would be rather unusual for a right-handed man to shoot himself in the left temple. (No, it’s very common)

an affidavit was signed and sent to the Ministry of Justice[24/8/2010] by Laniet's best friend at Bayfield College. She said that Laniet had told her that David had been molesting her. Her friend said she had to leave home and she found a place for her to stay at. But a couple of weeks later David came to the school and told her everything would be ok if she came home again. (The writing of the affidavit and submission of it is one thing. Publication of this summary of the content is defamatory)

Disturbed by David's behaviour as a child Margaret and robin sought leave from the Church so as to take him to Darwin for pschiatric assessment and counselling. David denied under oath that he had ever had pschiatric counselling. (This is accusing David of perjury) 

                                                  ----------------------------------------------

Some of the comments in red give a clue in my opinion that Binnie's report is likely to have closely examined a culture of having approached the false imprisonment of David Bain, by both the police and Crown, with a pre-determined 'guilty mindset' that saw evidence, or only sought explanations of evidence that corresponded with that 'guilty mindset.' In other words not only did some of the investigators pre-suppose David's guilt but also did personnel employed by the Crown. This if analysed by Ian Binnie will be a critical watershed in the fair and unfair administration of Justice in New Zealand for it would acknowledge that both police and Crown can be, and are at times, influenced by perceived guilt of a suspect to the point of closing down all other avenues of inquiry, and indeed as happened in the Bain case, 'finding' and 'hiding' evidence to make their case. Of course that presents another concern, a practical one facing the defence teams of Watson and Pora, for example - where a suspect is chosen and his or her guilt manufactured by the treatment of evidence  and evidence which is 'found' after the fact of earlier searches on so on.

Ken Parker presents as someone unconcerned about David's innocence for example, he saw an opportunity to profit from persecuting him. Others, including in the inquiry and the Crown Law office, appear never having been willing to even consider it - I don't know which is worse because both are a modern form of cannibalism where a person if not eaten is destroyed by a culture of empowerment to Judge all others with whim, convenience, indifference or just hate.

Kent Parker: Can he escape his own trap.

Foresight wouldn't be one of Kent's strong suits, well not cleverly applied foresight able to predict consequences and likely events. He operates more with the fundamental belief of getting people to accept something and not worry that they'll eventually see through the pretence. To that end he must have the right sort of people around him, those that believe blindly, but more importantly, those prepared to 'believe' again once Kent has invariable found himself out.

On the 18th of July this year, Kent under pressure, told the High Court in Auckland he would be retaining Counsel in the next few days. This was in response to the Court wishing to schedule and time-table a trial. He indicated that not only would he retain advice, but also counsel to act on his behalf. After many delays, and attempted side-steps, Kent Parker finally accepted that he needed representation. This of course despite him having regarded himself as an expert on defamation, along with earlier claiming that he had an expert defamation lawyer advising and assisting him. Like everything with Kent, what he first set out was far from the truth, even now,  when cornered into agreeing that he would retain a lawyer, who could have any confidence that he will?

That isn't the only problem. It would be a fair bet that if Kent were to commission a lawyer there is no guarantee that the lawyer will be more willing to do anything other than advise Kent to settle if he can. Advise him to look to mitigate his circumstances by repeating the admissions of Parker on the 18th of July that he,  Kent Parker, didn't really know what he was doing. Of course ignorance of the Law is no defence and straight out ignorance even less so. Thus far, with the way the cards have fallen to impact on Kent, Vic and the follower big mouths, all the boasts and derision - ignorance is shaping up as probably the only option. The Court have allowed Vic and Kent a little leeway because of their obvious problems. However, any lawyer acting for them will have no such luxury or even be inclined to seek the Court to entertain such stupidity as one that words have various meanings.  Equalling, therefore, that the various meanings Joe might have taken from being called a crook, a nazi, knowing David was guilty etc, clearly don't have only the obvious meanings but rather ones the defendants are still searching to find..

I expect Kent is already at work trying to overcome the hurdles he set himself. The first is a beaut, trying to prove that he's not really an idiot even though he has more or less admitted that to the Court as he tried to find a way out of his predicament. A wiser idiot than Kent might realise he is better just to accept the fact that everybody thinks he is an idiot anyway, so he has nothing to gain or lose in the idiot stakes. That would be a simpler choice for Kent and a simpler situation to accept for the lawyer. The lawyer would not then need to listen to a whole lot of crap and Kent's various interpretations of why he hasn't been defamatory of Karam. That he was in fact speaking the truth, or a version of it which was betrayed by people not looking behind the complexity of words, such as fraudulent, to accept that saying someone is fraudulent can possibly be construed as something other than an allegation that they're a crook.

Boy, he's got his work cut out. I mean the lawyer - trying to make some sense of anything that Kent has said that might have a legitimate defence. So I have my doubts that any lawyer will want to take the case on unless Kent is able to use some common sense and accept the obvious inevitable conclusion - that he defamed Joe Karam personally, and was the publisher of other defamatory claims. But if that can't be achieved,  or if he simply can't find a lawyer prepared to support the hopeless defence already filed? My suggestion is that if he can't, he'd better be able to furnish good proof that he made a legitimate effort to do so or the Court might find him In Contempt. and off to gaol he goes.

Everybody is entitled to a defence, but not entitled to indulgences for things that on one hand could be called bizarre, while on the other simply been seen as having a go in a manner which is Contempt of due process. No body made Kent Parker say the things he did, nobody made Kent Parker publish defamatory comment of others - it was all his own free will, attended at the time with the bravado - that Karam wouldn't dare sue, because Kent and the other dick heads had proof of their claims, or that it was honestly held opinion that might be held by a reasonable person on reasonable grounds. So a line has to be drawn, the case has to get down to business and be pushed on whether the defendants are moon bats or not.

