Defamation action by David Bain' supporter Joe Karam against members of Justice for Robin Bain (JFRB) was back in court in Auckland today.
Mr Karam's lawyers, along with respondents Kent Parker, from JFRB, and Vic Purkiss were at the High Court in Auckland for a hearing regarding the defamation case.
Mr Karam, who was not at court this morning, has made several defamation claims over alleged statements on JFRB's Facebook site and Counterspin.
The High Court website said today's hearing was to cover applications for orders striking out various defences, for particular discovery and for an order setting aside the defendants' claim to privilege.
The hearing was held in chambers and media were not allowed to attend.
Looks like his defences could be struck out, 3 strikes and all that. Poor Kenty, might have to hand over a lot of files that could show stalking for example, attempts to Pervert the Course of Justice, files that contain the names of the good old pals, Curran, O'Brien, Taylor and others in efforts to conspire to break the law both civil and criminal. But privilege as well? Kenty and Vic claiming privilege, I wonder what they could be? Client privilege, in respect communications between a bunch of nutters to a camp mother nutter - what a novel twist.
Oh well, at least the extent of his outrageous claims of defence were not heard in public so as to presumably avoid prejudicing the trial. The beat keeps on and Kent Parker tonight takes home the misery he sought to depart upon others. Suck it up Kent.
Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defamation. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Hotchin suing NZ Herald update.
Among the allegations from Hotchin is that the Herald and Gaynor had waged a long-standing campaign against him, according to his lawyers, the articles were 'highly damaging, incorrect and misleading.' This, amongst other things 'seriously damaged his personal and commercial reputation and caused him to lose commercial opportunities both in New Zealand and Australia.'
Here's another beauty, 'the New Zealand Herald is accused of acting improperly 'and/or with the intention of increasing sales.' How naive that seems to be, it suggests that people would buy the Herald to read about Hotchin and therefore there would be an increase in sales. Also, 'with the intention of increasing sales,' I wonder if Hotchin or his lawyers realise that a commercial enterprise is geared toward increasing sales, and just because that entity is a publisher doesn't discount them from that role of looking to increase business without any need to defame dear Marky. I think more than anything such claims show if not pure vanity, then a man under self-induced pressure, unwilling to accept his own shortcomings and unable to find a way out.
Mr Hotchin has launched some misguided media parades in order to re-establish his reputation. He seems totally unaware that when a multi millionaire pleads poverty or how much he put into a failed company in which investors lost millions, those investors just don't care. Hotchin's very fall from grace has echoed in the public mind because of the failure of his companies and the way investors feel they've been treated, both of which would have had greater impact on his reputation that articles written in The Herald. It is the investors that have spread the word and feeling about Hotchin. His white elephant mansion in Orakei I'm sure features more in the mind of the public than anything Gaynor has written.
But moreover what Gaynor has written might well be tested (if Hotchin succeeds to trial,) and measured against Hotchins assets being frozen in the Courts, the public feeling abroad about failed finance companies in general and Hotchin in particular. I don't think Hotchin has a dog's show, this action reeks of the anger of a man under pressure who thought the pheasant's should appreciate his greatness and the opportunity to lose money by investing in his brand. There is a sharp delusion showing here. I think Hotchin is bewildered that he is viewed any differently than the way he sees himself, and additionally confused why there is no sympathy abroad for him.
I've never agreed with the invasion into the privacy of his family, I think that has been unwarranted and the work of guttersnipes (old word there), but the stark fact remains that Mark Hotchin sewed the seeds of his own fate and public opinion of himself - he should grow some gonads and toughen up the bloody cry-baby.
Here's another beauty, 'the New Zealand Herald is accused of acting improperly 'and/or with the intention of increasing sales.' How naive that seems to be, it suggests that people would buy the Herald to read about Hotchin and therefore there would be an increase in sales. Also, 'with the intention of increasing sales,' I wonder if Hotchin or his lawyers realise that a commercial enterprise is geared toward increasing sales, and just because that entity is a publisher doesn't discount them from that role of looking to increase business without any need to defame dear Marky. I think more than anything such claims show if not pure vanity, then a man under self-induced pressure, unwilling to accept his own shortcomings and unable to find a way out.
Mr Hotchin has launched some misguided media parades in order to re-establish his reputation. He seems totally unaware that when a multi millionaire pleads poverty or how much he put into a failed company in which investors lost millions, those investors just don't care. Hotchin's very fall from grace has echoed in the public mind because of the failure of his companies and the way investors feel they've been treated, both of which would have had greater impact on his reputation that articles written in The Herald. It is the investors that have spread the word and feeling about Hotchin. His white elephant mansion in Orakei I'm sure features more in the mind of the public than anything Gaynor has written.
But moreover what Gaynor has written might well be tested (if Hotchin succeeds to trial,) and measured against Hotchins assets being frozen in the Courts, the public feeling abroad about failed finance companies in general and Hotchin in particular. I don't think Hotchin has a dog's show, this action reeks of the anger of a man under pressure who thought the pheasant's should appreciate his greatness and the opportunity to lose money by investing in his brand. There is a sharp delusion showing here. I think Hotchin is bewildered that he is viewed any differently than the way he sees himself, and additionally confused why there is no sympathy abroad for him.
I've never agreed with the invasion into the privacy of his family, I think that has been unwarranted and the work of guttersnipes (old word there), but the stark fact remains that Mark Hotchin sewed the seeds of his own fate and public opinion of himself - he should grow some gonads and toughen up the bloody cry-baby.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Peter Jansen calls it off, citing that the woman he
was suing needs the opportunity to continue her treatment. I gather he is also saying that that he was unaware that Jax was an ACC client. But of course he knew all these things when he began his litigation, it was all contained in the thread from which his complaints of defamation arose. And even if by some remarkable situation he was in the dark about Jax's situation he certainly knew when the story broke publicly, particularly when the Minister became involved.
Peter Jansen has an awkward, damaging touch. The 'pathways' programme he helped initiate to expediate treatment for ACC clients isn't universally lauded, in some quarters it is down right rejection as being a cost cutting exercise that created greater problems than its worth. His act, of what could be described as revengeful litigation, also held that clumsy touch. His withdrawal from that particular episode was again superficial, misleading - suddenly compassionate but citing excuses that don't weigh as credible or true.
Peter Jansen's pathway is more real than the prose he used to sell the original idea, Peter's pathway is in fact real and he walks that pathway now, alone, watched silently for his false steps and spiteful anger against those to whom he has betrayed himself.