So far there have been lots of stories inside stories with Kent Parker and the hate-siters, this is another interesting one from my point of view. Karam has done everything possible to get this case to trial while Parker has done exactly the opposite. Now however, Kent is beholding to an undertaking he gave the Court. His credibility is on the line, is he fact a reasonable man that got diverted by ignorance of the law whilst being jollied along by a bunch of nutters and broom flyers? Or is he somebody who holds the Court in Contempt and is willing to demonstrate so once again? We should know the answer to that by 19th September if not sooner.

Kent Parker: now he's leaking.

Some will remember the recent press leak proclaiming that Karam had to release details of the legal aid he had received. On closer scrutiny of course the ordered  disclosure was for the amount of legal aid granted, not the details. That amount was already on the public record so one could say that the victory was similar to  Parker  wanting to release material that proved he was a moron but the Court ruled that there was need because it was on the public record. But who can deny Kent just a little bit of breathing room, at least now he can say the amount on the public record is exactly the same as the amount to be disclosed, small things can be greatly appreciated by very small minds which possibly explains why Kent likes to make car noises, interspersed with the sound of indicators as he walks about the High Court vroom, vroom, indeed.

Perhaps concentrating on that is the reason he forgot to turn the leaking tap off because that leak has spread all the way to yours truly and while I shouldn't be naughty and read the details, or share them, I just can't help myself. Firstly, I was fairly angry with the situation  as it is revealed in the judgement but I have been counselled not to be upset by the antics of a mad man. Of course this case will largely pay it's own way, assuming Kent is able to do so because he's sunk without even bubbles tracing on the surface.

The reasons for my disquiet is that Parker and Purkiss were ordered to make certain disclosures but did not obey. In the normal course of events one would be entitled to the belief that they were showing contempt of the Court. Particularly so, because they later pleaded ignorance of what was expected of them yet they had sought to negotiate what the order meant and also endeavoured to turn it into a lottery of sorts where they suggested they would release certain documents if Karam also released certain documents that weren't part of the discovery. At first I thought the Court's response was too subtle and engaging with the defendants on the wrong level. However, I came to realise the Court had configured a bottom line with Parker and Purkiss which by their own admissions they can't avoid.

The Court acknowledged the long delays caused by Parker and Purkiss because their legal incompetence, an 'incompetence' in my opinion which has been in part deliberately orchestrated by the two men - mocking the Courts and the Justice system.  By way of mitigating their situation, accepting the inevitable, the pair volunteered they would commission a lawyer to act on their behalf. The Judge seized on that and I have doubts that any more prevarication will be permitted. The trial is to go ahead by Judge alone for the very simple reason that it is straight forward and a resolution will be reached in good time. That alone, doesn't seem to be obvious to Parker and Purkiss or I'm sure it would be predicted that they would be squawking and wailing at length, imagine it as the pair compliantly approaching their own legal demise - naturally suspicious but confident in their own stupidity.

The material under discovery relates to the substance of the hate-sites, who set them up, the personnel, communications between them, material deleted from the site and the material kept inside the inner sanctums, press releases, even in relation to Purkiss communications to and with administrators of the Trade Me Message Boards. In effect, all the material between Purkiss, Parker, O Brien, Curran, Cochrane and a host of others. Of course some of that material by its nature will disclose the stalking, hate campaigns, and machinations toward encouraging or breaking the law. The extent ranges even to drafts, editorial or broadly 'other content.' This is fantastic stuff for an observer that has borne some of the brunt of the ill will and evilness of the hate-sites. It has been long obvious to me the links between ex police, and others were misinformation has been distributed in a manner contrary to the good maintenance of the Law. Whether Karam has that in mind or not the public will benefit by seeing Parker and Purkiss and along with their confidants exposed. Included is all emails and other correspondence relating to the Sunday Star Times article published in that newspaper on 20 December 2009 wherein were contained, among other things I recall, Purkiss's threats against both Karam and David Bain. Good stuff folks.

The Judge notes that Parker and Purkiss bartering with the plaintiff over what would be released in return for Karam releasing material not covered by discovery was improper. We know that has caused delays, and causing delays by improper conduct are going to weigh heavily around the necks of the twin headed moron constituted by 2 half wits by the name Parker and Purkiss. The Judge points out that 'there was no basis on which to resist the plaintiff's claim.' He states that 'the fact that the defendants are unrepresented makes no difference; the obligations on discovery are clear and not difficult to understand. I make an order that the defendants pay the reasonable costs and disbursement associated with the application.' Which I now concede is not subtle, rather a blow from a hammer wrapped in judicial cloth and no less.

The Judgement goes onto consider applications for discovery by the defendants which all fail save for the release of information all ready in the public forum as referred to at the outset here. But is the nature of the failed applications that truly betrays the disaster Parker and Purkiss are facing. The reference to 'fishing' in the press release likely leaked by Parker is made evident in context of the entire proceedings to my mind. Parker and Purkiss only now look for information to nullify the charges they face, rather than long before they published them. In other words, they never had proof of their claims at any point, yet, mindless fools they be, they confess as much by asking for the plaintiff to provide information which they have no proof exists. That's where they are folks, right up the creek, admitting they have no evidence but that they 'believe' it exists somewhere. Bewildering insanity.

It's of interest that some nutter emailed a 'let God strike you down' missive to me yesterday. Some little time before the leak herein featured on the doorstep. Nutty people folks, real nutty and dangerous. And so it shows in the judgement, 'Mr Parker submitted that the plaintiff should be required to discover any document that might help prove the truth of the statements made that are now the subject of the proceeding. While understandable from a lay perspective, this position does not reflect the correct approach to discovery in a defamation case.' In other words Parker can't prove the essence of his allegations but he hopes that Joe Karam can, I'm sure he does. However, the problem is Kent and the others big mouths and bravado, no matter how far they might try to dig now it's all too late, the ship has sailed. No use for them to plead for Karam to turn it around and come back so that they might check his pockets 'just in case.'

For the assistance of the  two dimplots the judgement points out the true order of things 'Under s 38 of the Defamation Act 1992 where a defendant alleges that statements of fact that are subject of the proceedings are true he or she is required to give particulars specifying "the facts and circumstances on which the defendant relies in support of the allegation that those statements are true.'" Kent could merely be confused as to whether he is the plaintiff or the defendant or it may go to the root of the insanity which grips him. Kent, you are the defendant, your obligation as I wrote to you about years ago was to ensure what you were saying was true or your little white bum might get sued. How tragic, and unattractive.

Almost as tragic is the insane legacy Parker has sought to bequeath to the world. In March 2012 the defendants applied for an order on whether or not that 'words' were reasonably capable of bearing the meanings pleaded by the plaintiff and whether the particular meanings were properly pleaded. Fundamentally, space cadet Parker, hoped to convince the Court and the world the true essence of a word was contained in the mind of speaker or writer. Indeed, a space cadet, could say 'you are a crook' but actually mean something else despite the common acceptance of the word crook and in particular the environment of the speech, its origins (in this case a hate-site) etc. Absolute pure madness. If I've ever felt some sympathy for Purkiss it's gone out the door, anybody that would support a pleading of such nonsense is as mad as the submitter.

It followed that Parker and Purkiss tried to claim that costs had been agreed to lie where they fell after the recent unsuccessful settlement conference despite the reason no logical reason why Karam's counsel would agree to such a thing. However, Parker has hung his hat on the claim and will be required to give evidence on the matter later. From that conference came a 'commitment' from Parker to agree to the trial taking place as soon as possible. All this of course with him having in mind how to escape costs and apparently unaware that the trial was rapidly taking shape despite his attempts at delay.

To the nuts and bolts: Joe Karam's counsel has indicated 3 days as the duration for the time needed to present the case at trial. Parker, how unsurprising, was unable to give an estimate but here his earlier work traps him. Parker submitted that he was expecting to retain counsel to prepare for, and conduct, the trial. The Judge ordered another conference of 1 October and states 'The defendants' counsel is to appear at that conference and be in a position to accurately assess the time required for the defendants' case.' I think that statement has drawn a line in the sand, it is clear, Parker has agreed with it, in fact it was his suggestion to escape further scrutiny and embarrassment at the hearing. Indeed it will be what will hang him if he doesn't obey.

The public deserve to see the proper administration of the Law and whilst I said at the outset I believed Parker and Purkiss were unnecessarily indulged, in fact trusted, by the Court it looks like that situation is over. There is a lot public interest resting on this case, for the plaintive of course, but also in the wider interests of a just and lawful society. Parker, Purkiss and the others have freely broken not only civil law but criminal law and I can't wait for the hens to come home to roost for these hate-campaigners. Our society deserves more than hate sites fed by crooked cops and twisted news media. People have their rights of privacy, but more to the point children have the right to be protected from nutters like these two, Christine Williams, and the other sicko witches.

You've necked yourself Kent. Good job in my books.

Kent Parker tries a sell out.

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.

Kent Parker and the hate-siters: bad news!

http://news.msn.co.nz/article.aspx?id=8504197

The headline says "Karam must reveal funding: Judge." Hardly a headline because the information is already in the public  forum but this isn't:

Justice Courtney also ruled Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss must supply more documents about setting up the websites, removed material and material available in private sections.

Oh dear, the hens have come home to roost. The removed material, maybe that's the stuff that went up while the witches had a good cackle about it then was taken down by 'democratic process.' The very very dirty washing to show the credibility of the hate-siters and the 'merit's of their campaign. More documents about setting up the website when most members didn't know that any documents had been supplied let alone more to come.

Now I assume the setting up of the site was important not only because of the old saying 'start' as you mean to go but for general liability, if Parker can't pay maybe those involved in setting up the site will be looked at - fair enough by most considerations. What were the tactics to be employed as an example? Bombarding Trade Me with posts anti Karam, complaining about TM posters that were seen as supporting Karam, conspiring to harass and defame or worse?

And of course who were those that 'helped' set up the site and were they connected to the police or others who might have had a biased interest in the hate campaign. Who were the contacts and which media were involved, there is one obvious 'big fish' among those and I wonder how he and his contacts might be feeling. That is those that used Parker and the other idiots thinking they were operating from a safe distance. How will the witnesses Parker claims to be calling be feeling about that now, not knowing what is known about them and the part they played in the hate and defamation campaign.

Ah and of course the private sections where false confessions written by a site administrator are to be found and among the deleted material the machinations to frighten and threaten members of the public - Christine Williams, Glenda O Brien and Annette Curran must be delighted beyond reason. Yes, what is in those private sections and deleted material - I can tell you that it is nothing good folks only those that have committed criminal or civil offences, or planned to do so, dump evidence. The dumped material is evidence of guilt and all the 'right thinking' nzers are caught out. Bloody lovely.

The Judge 'knocked back most of Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss's discovery requests' saying that they were 'not entitled to fish for some defence.' So still no merit-able defence and still nothing concrete by which to confirm the merits or 'honest opinion' of their claims. Sad movies for the twisted sisters with this news. If you wonder why Karam wasn't 'knocked back' on his discovery requests is because the Judge must have decided they are material to the case. But there will be other advantages there, foremost for the public to see the hate-site and its members opened to scrutiny. For Karam there will perhaps be opportunities to seek 'bigger fish' in the campaign against he, the legal team and David. Some others will see the opportunity to connect evidence against the bunch of rat bags that rose from that site with the intention of invading the lives of fellow New Zealanders and their families. The stakes have ratcheted up for both the money and liberty of some those involved all in good time.