Peter Jansen has an awkward, damaging touch. The 'pathways' programme he helped initiate to expediate treatment for ACC clients isn't universally lauded, in some quarters it is down right rejection as being a cost cutting exercise that created greater problems than its worth. His act, of what could be described as revengeful litigation, also held that clumsy touch. His withdrawal from that particular episode was again superficial, misleading - suddenly compassionate but citing excuses that don't weigh as credible or true.
Peter Jansen's pathway is more real than the prose he used to sell the original idea, Peter's pathway is in fact real and he walks that pathway now, alone, watched silently for his false steps and spiteful anger against those to whom he has betrayed himself.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Mark Hotchin suing Brian Gaynor and the NZ Herald
..in the more traditional fashion, the speaker (writer) as well as the Publisher (NZ Herald.) While one can assume that the Publisher Trade Me will want to enjoin the speakers (writers) of the posts for which it is being sued by Joe Karam, for the specific reason that they claim not be the publishers (but that the writers are) and TM are therefore not liable - Hotchin's actions takes the traditional, established route.
On the surface this could appear to be good news for TM but looked at more closely that isn't necessarily the case because TM continued (and continue now) to publish defamatory material about Karam after having been first warned and then sued. And of necessity the question is asked would Karam have been defamed after he warned TM if they had heeded his warning, the answer is probably no, and if the answer was still yes, TM have lost the mitigating circumstance that they stopped further publishing of defamatory comment because they agreed that they were the publisher or alternatively because they recognised the public harm to Karam even though they believed themselves not to be a publisher. There are some kind of idiots running or advising TM and ultimately the opinion is abroad that the hangbainers, are nutters with an unnatural interest in children.
Worse case scenario is that the Court might order that the nutter fiddlers be enjoined or TM might enjoin them as the traditional (route) action of Hotchin V NZ Herald and Gaynor above. Interesting to note that Mark Hotchin seems oblivious to the fact that his reputation has suffered by his own actions and not from the words published about him. I don't think he has a dog's show. The action seems designed for other reasons, probably quite desperate reasons divorced from reality and probably driven by anger. Another question is raised of how he can afford it if he is as impoverished as he claims when he has sought the courts to release frozen funds and assets to him.
In the meantime while there remain doubts that Hotchin has the dry ammo to keep his law suit going, and noting that Dr Jansen has given up his against an ACC client, sure as rain Karam keeps on relentlessly, passing on his way the locked down hate-sites of rotten fiddlers without an interested glance.
On the surface this could appear to be good news for TM but looked at more closely that isn't necessarily the case because TM continued (and continue now) to publish defamatory material about Karam after having been first warned and then sued. And of necessity the question is asked would Karam have been defamed after he warned TM if they had heeded his warning, the answer is probably no, and if the answer was still yes, TM have lost the mitigating circumstance that they stopped further publishing of defamatory comment because they agreed that they were the publisher or alternatively because they recognised the public harm to Karam even though they believed themselves not to be a publisher. There are some kind of idiots running or advising TM and ultimately the opinion is abroad that the hangbainers, are nutters with an unnatural interest in children.
Worse case scenario is that the Court might order that the nutter fiddlers be enjoined or TM might enjoin them as the traditional (route) action of Hotchin V NZ Herald and Gaynor above. Interesting to note that Mark Hotchin seems oblivious to the fact that his reputation has suffered by his own actions and not from the words published about him. I don't think he has a dog's show. The action seems designed for other reasons, probably quite desperate reasons divorced from reality and probably driven by anger. Another question is raised of how he can afford it if he is as impoverished as he claims when he has sought the courts to release frozen funds and assets to him.
In the meantime while there remain doubts that Hotchin has the dry ammo to keep his law suit going, and noting that Dr Jansen has given up his against an ACC client, sure as rain Karam keeps on relentlessly, passing on his way the locked down hate-sites of rotten fiddlers without an interested glance.
Friday, May 6, 2011
The inequality of the treatment of Karam compared to Jansen on TM.
I have had a look into the threads regarding Peter Jansen and can see that the first post on those threads contained words that were not appropriate. In this specific case we had to remove the whole thread to remove the first post, which was against the Message Board rules.
Regards,
......
Trade Me Support
http://www.trademe.co.nz
The first posts....
Yip, that's right. One of the Sexual Abuse Claimants who has been screwed over by ACC is being sued by Dr. Jansen (Head of the Sensitive Claims Unit) for calling him names on her blog. He is asking upwards of $250,000. His hurt, shame and financial loss is worth more than anyone who has been sexually abused apparently. He appears to be under the impression he isn't a "Completely Incompetent Prick" though no one would of guessed that one after the Independent Review Panel Report last year. He will get eaten alive in the media.
http://k1w1jax.blogspot.com/2011/04/peter-jansen-shows-his-t rue-colours.html
by grm
on 10:25 am, 14 Apr 2011
and
1.
.
by scarpetta
on 02:33 pm, 17 Apr 2011
I recovered the first posts from VMN, the second as is apparent already had the first post removed which fails to explain why the whole thread needed to be removed. The second contains words that are 'not appropriate' according to TM.
TM specifically state that 'In this specific case we had to remove the whole thread to remove the first post, which was against the Message Board rules' whereas on the issue of the continued attacks on Karam (some 30,000 posts) the first post is already removed. A couple of years ago some threads were started about the fallen lawyer Eb Leary, they were also quickly removed.
Reading the remaining 1st post above from the 'dismissed' Jansen threads the only apparently 'inappropriate words' are those describing the good Doctor as an 'incompetent prick.' However these are the statements over which he is suing and I'm completely sure that he (Peter Jansen) has not sought suppression of those words in his law suit - in fact the are broadly published.
It is hardly obscure that Karam is likely to argue that TM have 'allowed' him to be defamed at length, the ongoing threads are strong proof of that. As for the intention to be proven against TM the disappearing Leary and Jansen threads provide substantial proof of TM holding a different standard when it suits them. The nonsense about some supposed technical reason why some threads are removed and not others of the same type is exactly that, nonsense.
Noteworthy, that supporters of the blogger Jax populated the removed Jansen threads while in the case of remaining Karam threads they're populated by in large of detractors and defamers of Karam - the man who is 'incidentally' suing Trade Me. Am I missing something here?
Regards,
......
Trade Me Support
http://www.trademe.co.nz
The first posts....