Thanks Kent, you were always a bloody idiot.

Kent Parker: Not so popular?

This from a correspondent:

Hehehe - well thanks to Mrs Anonymous who kindly provided me with the phone
number for Dogs Bollicks, I phone them a few minutes ago.

Said I was meant to be attending a gig there tonight, but couldn't make it
and was wondering if they got a good turn out.

The guy that answered said "ah no, actually they cancelled, some guy, he
thinks his name was Kent, phoned on Tuesday to cancel because there was a
very little response and it didn't look like anyone could make it.  He was
going to concentrate his efforts on Dunedin, and might try again later in
the year - but according to the young man, they are pretty peeved off, and
Kent will have to do some pretty fancy talking to get the place again.  I
said to him that sounds like Kent Parker - and he said yep, that was the
name.


We shouldn't really laugh at Kent, but then again why not.
He's a total d head with less brain activity than a fossilised snail.
Speaking of snails, Kent's fund raising tour is going at a snail's pace. In fact the only thing consistent about it to this point is the cancelled dates. You think he'd get the message. Or that one of his few hate-siters left, like Christine Williams who made the 'signs' for his Auckland High Court 'music protest' would tell him what a dick he is. However Christine seems to have a fascination with dicks and probably wishes she was one herself - look in the mirror Christine that tiny thing where your head should be isn't a sleeping muppet - you don't need to lust after Kent being a dick head because you are one yourself. Congratulations on that, and you too Kent - way to go.

Kent Parker and his Dogs Bollix.

From a concerned correspondent:


Nos, I was imagining how excited you were getting preparing to go to the
Dogs Bollix tonight to hear Kent howling. Sadly, I just went into the
passing phase website and it seems to not be showing that gig now. Not
sure if it is still on or not, perhaps you would like to check it out?
Best you wear overalls, a check shirt and straw hat. Blacken a couple of
your front teeth too, don't want you standing out in the crowd by looking
normal. ;)

I'm so disappointed. I've been standing outside all night in the fog with
my ticket, which got all wet and limp as though it was thinking of  sweet
Melanie so I swapped it for a dog biscuit I found in an old drunk's pocket
who was snoring in the doorway. At one stage I thought I heard Kenty
warming up, but alas it was The Devonport 'Fairy's' fog horn lamenting
soulfully through the white haze which seemed very appropriate to my sense
of longing.

Yet I may still go if I can get the old broomstick working.

Kenty - busker bill?

Well at least Joe Karam took a photo of Kent busking outside the High Court in Auckland in what one of my friends described as a potential world wide YouTube hit of making an audience puke just from a sound bite.

I was intrigued by the 2 (or was it 3 other protesters.) I guess Kent was counting the 2 placards in the background and the open empty mouth of his guitar case that by 5pm only had two stray dogs urinate a donation inside.

Kent goes back in 2 weeks, and most of us know 2 week adjournments in the High Court indicate some urgency or frustration from the Court that one party is pushing the moron limits to the max.

How sad for camp mother to be reduced to singing outside the Court only to be saluted by 2 errant mutts pissing of the single remaining lettuce sandwich he brought all the way from Palmerston North.

If it quacks like a duck - it's probably Kent Parker.

Kent's quacking again, it might be something to do with easter and he's not sure if he's a bunny or not. One thing I've always found weird about the hate-siters is the way they keep changing things, it's sort of like a tennis game in a spirited rally with the ball going back and forth but in the case of the hate-siters, and in Kent's case in particular it's 'I won't be going to court with that man' followed by 'I'm looking forward to the Court case,' followed by 'We are applying to get the suit struck out,' followed by 'Karam wants to settle,' and now the latest variation of a similar shot that hit the net earlier 'probably the best way to lay the Bain case to rest now is for the defamation proceedings [abridged] to got to trial.'

Will Kent ever get the picture? No, he won't. He still fails to understand his 'sudden' goal of having a trial to lay the Bain case 'to rest' relies on him finally getting a defence together, a hurdle or net on which he has thus far stumbled twice already. Most people almost 2 years down the track would understand the proceedings against them and what the options and outcomes might be. But not Kent, in his latest effort he thinks it's going to 'Bain trial 3' with him the starring role of Hannibal Lector. Well, if he gets there and the doubts are high that he has sufficient defence to warrant a trial the trial is going to be about what he published, his intentions and the damage of those publications to the plaintiff Joe Karam. The High Court is not going to suddenly get excited and declare that Auckland has never had a Bain trial before - 'so let's have one now.'

Kent thinks that defamation gets complicated by international borders, and that plaintiffs chose jurisdictions most suited for the plaintiff to succeed in any given case where it might have crossed borders. Kent seems to fail to understand he's sued in New Zealand for material which was published in New Zealand, and while the Court might be asked to take on the broader picture, that Mr Karam does have an international reputation that was and continues to be blemished, for increased financial appeasement the case is however being prosecuted in the correct jurisdiction.

Kent still refers to his case as 'the people v Joe Karam' in an almost forlorn way because apparently he doesn't want to be on his lonesome with a sidekick,  Vic Purkiss who is very nervous - suspecting I think that Kent's rambling and best efforts so far have only led toward disaster. I hope one day Kent will understand even the first line of the writ filed against him and that the 'people' are only those that populate his many personalities.

Kent, in normal ping pong practice trots out another line (concession of guilt) that the audience was very small, he seems to forget that his boasts of how big his audience is were recorded. But even that aside he should have perhaps noted that Chris Cairns sued successfully for a tweet that was read by less than 70 people. Also, in his memory loss, Kent forgets that he himself has linked to his sites as part of a plan to 'get Karam.' I guess Kent just hopes everything he ever did, or encouraged others to do will be forgotten about just like he expects bunny rabbits to bring easter eggs in a few days.