Yip, that's right. One of the Sexual Abuse Claimants who has been screwed over by ACC is being sued by Dr. Jansen (Head of the Sensitive Claims Unit) for calling him names on her blog. He is asking upwards of $250,000. His hurt, shame and financial loss is worth more than anyone who has been sexually abused apparently. He appears to be under the impression he isn't a "Completely Incompetent Prick" though no one would of guessed that one after the Independent Review Panel Report last year. He will get eaten alive in the media.
http://k1w1jax.blogspot.com/2011/04/peter-jansen-shows-his-t rue-colours.html
by grm
on 10:25 am, 14 Apr 2011
and
1.
.
by scarpetta
on 02:33 pm, 17 Apr 2011
I recovered the first posts from VMN, the second as is apparent already had the first post removed which fails to explain why the whole thread needed to be removed. The second contains words that are 'not appropriate' according to TM.
TM specifically state that 'In this specific case we had to remove the whole thread to remove the first post, which was against the Message Board rules' whereas on the issue of the continued attacks on Karam (some 30,000 posts) the first post is already removed. A couple of years ago some threads were started about the fallen lawyer Eb Leary, they were also quickly removed.
Reading the remaining 1st post above from the 'dismissed' Jansen threads the only apparently 'inappropriate words' are those describing the good Doctor as an 'incompetent prick.' However these are the statements over which he is suing and I'm completely sure that he (Peter Jansen) has not sought suppression of those words in his law suit - in fact the are broadly published.
It is hardly obscure that Karam is likely to argue that TM have 'allowed' him to be defamed at length, the ongoing threads are strong proof of that. As for the intention to be proven against TM the disappearing Leary and Jansen threads provide substantial proof of TM holding a different standard when it suits them. The nonsense about some supposed technical reason why some threads are removed and not others of the same type is exactly that, nonsense.
Noteworthy, that supporters of the blogger Jax populated the removed Jansen threads while in the case of remaining Karam threads they're populated by in large of detractors and defamers of Karam - the man who is 'incidentally' suing Trade Me. Am I missing something here?
Friday, April 22, 2011
Trade Me - Culpability coming down the line.
We've recently seen Trade Me remove a thread started about Dr Peter Jansen suing an ACC client for calling him, tongue in cheek it would seem, an 'incompetent prick.' The thread still exists in entirety on Votemenot and meanwhile another new thread has been running for a week.
Being called an 'incompetent prick' in cyberspace as it exists at the moment wouldn't rate as extreme defamation because people get described as being all manner of pricks..stupid, silly, dumb pricks and so forth. At the other end of that are threads of note that TM allow to continue to run, most particularly those defaming Joe Karam and David Bain where both men are called names more damaging than prick and to this day have 'evidence' produced against them that is pure lies. Of course Karam is suing Trade Me over comments they have published and an issue in those proceedings, possibly the only issue, will be whether or not TM are a publisher.
To this point in all their literature they claim they're not publishers nor editors and say those roles lie with the individual posters and members of the TM community who can vote them off. That is despite that at the moment any Bain thread is unable to be voted off. If it is decided in Law, and it is a question of Law, that TM are a publisher I don't imagine they'll be able to do much other than settle, they cannot, and I doubt would try to, argue that David is guilty of murder (he's in fact been acquitted) and any arguments along those lines would see them taking total responsibility for the posts that they claim are published by other on their boards (how conveniently) and are not their responsibility. They foul this role by acting as moderators, often only on request, moderator being a modern term applicable to on line editing.
This week they've had another setback in their claim of being innocent bystanders while nasty people write defamatory remarks on their message board. John Marshall QC had been asked to examine what part the Ministry of Justice had played in the publication of suppressed details of victims on the Ministry's website. It transpires, according to John Marshall, that before anything was published on the Ministry website judgements were checked before being published to ensure they complied with suppression orders and statutory publications.
In effect this pre 'checking' was editing, to ensure no breaches of orders were published. Apparently of 10 cases identified as wrongfully published none had the required 'banner or flag at the top.' Mr Marshall said the Ministry, as the website publisher, had the responsibility to 'carefully read and check [the judgements] to ensure suppression requirements were complied with, whether or not there were flags.'
As some readers might be aware TM regularly publish suppressed material and there are records showing it can remain published on their board ad infinitum. But that is possibly less of a problem for TM than Mr Marshall's recognition, and the Government's acceptance that the Ministry is without doubt the publisher (no resistance from them on that point) and therefore responsible for what the publish.
For some time I've thought that TM's 'rules' are an attempt to indemnify themselves against responsibility for what happens on a message board that they both own and operate. Unfortunately for TM, Mr Marshall's view of internet publishing is both accepted precedent and practice and no company or individual in NZ can indemnify themselves against responsibility for illegal activity. Cases go back as far as the sixties and possibly beyond that prove it is accepted precedent that what one publishes they own, and defamatory comment can be the liability of the speaker and the publisher, with the publisher (probably) taking the greater responsibility for spreading the defamation to a wider audience. In effect the passage of time is showing that the printed word, whether manually printed in a printers shop, or electronically (as in cyberspace) is one and the same with the same rules applying. Not new rules set up by a profit making organisation with contempt for protocols and the rights of others but rules established under law and precedent. TM you are sunk, along with your hate-site nannies.
Being called an 'incompetent prick' in cyberspace as it exists at the moment wouldn't rate as extreme defamation because people get described as being all manner of pricks..stupid, silly, dumb pricks and so forth. At the other end of that are threads of note that TM allow to continue to run, most particularly those defaming Joe Karam and David Bain where both men are called names more damaging than prick and to this day have 'evidence' produced against them that is pure lies. Of course Karam is suing Trade Me over comments they have published and an issue in those proceedings, possibly the only issue, will be whether or not TM are a publisher.
To this point in all their literature they claim they're not publishers nor editors and say those roles lie with the individual posters and members of the TM community who can vote them off. That is despite that at the moment any Bain thread is unable to be voted off. If it is decided in Law, and it is a question of Law, that TM are a publisher I don't imagine they'll be able to do much other than settle, they cannot, and I doubt would try to, argue that David is guilty of murder (he's in fact been acquitted) and any arguments along those lines would see them taking total responsibility for the posts that they claim are published by other on their boards (how conveniently) and are not their responsibility. They foul this role by acting as moderators, often only on request, moderator being a modern term applicable to on line editing.