He completes his fantasy by hoping he gets a full trial in the 'full blaze' of the media spot light with 'reporting cranked to full volume.' He's probably right on that to some degree, if it is ever held he has defence, because he has become something of an oddity and it will be interesting when he demands to plead not guilty to the Bain killings because after all he is, in his mind, going to be the central part of Bain 3.

An open letter to 'angry' Kent Parker.

I am angry. I am not angry at the prospect of legal action and costs with the defamation suit before me, but with having my right to express myself publicly, about an event that affects the whole community, taken from me.

This from your latest blog Kent, seething with anger. I've speculated that your anger might be the result of a substantial award of costs against you and Purkiss for you so far, 2, failed attempts to file a defence in the High Court at Auckland.

But there are clearly other things at work with you Kent. For a fleeting moment you were courted by the press until it became obvious that your 'campaign' much like your personality was counterfeit. You never cared about the deceased Robin Bain you simply saw an opportunity for yourself to gather a few disaffected kiwis around you, thus promoting your own ambitions. You were never interested in the truth as your continued complete failure to deal with the substantial forensic evidence against Robin Bain shows. You've always known that to look too closely would expose the truth, instead you relied on mantras and distortions of the truth in catch phrases. Your 'opportunities' to misuse the press are gone, no doubt you are seen as a source of danger whose attention to the truth or the rule of law is minimal.

You've had the opportunity to reveal that you were wrong, you could have done that with some dignity but you chose to ride the cress of a long fallen wave to the point of becoming seen as a misguided zealot with an enormous ego. You could still have that opportunity Kent and I will come back to that later. Because now is an appropriate time for you to also realise that you have been used Kent, completely used. Your 'support' team that fed you inside information have gone, leaving you like the pariah you have become. It seems you think of that now and it makes you angry, angry enough to write the last outburst that was your latest blog, angry enough to threaten others in a very public way and to show contempt for the High Court, where you remain a defendant subject to a volume of evidence you produced against yourself in the passing minute of your once fleeting 'power.'

The truth Kent was always going to out. The dead father's bloody and bruised hands were never going to be able to reconciled by anything but the truth and you must now regret not restraining yourself when fed with lies by idiots, and those with something to cover up. You must regret not having had the patience or drive to resolve the evidence of the final death scene before you fluttered off for your moment of fame, and now your even longer time of infamy. Do you realise Kent that David Bain is growing more and more anonymous as time passes while you replace his previously misheld infamy, with your own. He has quietly grown in the truth while you have shrunk before it.

But even that is only partly the reason for your anger. You Kent, know that you've been used. No one knows greater than you that you have been used and discarded. Not a million sausage sizzles, concerts or thousands of signatures, or even the hope of them, will resolve that when you set out, confident that you had found an opportunity in life to launch yourself to fame, confident that you could use others that it was yourself being used.

Where to know Kent as the public fascination of your self destruction continues? Do you continue to fall, surrender what little dignity you might have left, or do you discover within yourself a strength that is always grudgingly admired - admitting you were wrong and come clean? Are your 'friends' at the press ringing you with advice now Kent, returning your emails and calls, the insiders remaining in touch - it must all seem like a Greek tragedy for you now Kent. The longer you persevere with it the more disdain you create for yourself. Are those that supported you with 'facts' now supporting you with money or simply with silence? I think I know the answer to that Kent because you have made public your pleas for money.

I wrote a few days ago that from all reports that you are not a nzer despite commenting a lot using the term 'we' to provide the idea that you were. One day I hope you realise that there are inherent characteristics of nzers, one of which is seeing that people get a 'fair go.' You never gave anybody a 'fair go' Kent, you took part in attacks against people you didn't know, their families as well, by reason that you saw them as an enemy for not being willing to accept your views about the Bain case. You couldn't accept they needed to  find their own - realising in a kiwi way that it is important to know the truth before even contemplating throwing stones or ridicule. You denied a number of nzers that Kent, then mocked their 'stupidity.' Alas for you, that has turned about on you the way many nzers believe to be the natural order of these things.

Will you learn from any of that Kent? Do you in fact have any courage, any truth in your heart that would allow you the opportunity to use your blog to apologise to Karam and Bain

I've invited you to contact me here before. I publicly said that I hate your guts, perhaps that might be qualified to: I hate what you have done. But however pragmatism rules, there is always an answer for everything that is better than prolonged, unnecessary, unfruitful war. That offer remains open but I will repeat to you what I've suggested before; come clean Kent, do it on your blog, fill in the gaps, give yourself some credibility and at least the opportunity of having known that you finally had the guts to pull out from the bs. Unreservedly apologise to Karam and David Bain, set the ball rolling, offer to admit the glaringly obvious fact that you have defamed them, try to cut your  losses. You know this situation is not one that you can walk away from but you must realise that you can't stop the merrygoround, get off, sincerely look at some compromise that might mitigate the outcomes for you. Your writing recently has had the frenetic tone of someone with nothing to lose, I think you know that you do have something to lose - the opportunity to extricate yourself with some dignity. You might owe it to yourself Kent, because it's plain your former cohorts feel they owe you nothing.

It's a good a time as any Kent because next week 'Trial by Ambush' is released, things will get a whole lot worse for you then Kent - the exposure of the false case against David Bain will be even more evident. Do you need to endure more, or would it be simpler to get off the bus now - nothing is going to get any better on the bandwagon Kent. Karam has called for police officers to out the truth and made an indication that there is 'plenty more dust to settle' regarding your website and the Facebook site JFRB. That's you and the others Kent, 'plenty more dust to settle.' Would you be surprised that there weren't already defections, naming of names. Think Kent, think. An independent QC has written a forward of the obvious, that the investigation, prosecution was 'deeply flawed.' People could be going to prison for this Kent, people for co-operating in that 'deeply flawed' prosecution and it's more recent cover up in which you have obviously been a pawn. Think Kent while there is little time left, do yourself a favour.