This week they've had another setback in their claim of being innocent bystanders while nasty people write defamatory remarks on their message board. John Marshall QC had been asked to examine what part the Ministry of Justice had played in the publication of suppressed details of victims on the Ministry's website. It transpires, according to John Marshall, that before anything was published on the Ministry website judgements were checked before being published to ensure they complied with suppression orders and statutory publications.
In effect this pre 'checking' was editing, to ensure no breaches of orders were published. Apparently of 10 cases identified as wrongfully published none had the required 'banner or flag at the top.' Mr Marshall said the Ministry, as the website publisher, had the responsibility to 'carefully read and check [the judgements] to ensure suppression requirements were complied with, whether or not there were flags.'
As some readers might be aware TM regularly publish suppressed material and there are records showing it can remain published on their board ad infinitum. But that is possibly less of a problem for TM than Mr Marshall's recognition, and the Government's acceptance that the Ministry is without doubt the publisher (no resistance from them on that point) and therefore responsible for what the publish.
For some time I've thought that TM's 'rules' are an attempt to indemnify themselves against responsibility for what happens on a message board that they both own and operate. Unfortunately for TM, Mr Marshall's view of internet publishing is both accepted precedent and practice and no company or individual in NZ can indemnify themselves against responsibility for illegal activity. Cases go back as far as the sixties and possibly beyond that prove it is accepted precedent that what one publishes they own, and defamatory comment can be the liability of the speaker and the publisher, with the publisher (probably) taking the greater responsibility for spreading the defamation to a wider audience. In effect the passage of time is showing that the printed word, whether manually printed in a printers shop, or electronically (as in cyberspace) is one and the same with the same rules applying. Not new rules set up by a profit making organisation with contempt for protocols and the rights of others but rules established under law and precedent. TM you are sunk, along with your hate-site nannies.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Defamation from the cauldron of hate.
TM won't like that connection, they could totally do with out it. But by entertaining the hate-sites, indeed seen to be facilitating them could be an important issue in the claim against them. I expect at some point soon a corporate swordsman will go through their ranks. The cost of the case to date will already be registering unfavourably on the accounts, the reading of which echos most strongly in a corporation. The question of how it reached such a point and of what design was the reconciliation of the financial 'benefit' to the company should see the corporate swordsman removing the dead and diseased wood, people be relocated, moved sideways or sent on their way.
I know there has been an opinion abroad that TM are using the 'opportunity' as a legal prototype for the liability on the internet worldwide. I have difficulty accepting that, but then again it couldn't be discounted though I could never see that it was some plan, but rather an advantage sought in a test case and applicable to their operations overseas as well. If that has been part of it, then a number of problems have shown such a decision to have been misguided because internationally, and more particularly in NZ recently, has been the recognition that the publisher and writer remain responsible for defamation and the move is toward standardising or recognising print media and cyberspace publishing as being the same.
I know there has been an opinion abroad that TM are using the 'opportunity' as a legal prototype for the liability on the internet worldwide. I have difficulty accepting that, but then again it couldn't be discounted though I could never see that it was some plan, but rather an advantage sought in a test case and applicable to their operations overseas as well. If that has been part of it, then a number of problems have shown such a decision to have been misguided because internationally, and more particularly in NZ recently, has been the recognition that the publisher and writer remain responsible for defamation and the move is toward standardising or recognising print media and cyberspace publishing as being the same.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Right on xmas and The New Korean Herald has gone bust...
Some readers might remember this defamation case, the decision of which was given in Judgement by Heath J in the Auckland High Court on the 9th of November 2010. In order to avoid payment the New Korean Herald has gone bust. But what will happen to Jong Ok Yoo and Young Kwan Kim second and third defendants, they can't go bust in the same way as limited liability company can - and essentially walk away. No, no no, they'll either have to pay or do a runner. If they run whatever can be clawed back by the plaintiff Jung Nam Lee will become his property, even bankruptcy is too late because it is after the fact of the Judgement. Of course some folks will remember that Ok Yoo and Kwan Kim were also directors of The New Korean Herald Ltd that and were found as parties to be also liable for defamation against Jung Nam Lee, so they can slip off the hook as directors of the now failed company but not off the hook as individuals successfully sued by tort and without the protection of a Limited Liability company.
The second hook is embedded deeper than the first and they can't escape it with self-imposed bankruptcy to protect any assets they might have now or at the time that the suit was filed against them. It must be hell for them now to realise that implying or stating without credible factual support that Mr Lee was engaged in 'corrupt, dishonest and immoral practices.' Oh dear, watching them panic and squirm must be interesting and satisfying for Mr Lee. Seeing them trying to escape from that which there is no escape, save prostrating themselves at Mr Lee's feet and asking for mercy, must be entertaining for Mr Lee because he has been found not to be engaged in 'corrupt, dishonest and immoral practices' for which a pound of flesh is now due from Ok Yoo and Kwan Kim. The tide has turned and the frenzied attack on the good Mr Lee is repelled, driven to the edge of a cliff from which there is no escape save a big fall into oblivion.
'Oblivion' what an appropriate term at Xmas for those that indulged an attack against Joe Karam just last xmas and who are now defendants in the same High Court that delivered the so sad news to Ok Yoo and Kwan Kim, even though Mr Kim couldn't bring himself to appear in Court and merely rolled over like a repentant cry baby. Cry babies, aren't they so interesting? And speaking of such, we now hardly hear from Kent Parker or Vic Purkiss. I wonder if they have secretly decided to enjoin the dirty dogs Glenda OBrien, Annette Curran, William Rodie, Trevor Fox, Denise Cameron, Mike Stockdale, Lindsay Kennard, et al. Seen at last the destructive pigs for what they are, dirty fiddlers and liars, bros one and all.
I'm in favour of seeing the dirty dogs enjoined either by Kent and Vic or by Trade Me who have given many indications that they will be, if not indeed by Joe Karam who has their miserable fate within his hands. Oh what happy xmas it won't be for the rotten persecuting dogs and their lying, scheming and stalking. Of course I digress from the point, that for sisters there is no escape - it makes me feel all warm in me nether regions watching the fiddlers sink, even the ones with live mackerels head-first up their bums.
The second hook is embedded deeper than the first and they can't escape it with self-imposed bankruptcy to protect any assets they might have now or at the time that the suit was filed against them. It must be hell for them now to realise that implying or stating without credible factual support that Mr Lee was engaged in 'corrupt, dishonest and immoral practices.' Oh dear, watching them panic and squirm must be interesting and satisfying for Mr Lee. Seeing them trying to escape from that which there is no escape, save prostrating themselves at Mr Lee's feet and asking for mercy, must be entertaining for Mr Lee because he has been found not to be engaged in 'corrupt, dishonest and immoral practices' for which a pound of flesh is now due from Ok Yoo and Kwan Kim. The tide has turned and the frenzied attack on the good Mr Lee is repelled, driven to the edge of a cliff from which there is no escape save a big fall into oblivion.