Did Kenty get some more bad news?

Excerpts from the latest rantings of 'Kiwi' Kent.

I am angry. I am not angry at the prospect of legal action and costs with the defamation suit before me, but with having my right to express myself publicly, about an event that affects the whole community, taken from me. This is one of the rights that my grandfather fought for in the First World War and which I have learnt that I should keep fighting for. So I will. The media are telling me that they cannot report on the activities of The Justice for Robin Bain Group or counterspin for fear of defamation action. One media outlet is even being sued for writing a story on us. This is a step too far.

Kent claiming that he is not angry about the legal action he faces - when plainly he is. He claims that his grandfather fought for 'Kent's' rights to defame during the first World War. Well, any justification Kent would use he surely would. From all reports 'Kiwi' Kent isn't a Kiwi at all, the same goes for a number of his 'followers.' Like a lot of NZers I had ancestors fighting in the NZ wars, on both sides, enlisted to fight in the Boer War, the first and second World Wars, I can't say with any clarity what each of their reasons were, some simply enlistment - none, I feel confident enough to say to promote the right for Parker and the twisted sisters to spread persecution and hate, if anything the exact opposite.

But what is plain from the above is that Kent has 'lost' the willing ears of the press, he doesn't realise that he's now considered an oddity and a nutter. His claims that the Court action against him effects the whole community are just nonsense, because few in the community are motivated enough, or stupid enough, to publicly defame others and expect nothing to happen.

I'll address this blog post to you, Karam, since I know that your minions gather up all the alleged "evidence" for you and email it to you and you obsessively file it into countless ring binders all neatly numbered and indexed.

Could it be that Kent is exasperated because his defence is not only misconceived, but also messy and disordered, that causes him to be frustrated that Karams is 'all neatly numbered and indexed.'

I am not one to get hot under the collar and pick a fight. I am known to be reticent and mild mannered, but after eighteen months of your incommunicative and oppressive legal action, I have had enough. Your legal suit, as I have said before, is improper, because it has no place in this community. Here we revere and nurture freedom and rights of expression.

Dear Kenty says he's not one to get hot under the collar and pick a fight. But by his writing we see he is hot under the collar - steaming in fact. He says he didn't pick a fight, when in fact he organised a campaign against Karam, Bain, and others that went to the extent of being unlawful. He chose to criminally stalk people, harass and threatened them for the great dream he believes his grandfather created for him - a type of immunity for himself from the law, and a destruction of nzers on the basis of hate and rumour.

But if you do not even sit down and listen to or read what is being demonstrated to you, then how can you find out if you are wrong or not? Instead you take a hammer to the opposition and deal with them as forcefully as possible. You did the same with Rosemary McLeod as you are doing with us. Surely even some of your own supporters would find this a bit extreme.

Kent has this recent fixation with sitting down, he thinks that Karam just needs to sit down and consider carefully that being called a Nazi and having his reputation brought into disrepute, his simply a matter of course. He continues to labour under the impression that he knows all about the Bain case, more than anybody else in fact despite having proved the opposite 100s of times. He deliberately, along with his few supporters, ignores facts like an idiot monkey would do and then simply repeats the lie lodged in the great gap between their ears. That's Kenty's problem, not Karams. He didn't give Kent leeway for being a misinformed idiot, but he did warn him. I seem to recall that I might have warned him myself, but he scoffed and now chokes. He should take his own advice and sit down, frankly consider what an idiot he is. It may not make any difference because I believe idiocy isn't a fleeting condition, but he could go through the motions - perhaps while on the outhouse.

Your defamation suit is also vexatious because you do not really want it to go to trial. You do not want a trial because you do not want your activities in relation to the Bain case, or the influences you had on the 2009 retrial jury, such as what is documented on this site, made public. You just hope that we will get bogged down in legal costs and complexities and give up. Well, that's not going to happen.

He keeps saying the suit is vexatious, but plainly the Courts don't think so. They've in fact informed him that he hasn't provided a proper defence despite Karam's counsel trying teach him how to spell and inviting him nicely to stop picking your nose. I think that advice costs about $20 per minute and that's probably upsets him - all the people he thought would be impressed, think he's probably deluded, just like his writing shows.

Your defamation action is puerile and stupid. I retain the right to say that, and when it is all over I will be publishing many of the comments we made which you claim are defamatory so the public can see just how puerile and stupid it is. Your only purpose here is to attempt to shut us up. So, in response, I personally will make it my duty to ensure that as many people as possible read the contents of this website. I will be promoting it wherever I go in as many forms as I can. You will be surprised at the places I might end up finding myself in. Any number of the 600 members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group, which covers the entire country, will be doing the same or similar. I firmly believe with all the power invested in me by my education and upbringing, that the contents of this website are legitimate and truthful and I will fight, like my grandfather did, to retain my right to express it. I will never surrender.

I suspect Kent had tears in his eyes when he wrote that. A man full of self pity. Who claims he will never surrender when he already has - surrendered to stupidity when a common sense solution was offered to him. He appears to be closer than he realises to be heading to prison, publishing public threats like this when the case is before the Courts. We could see a motion seeking a conviction for Contempt of Court lodged anytime, or even the Court taking the step on its own volition.

This is a politial / social issue and we have the right to discuss it. I am not going to wait for any judgment from a jury in any defamation trial to determine that. I am going to use my own judgment about whether or not it should be disseminated, by acting now. I will have 10,000 signatures on the counterspin petition before the Minister of Justice announces the result of the compensation bid and I will do what I can to get into whatever media spotlights I can to promote our side of the story. You have no idea what I can do.