'Oblivion' what an appropriate term at Xmas for those that indulged an attack against Joe Karam just last xmas and who are now defendants in the same High Court that delivered the so sad news to Ok Yoo and Kwan Kim, even though Mr Kim couldn't bring himself to appear in Court and merely rolled over like a repentant cry baby. Cry babies, aren't they so interesting? And speaking of such, we now hardly hear from Kent Parker or Vic Purkiss. I wonder if they have secretly decided to enjoin the dirty dogs Glenda OBrien, Annette Curran, William Rodie, Trevor Fox, Denise Cameron, Mike Stockdale, Lindsay Kennard, et al. Seen at last the destructive pigs for what they are, dirty fiddlers and liars, bros one and all.
I'm in favour of seeing the dirty dogs enjoined either by Kent and Vic or by Trade Me who have given many indications that they will be, if not indeed by Joe Karam who has their miserable fate within his hands. Oh what happy xmas it won't be for the rotten persecuting dogs and their lying, scheming and stalking. Of course I digress from the point, that for sisters there is no escape - it makes me feel all warm in me nether regions watching the fiddlers sink, even the ones with live mackerels head-first up their bums.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Kent Parker, you idiot.
I've just been reading the 'revamped' Counterspin site, this guy Parker is a raving lunatic. Earlier today I read something very important and which should be troubling to Parker but I doubt the man has the brains to follow it. This week (9/11/10) in the Auckland High Court a Judgement was released by Heath J in a defamation proceeding against a Korean newspaper and the two directors of the company which owned it. The Korean newspaper had several times published accusations against a NZ residing Korean businessman which essentially claimed that he was in breach of orders by a Fijian Court and was engaged in corrupt, dishonest and immoral practices. Of the three defendants only one attended the hearing and represented himself with the assistance of a Barrister who acted as a 'Mckenzie friend.'
Of course I was reminded of the venerable Parker and Purkiss, also unrepresented, and unwitting, however, as often is the case I viewed the underdog with a sympathetic mindset because he was against formidable counsel for the plaintiff and what appeared to be a too startling Statement of Claim that would seem improbable to be a proper discription of the conduct of the defendants - a reasonably sized publishing company and its owners. Very soon it became apparent that rather than being underdogs the defendants were as absolutely clueless as the twin ps. Not only were their claims beyond factual, but they had been reported to them by 'reliable' informants (sound familiar, Stockdale and co.) The defendant(s) built an argument on this which contradicted the law and common sense, because the publisher couldn't get hold of the plaintiff for comment 'and had no reasonable grounds to believe that the articles were inaccurate, the newspaper was entitled to publish, without further inquiry into the veracity of the information, or those that supplied it to him.'
The defendant (who appeared) Yoo, did not think his conduct was inappropriate. 'His opinion is (was) that because he had made an (unsuccessful) attempt to contact Mr Lee (the Plaintiff)' he was entitled to publish. Come in dear old Kenty baby, not only did he publish without any reference or attempt to reference the plaintiff in his case (Joe Karam) he relied on 'reliable' informants such as shit for brains Stockdale and Taylor, who even now (into the second year since the trial) daily display they have no grasp of the facts of the Bain case, but additionally have proven themselves to be liars time and again. Why would Kent Parker be so stupid to publish defamatory carbage from pedo supporting fiddlers and think he had a defence of truth or veracity? The reason is because he is an idiot. Why would Kent Parker wittingly allow material to be published on his site that any reasonable person would understand was defamatory if unproven, without first satisfying himself of the facts or the veracity of the material - because he is an idiot.
Yoo and co faced what the Judge said was alleged were not less than 10 defamatory statements. Dingbat ps are going for nearly 200, I suppose you could say that was ensuring that there was no room for error in having a case found against them. Mr Lee also based his claim against the publisher and it's owner on (shock horror) 'a website maintained by the newspaper. He alleges that the articles of which complaint is made continue to be accessible on the website. Mr Yoo accepts that.' But I like that website reference and I'm sure Trade Me and Annette Curran share a common interest in discovering that the law they thought that didn't exist in cyberspace actually does, and similarly the proof of any statement lies with both the writer and the publisher, and the onus for the reliability of the informant of that 'truth' also lies with the writer and the publisher.
There is other elementary information in the Judgement that I might refer to later, but which shows that even though Kent can be excused to some degree for being an idiot, he is still liable as are the 'cookingwithgas, ret1, nina_s, obooks, and goobergoofs of this world.'
Mr Lee was awarded $250,000 plus costs against the defendants jointly and severally. I wouldn't propose to say that the damages in the Joe Karam case would necessarily multiply by the number of additional defamatory statements, but if it did Kenty and Stockdale and co will be sunk for millions. No wonder Trade Me are being pragmatic, changing their position as it dawns on them the burden that the motor mouth hate-siters have imposed on them, and look now to spreading the liability to the 'reliable' informants.
Of course I was reminded of the venerable Parker and Purkiss, also unrepresented, and unwitting, however, as often is the case I viewed the underdog with a sympathetic mindset because he was against formidable counsel for the plaintiff and what appeared to be a too startling Statement of Claim that would seem improbable to be a proper discription of the conduct of the defendants - a reasonably sized publishing company and its owners. Very soon it became apparent that rather than being underdogs the defendants were as absolutely clueless as the twin ps. Not only were their claims beyond factual, but they had been reported to them by 'reliable' informants (sound familiar, Stockdale and co.) The defendant(s) built an argument on this which contradicted the law and common sense, because the publisher couldn't get hold of the plaintiff for comment 'and had no reasonable grounds to believe that the articles were inaccurate, the newspaper was entitled to publish, without further inquiry into the veracity of the information, or those that supplied it to him.'
The defendant (who appeared) Yoo, did not think his conduct was inappropriate. 'His opinion is (was) that because he had made an (unsuccessful) attempt to contact Mr Lee (the Plaintiff)' he was entitled to publish. Come in dear old Kenty baby, not only did he publish without any reference or attempt to reference the plaintiff in his case (Joe Karam) he relied on 'reliable' informants such as shit for brains Stockdale and Taylor, who even now (into the second year since the trial) daily display they have no grasp of the facts of the Bain case, but additionally have proven themselves to be liars time and again. Why would Kent Parker be so stupid to publish defamatory carbage from pedo supporting fiddlers and think he had a defence of truth or veracity? The reason is because he is an idiot. Why would Kent Parker wittingly allow material to be published on his site that any reasonable person would understand was defamatory if unproven, without first satisfying himself of the facts or the veracity of the material - because he is an idiot.
Yoo and co faced what the Judge said was alleged were not less than 10 defamatory statements. Dingbat ps are going for nearly 200, I suppose you could say that was ensuring that there was no room for error in having a case found against them. Mr Lee also based his claim against the publisher and it's owner on (shock horror) 'a website maintained by the newspaper. He alleges that the articles of which complaint is made continue to be accessible on the website. Mr Yoo accepts that.' But I like that website reference and I'm sure Trade Me and Annette Curran share a common interest in discovering that the law they thought that didn't exist in cyberspace actually does, and similarly the proof of any statement lies with both the writer and the publisher, and the onus for the reliability of the informant of that 'truth' also lies with the writer and the publisher.
There is other elementary information in the Judgement that I might refer to later, but which shows that even though Kent can be excused to some degree for being an idiot, he is still liable as are the 'cookingwithgas, ret1, nina_s, obooks, and goobergoofs of this world.'
Mr Lee was awarded $250,000 plus costs against the defendants jointly and severally. I wouldn't propose to say that the damages in the Joe Karam case would necessarily multiply by the number of additional defamatory statements, but if it did Kenty and Stockdale and co will be sunk for millions. No wonder Trade Me are being pragmatic, changing their position as it dawns on them the burden that the motor mouth hate-siters have imposed on them, and look now to spreading the liability to the 'reliable' informants.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Lindsay Kennard, lying for the cause - again
Sorry was not agreeing with the defence just saying having a round in the breech was the only evidence that could with a very strong wind and a steep down hill gradient could make it to the 0.5% possibility Robin committed suicide as opposed to the 99.5% probability of his not committing suicide.
Quotelinz4me (276 ) 11:46 pm, Fri 22 Oct #28519
Dear Lindsay,
I know you are a sorry arse reject, and that your three wives left you in turn. I also know that you have recorded on TM that one of your wives said that you that you molested a daughter. I know from watching you, that another message boarder gave you some friendly advice and that you in turn stalked them. I've read your posts on guiltyfreeforums, they're captured for all time. I know also that Scott Watson's father told you to shut up because you were damaging Scott's chances with your big mouth and lies. I know that you have a presumption to lie because of a 'noble cause' mentality you have in your sick psycho head. I also know that you are lying, dangerous, persecutor, someone who surrounds them self in a permanency of seeking sympathy for your various mental and physical complaints that you labour others with.
You don't amount to much to you Lindsay, when your pride in life is to hurt others to cover up the feelings of hurt you have yourself. Grow some courage Linday Kennard, don't tear down other peoples lives because your own feels torn down, don't target those you perceive to be weak, don't do sneak attacks on others like a cowardly assassin, don't interfere in others lives just because you've turned your own life into a rotten mess - so much so that people, your partners, have left you behind and lain at your feet accusations that you are a fiddler. The world is not a better place because of you Lindsay, you make the world worse with lies and deceit, with self-pity that is suffocating and attacks on those you feel can't respond.
As for your quote above, we all recall where it came from don't we Lindsay? Provided by parapenter along with the details that it was a peer reviewed report of an extensive nature and that you, dog day afternoon, that you are, reversed the figures to suit you filthy persecuting ways. The odds of your rotten pedo friend killing himself with a long arm firearm shot to the left temple with a close contact was over 99%, and you reversed the figures to mislead and protect your rotten pedo friend, the same label given to you by one of your ex wives.
Stay off the booze and drugs and sign yourself in for treatment sicko, meanwhile the world learns more about it and your pedo mates.
Quotelinz4me (276 ) 11:46 pm, Fri 22 Oct #28519
Dear Lindsay,
I know you are a sorry arse reject, and that your three wives left you in turn. I also know that you have recorded on TM that one of your wives said that you that you molested a daughter. I know from watching you, that another message boarder gave you some friendly advice and that you in turn stalked them. I've read your posts on guiltyfreeforums, they're captured for all time. I know also that Scott Watson's father told you to shut up because you were damaging Scott's chances with your big mouth and lies. I know that you have a presumption to lie because of a 'noble cause' mentality you have in your sick psycho head. I also know that you are lying, dangerous, persecutor, someone who surrounds them self in a permanency of seeking sympathy for your various mental and physical complaints that you labour others with.
You don't amount to much to you Lindsay, when your pride in life is to hurt others to cover up the feelings of hurt you have yourself. Grow some courage Linday Kennard, don't tear down other peoples lives because your own feels torn down, don't target those you perceive to be weak, don't do sneak attacks on others like a cowardly assassin, don't interfere in others lives just because you've turned your own life into a rotten mess - so much so that people, your partners, have left you behind and lain at your feet accusations that you are a fiddler. The world is not a better place because of you Lindsay, you make the world worse with lies and deceit, with self-pity that is suffocating and attacks on those you feel can't respond.
As for your quote above, we all recall where it came from don't we Lindsay? Provided by parapenter along with the details that it was a peer reviewed report of an extensive nature and that you, dog day afternoon, that you are, reversed the figures to suit you filthy persecuting ways. The odds of your rotten pedo friend killing himself with a long arm firearm shot to the left temple with a close contact was over 99%, and you reversed the figures to mislead and protect your rotten pedo friend, the same label given to you by one of your ex wives.
Stay off the booze and drugs and sign yourself in for treatment sicko, meanwhile the world learns more about it and your pedo mates.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Kent Parkers frail grip on reality weakens.......
latest publicly open blog at counterspin http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/blog/some-cases-where-the-investigation-really-was-dodgy
The following (abridged) from Kent Parker, when once pared of self-supporting dribble, shows the pressure he is facing and his inability to handle it.
Some Cases Where the Investigation Really was Dodgy
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
In the wake of calls for a re-investigation of the Crewe murders for which Arthur Allan Thomas was acquitted after serving 9 years for false imprisonment, a barrister has commented on cases where police have been over zealous in their prosecution of justice. This barrister mentions the Thomas case, and while he didn't work on that particular case, he worked in other cases that involved the same police officers. The Thomas case is notable in that the investigation into police conduct did actually find the police guilty of misconduct but the powers that be failed to provide sufficient punishment, well in the eyes of many, including the barrister.