More threats. A projection that the Bain case is political, when in fact it is a criminal case.  An implication that either Parker or Karam are politicians, or politically motivated - more nonsense from a desperate man. Though it is to be admitted that Kent Parker at one stage believed he was so popular that he would start a political party and contest the last election, that is until the crap started drying on his chin.

You cannot sue everybody. I, and the other members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group will make it especially hard work for you to continue to peddle what we consider are extremely distorted views of the facts of the Bain case. I do not begrudge David his Not Guilty verdict. Well done. But the verdict is too unsafe for the kinds of conclusions that you continue to promote and our job is to ensure that your arguments are balanced up with suitably opposing ones and thus create a more balanced perspective for the public to consume.

More unbalanced nonsense and threats. If I were a confidant of Parker I would be concerned of Warrants for Arrest and Seizure being sworn because, although Parker sees interference in the Judicial Process as legit, the Courts don't. Parker has thought it his right to spread propaganda about the Bain case and now about his own case. I see a relationship between the 2, and those that fed Parker the lies or carried out his stalking and public harassment might now more clearly see the danger their actions have brought - and the danger that is a cornered and desperate Kent Parker is to them, and in the wider picture to Justice within this Country.

Kent to Purkiss. A proven mad man addressing an imbecile.

Vic Pur



> Could we re-present the petition to the MOJ? Wouldnt they have to include


> it in papers present to the judge?


 Kent Parker


> No it is not relevant to the case. But it gives members of the public an


> opportunity to express their opinions about it. Any kind of criminal trial


> is a public event and all members of the public are entitled to


> participate or give an opinion if they wish. This is a basic right.

The ever hopeful Purkiss imagines that a petition which numerous people have signed more than once, which was in the control of a illegitimate 'hate site' might somehow be worthy of consideration when deciding Bain's compensation bid. He obviously imagines that a petition that managed to at least find a few hundred nutters that might sign it, and who in the majority are sicko hate-siters, is of some material value. The poor sad bloke, I wonder if shock treatment might help after a plant transplant from a snail as a donor?
 
Kent, sly devil he is, paranoid self-lover, knows there's no chance because the Ministry have already told him they don't deal with nutters who can't control the urge to sign petitions in as many names they can think of before starting again on the next page in the same manner. So he explains a current delusion that 'all members of the public' are entitled to 'participate' in a criminal trial. Why yes Kent, I seem to recall you sitting on the bench waving at the TV cameras during the Bain  trial in Christchurch, pushing the Judge out of his seat in your excitement, and I also recall Christine Williams and Annette Curran holding effigies aloft in from of the Jury and trying to set them alight as an expression of their opinion and their public 'rights.'
 
Old Kenty has no idea at all, the public don't take part in trials, the public also don't have the right to express opinions in a way that is defamatory or hateful. If the world was, and how Kenty now, wishes us somehow to believe, that the hate-siters were good folk, simply expressing an informed opinion based on facts and of public importance he and Purkiss would not be facing 100s of defamation charges while 16 others wait in the wings ever-hopeful they'll not be dragged further into the litigation than just by name - another interesting story yet to be revealed.

Dear Kenty,

I don't want to be insensitive to your difficulties. Many that there might be, with both your self-admiration problems or your non-registering IQ. In fact I urge you to remain positive on those issues because you never know, one day you could get some brain activity and learn to hate yourself.

But that isn't my only reason for writing to cheer you at this time. I'd also like to remind you, that your old mate Joe's book is released to sale next week. You've been stoic in hiding your real enthusiasm by saying that the book was never going to be written, so I know that you'll be relieved to finally get a copy.

We've had our differences kenty old pal, but I've always hated your guts in the nicest way possible. To show that, for indeed Kent, we must spit on our enemies at some time, or even just give them the fingers, I've decided to send you a copy because I know down you're on your luck.

So nice to see you again, tut, tut all that old bean.

Your old pal

Nos.

Parting is such sweet sorrow - unless you're Kenty.

Then it is like a recording of the last waltz  where the needle is stuck on the record, going round.
Mainly because even after he's said goodbye you realise he just has to hang around., the clue should have been the words 'Counterspin' because like walking the wrong way in traffic as did the protagonist in Midnight Express, the effect remains going round and round in circles, the only difference being the wrong way. Poor Kent, no wonder he and the dizzy Harriet Bond (Melanie galpal) think that everything is normal in cuckoo land.

Kent ParkerOK, so I am now having second thoughts about that email I sent out to some people about counterspin. As you can see I have not made any changes. My life is about to change radically but that doesn't mean I should remove the effectiveness of what counterspin stands for. Thanks for those of you who chose to discuss it with me and for your posts here. I have more or less changed my mind.
 
Pity you didn't also reveal that you've tried to do a runner Kenty.

Kenty updating his latest psychotic episode.

The Counterspin Freedom of Expression Tour will consist of at least three fund raising events held in different locations around the country involving various forms of entertainment including music.


Update: The focus of the tour is now changing to freedom of speech and the new nominal name is Counterspin: Freedom of Expression Tour.