Joe Karam has tried to make the Bain case look like the Arthur Allan Thomas case in his quest for a compensatory handout.The worst thing that happened from what I can see is that someone measured the rifle length incorrectly but this was corrected in the original trial and had no effect on the outcome.The simple truth is that the original investigation was good. Joe Karam has made it out to be a shambles and taken every opportunity to broadcast this view, in order to serve his own needs. It helped cast doubt and uncertainty over the original prosecution and trial and provided a very good foundation for the reasonable doubt that eventually arose. What was originally clear and simple, has been made mysterious and muddied. Have a look at the PCA report and decide for yourselves.
» Kent Parker's blog
As can be seen from above Kent Parker feels some alarm at the prospect that there may be those among us that see connections between the falsity of the investigation of the Crew murders and that of inquiry into the deaths of the Bain family.
Of course the importance of this would be paramount in Kent's mind because he is getting his butt sued and might well imagine in his own particular insular way that any Jury in his (Kent's) trial might well be influenced by the much publicised findings in the Crew case. So to preserve his personal situation he must make (what is to him obviously an almost fatal scenario for him legally) distinctions between that case and the Bain case. What follows from that is self-interest predictable drivel.
Of course Kent defends the Trail that was and will forever be deemed an actual Miscarriage of Justice. A trial which for the any passing punter I should say was characterised by with-held evidence, objective only evidence search (that was that David was guilty) an absolute implausible scenario that relied on a clever killer needing to be seen on a paper run when in fact the evidence of the papers proved he'd done the paper round. A clever killer who took ownership of the rifle used in the killings, claiming to be the only one with access to it. A fairly obvious suicide scene with an upward trajectory of an assailant who had blood wiped hands with bruises to one of them. The same mans blood found inside the barrel of the rifle. A refusal by the police to (at any time) investigate a likely motive against the killer, Robin Bain. Kent needs to defend this trial because he sees that along with a PCA report as having more authority that a Privy Council ruling determining that the Trial was a MOJ and later a properly instructed Jury finding the target of Kent's campaign innocent in a unanimous decision after very short time of deliberation. Sorry Kent, you don't get off base 1 with this. You'll need to face up to your responsibilities rather than quote discredited events that you favour but which have been showing to not hold water. Bad leaking in fact, much like your hate-site over a long period of time. Before closing on this point, and just to underline how little of the case Parker has ever understood: the 'mistake' in measuring the rifle, may very well have been deliberate, because there was a deliberate position by the Crown that suicide with a rifle that had a silencer attached was difficult and unlikely, which follows that the longer the barrel the more improbable the suicidee being able to reach the trigger. 'Mistakes' for you Parker is what has come out of your debilitated brain and motor mouth. A psychologist should at least have learnt to think about what they are saying, and the credibility of it before opening his or her mouth - clearly you didn't in the past and still don't.
Kent goes on to say that Joe Karam tried or trys to make the Bain case look like the Crew case. I'm not aware that he ever has, and I'm sure he wouldn't assume that the public would look for connection between events some 20 years apart, different circumstances, different personnel and try to draw anything other than a general connection, if any at all. But what is in fact revealed by kent is that he believes the public to be gullible and influenced by Joe Karam when in fact Kent Parker feelings of public gullibility are that which have landed him in Court.
From JFRB Facebook Wall (abridged)
Blair Huston
I have lost friends & been verbally attacked over my public stance on David Bain. I have lost at least one good customer resulting in significant financial loss. Is that fair? I’m not sure, but its a price I’m prepared to pay given my strong belief that David Bain is guilty.
Hear we hear from Blair somebody also 'victimised' for having an opinion according to his report and clearly not able to discern that you don't argue with customers or try to ram your opinions down their throats. No sign of the psychologist being able to tell a fellow 'victim' that espousing your views in way that gets you publicly 'attacked' or loses you customers is foolish in the first instance and probably futile in the second.
Then like all good comedies where amateur paranoid sleuths operate...Ralph happens along, to enhance Kent's unspoken but implied paranoia....
Submitted by Ralph on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:35pm.
Uping the ante
We can expect the Defence to up the ante and try and capitalise on the publicity about further questions about the AAT convictions.Indeed in this mornings Herald a Barrister is describing how police have tried to cut corners secure convictions for career advancement and other dubious motives. No doubt the Bain defence will do their best to further discredit the police investigation in light of Rochelle Crewe request for the Police commissioner to reopen the case.This is where Milton Weir's book could prove to be so timely and further bog down the Defence with more questions and controversies as happened with The Investigator documentary.
We must be vigorous in explaining and advocating the significant distinctions beteween the Bain and Crewe murders.Would it be possible to do a media release if Karam and co get carried away reminding the public of those distictions?.Certainly letter's to the editor could set the ball rolling.Of course, further blogs and postings on Counterspin etc.
The 'good' lieutenant who for some reason believes that Kent still has some credibility with the press who might willingly be so dumb to be taken in my a press release from Kent to the effect of 'don't be fooled people, don't think that the Bain case is anything like the Crewe murders and that therefore I should be found guilty of defaming Joe Karam.'
Kent not wishing to be exposed for finally understanding that the Press are only interested in him as some sort of nut from a hate-site that caught himself out stalking a Jury, spreading lies and information and defaming Joe Karam, whilst approving of the idea (a press release) placates Ralph with a mysterious statement that might make sense to a fellow paranoiac.
'but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.'
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:48pm.
Yeah, good comments, Ralph,
Yeah, good comments, Ralph, but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.
reply
Quotes
Quite right, there is only so much you can do and you've done a lot. Mounted a hate-campaign, sought publicity and got yourself sued. No use crying about it now Kent, you were not the victim, you chose to victimise others and held silent while your supporters broke the law when pursuing your objectives.
Footnote: For those interested in some of the abridged material Kent passes derogatory comment about Michael Laws were previously he implied a close and knowing relationship of some sort. Clearly Kent, according to his own words, thinks Laws didn't do a good job in the debate with Joe Karam. When in fact the broadcaster's main interest we must all assume was to get to the truth from the trial transcript and may very well have felt contented that a lot of the misinformation forwarded by Kent and his fellows had been discredited, much like Kent, much like Kent. Perhaps also an indication that Laws may now have an entirely different view of kent's hate-sites and crusades.