Don't worry folks it is going to happen because Kenty says so. Put your doubts about him starting his own political party, about raising a petition that 20,000 nzers would sign before he sent it to the previous Minister of Justice, his claim that David Bain would never apply for compensation, that he, Kenty, would never spend a minute inside a courtroom with Joe Karam - put all those unfair doubts aside because Kenty's summer concert programme has been amended, again. He's even thought up a new name designed to bring a tear to the eyes of even the most sceptical - yes, it's now the Freedom of Expression with events in at 'least' three different locations around the country. After discreet inquiries with his booking agent Melanie White, aka Miss Bimbo Bond, who told me she could arrange a free pass into her bedroom  any time on the single condition that I was least breathing - what high standards she has. Miss Bimbo Bond has confirmed that the first location will be in Kenty's hallway where he'll talk to Vic Perkiss on the phone to reassure him that everything is fine and dandy and that Vic should stop crying and wailing, the second site will be in Kenty's study where he shall steel himself to look at certain pics of Ms Bond she has insisted he finally view of her, naked as a jay bird arising from the black waters of her pool fountain covered in emerald green frogs and spitting out live tadpoles to the sound of kent's most recent music collaboration titled "Kiss this frog baby."
You guessed it, the third concert location will be kent's newly renovated outhouse, that has had the 302 weta's removed to a wildlife park, where he will puke freely into his long drop.
I'll donate to that.

The demented world of Kent Parker and Melanie White.

Money Invention. Of course last year Kent announced a 'musical' tour to raise money, something along the lines of a Dave Dobbyn tour over the xmas break. What obviously didn't occur to Parker (and this shows the extent of his disorders) that he's not Dave Dobbyn, he's neither a recognised musician nor singer, he doesn't have a single record and outside the circle of his hate-sites he is virtually unknown apart for bizarre interest in how a mad man falls and burns. He's a consummate and practiced liar, unfortunately he lies to his handful of supporters in a blatant way, and they, showing similar mental incapacity, believe each one. His attendant friend the desperate and lonely Melanie White supports him in all he does not realising for a minute that kent has long since crossed over to being a dangerous messenger of hate. White sees no reason to object when Parker lies, she has long since crossed the line from decency to a twi-light world that lies and stalking are okay for those who are enlightened by the truth. A mother herself, she has never objected to the attacks Parker and his cohorts like the very sick Christine Williams have made on the families and children of those that object to the persecution these people seethe. Similarly, when Annette Curran and Glenda OBrien, Maryanne Newton, joyously discovered personal details of opponents or their families to exchange or harass, Parker, the dangerous and demented fool, had neither the decency or moral definition to protest at either the wrongness of such acts or to express or comprehend how such acts would soon make it seen, across a broad section of society - the hate and dangerousness of these people.
Before moving on from this, one thing that has struck me over the last few years, is the comparison between the hate-siters and some very tough and dangerous individuals I've known in my life. Apart from one or 2 exceptions there has been generally a rule in times of violence or potential violence to leave families and children out of it. Then I consider the rabid enthusiasm of the hate-siters to even go on line and threaten children and families, Christine Williams even threatening to take children away. Think about that folks and see the bankruptcy of decency and soul in these people and realise why they must be fought. Even years after a trial they still twist the evidence and lie - good people, with good causes absolutely never do that, nor even consider stalking the vulnerable.

Character Invention.
Much fuss was always made about this by the hate-siters, but when, thanks to Annette Curran, a raft of information leaked on line we found out that the hate-siters encouraged one another to have fake identities, realised that the 'venerable' Glenda OBrien was also, as suspected 'laddiefatcat,' that Christine Williams adopted the identity of her own daughter as did the beekeeper William Rodie, who incidentally is even using a fake identity on JFRB and Counterspin of Bob Smith which might be a cover for the introduction of 'leaked' material - but the results of that remain part of another story. Not at all ironically, OBrien, Williams and others used their fake identities to get back on line to immediately start threatening their targets - lost to them in their anger that it was a give away, and that additionally much of what they were intending to do was being pre-advertised by Curran herself.
But to more recent times, indeed the last few days. Kent Parker has become Andrew MacKenzie and Melanie White has become Harriet Bond. Just consider for a moment the credibility of a hate-site administrators who not only condone false identities but go on to assume such themselves. In this case they'll no doubt sign their own petition to add to the many other times they have signed it, but as an indication of inanity of all of this they even 'like' their own comments on a forum where they have been spamming lies. And like everything they do covertly, they betray themselves and their shredded credibility without thought.
These are the people that talk about Justice for Robin Bain, they see Justice as not needing truth, something to be arrived at with hate and lies, something that allows the utilisation of attacks on innocent people or children with no interest or even awareness of the case of the dead and disgraced father.

Kent Parker - what's the best he can expect?

Well, it's looked grim since his 2nd defence was rejected in the High Court and the Judge indicated a raised payments of costs to Joe Karam on the basis that Parker hadn't presented a defence, hadn't got over the first hurdle of being able to convince the Court that he had grounds of defence that would warrant a trial. The Judge also directed that submissions be made regarding costs to that point some 6 months ago, raised as a penalty factor that Parker hadn't shown a credible defence for a 2nd time despite advice and some assistance from Karam's counsel in order to quickly finalise what is a fairly clear case against Parker.
So in order, even if Parker were successful finally, in filing a legitimate defence, the preceding procedures would have to be settled before any trial could commence. Looking at that, and reading the Judgement it is unlikely that Parker will make the threshold of proving a defence which might be why he has no lawyer willing to act for him, he possibly has already sought legal aid. But that problem is secondary now, because the costs of his efforts so far have been found against him.
He will not be able to proceed to trial, even by some miracle a defence that hasn't been visible for some years suddenly appears, until he has settled the costs. Why? I think because he is shown as unable to pay the costs to date, Karam will make demand for payment as he is entitled. Parker might then try to seek legal aid, convince the Courts of merits in his case which have been already rejected twice (probably count three as most likely,) of which of course he has no chance. Meanwhile the legal aid authority are not able to give assistance in a defence that has no merit, and in Parker's case, which has already been rejected 2 (3) times. In effect Parker is sunk. I don't think there will ever be a trial, it's all over Rover since the Judgement dated 29th July 2011.