The following (abridged) from Kent Parker, when once pared of self-supporting dribble, shows the pressure he is facing and his inability to handle it.
Some Cases Where the Investigation Really was Dodgy
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
In the wake of calls for a re-investigation of the Crewe murders for which Arthur Allan Thomas was acquitted after serving 9 years for false imprisonment, a barrister has commented on cases where police have been over zealous in their prosecution of justice. This barrister mentions the Thomas case, and while he didn't work on that particular case, he worked in other cases that involved the same police officers. The Thomas case is notable in that the investigation into police conduct did actually find the police guilty of misconduct but the powers that be failed to provide sufficient punishment, well in the eyes of many, including the barrister.
Joe Karam has tried to make the Bain case look like the Arthur Allan Thomas case in his quest for a compensatory handout.
» Kent Parker's blog
As can be seen from above Kent Parker feels some alarm at the prospect that there may be those among us that see connections between the falsity of the investigation of the Crew murders and that of inquiry into the deaths of the Bain family.
Of course the importance of this would be paramount in Kent's mind because he is getting his butt sued and might well imagine in his own particular insular way that any Jury in his (Kent's) trial might well be influenced by the much publicised findings in the Crew case. So to preserve his personal situation he must make (what is to him obviously an almost fatal scenario for him legally) distinctions between that case and the Bain case. What follows from that is self-interest predictable drivel.
Of course Kent defends the Trail that was and will forever be deemed an actual Miscarriage of Justice. A trial which for the any passing punter I should say was characterised by with-held evidence, objective only evidence search (that was that David was guilty) an absolute implausible scenario that relied on a clever killer needing to be seen on a paper run when in fact the evidence of the papers proved he'd done the paper round. A clever killer who took ownership of the rifle used in the killings, claiming to be the only one with access to it. A fairly obvious suicide scene with an upward trajectory of an assailant who had blood wiped hands with bruises to one of them. The same mans blood found inside the barrel of the rifle. A refusal by the police to (at any time) investigate a likely motive against the killer, Robin Bain. Kent needs to defend this trial because he sees that along with a PCA report as having more authority that a Privy Council ruling determining that the Trial was a MOJ and later a properly instructed Jury finding the target of Kent's campaign innocent in a unanimous decision after very short time of deliberation. Sorry Kent, you don't get off base 1 with this. You'll need to face up to your responsibilities rather than quote discredited events that you favour but which have been showing to not hold water. Bad leaking in fact, much like your hate-site over a long period of time. Before closing on this point, and just to underline how little of the case Parker has ever understood: the 'mistake' in measuring the rifle, may very well have been deliberate, because there was a deliberate position by the Crown that suicide with a rifle that had a silencer attached was difficult and unlikely, which follows that the longer the barrel the more improbable the suicidee being able to reach the trigger. 'Mistakes' for you Parker is what has come out of your debilitated brain and motor mouth. A psychologist should at least have learnt to think about what they are saying, and the credibility of it before opening his or her mouth - clearly you didn't in the past and still don't.
Kent goes on to say that Joe Karam tried or trys to make the Bain case look like the Crew case. I'm not aware that he ever has, and I'm sure he wouldn't assume that the public would look for connection between events some 20 years apart, different circumstances, different personnel and try to draw anything other than a general connection, if any at all. But what is in fact revealed by kent is that he believes the public to be gullible and influenced by Joe Karam when in fact Kent Parker feelings of public gullibility are that which have landed him in Court.
From JFRB Facebook Wall (abridged)
Blair Huston
I have lost friends & been verbally attacked over my public stance on David Bain. I have lost at least one good customer resulting in significant financial loss. Is that fair? I’m not sure, but its a price I’m prepared to pay given my strong belief that David Bain is guilty.
Hear we hear from Blair somebody also 'victimised' for having an opinion according to his report and clearly not able to discern that you don't argue with customers or try to ram your opinions down their throats. No sign of the psychologist being able to tell a fellow 'victim' that espousing your views in way that gets you publicly 'attacked' or loses you customers is foolish in the first instance and probably futile in the second.
Then like all good comedies where amateur paranoid sleuths operate...Ralph happens along, to enhance Kent's unspoken but implied paranoia....
Submitted by Ralph on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:35pm.
Uping the ante
We can expect the Defence to up the ante and try and capitalise on the publicity about further questions about the AAT convictions.Indeed in this mornings Herald a Barrister is describing how police have tried to cut corners secure convictions for career advancement and other dubious motives. No doubt the Bain defence will do their best to further discredit the police investigation in light of Rochelle Crewe request for the Police commissioner to reopen the case.This is where Milton Weir's book could prove to be so timely and further bog down the Defence with more questions and controversies as happened with The Investigator documentary.
We must be vigorous in explaining and advocating the significant distinctions beteween the Bain and Crewe murders.Would it be possible to do a media release if Karam and co get carried away reminding the public of those distictions?.Certainly letter's to the editor could set the ball rolling.Of course, further blogs and postings on Counterspin etc.
The 'good' lieutenant who for some reason believes that Kent still has some credibility with the press who might willingly be so dumb to be taken in my a press release from Kent to the effect of 'don't be fooled people, don't think that the Bain case is anything like the Crewe murders and that therefore I should be found guilty of defaming Joe Karam.'
Kent not wishing to be exposed for finally understanding that the Press are only interested in him as some sort of nut from a hate-site that caught himself out stalking a Jury, spreading lies and information and defaming Joe Karam, whilst approving of the idea (a press release) placates Ralph with a mysterious statement that might make sense to a fellow paranoiac.
'but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.'
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Sat, 16/10/2010 - 2:48pm.
Yeah, good comments, Ralph,
Yeah, good comments, Ralph, but there is only so much you can do and only so much you need to do.
reply
Quotes
Quite right, there is only so much you can do and you've done a lot. Mounted a hate-campaign, sought publicity and got yourself sued. No use crying about it now Kent, you were not the victim, you chose to victimise others and held silent while your supporters broke the law when pursuing your objectives.
Footnote: For those interested in some of the abridged material Kent passes derogatory comment about Michael Laws were previously he implied a close and knowing relationship of some sort. Clearly Kent, according to his own words, thinks Laws didn't do a good job in the debate with Joe Karam. When in fact the broadcaster's main interest we must all assume was to get to the truth from the trial transcript and may very well have felt contented that a lot of the misinformation forwarded by Kent and his fellows had been discredited, much like Kent, much like Kent. Perhaps also an indication that Laws may now have an entirely different view of kent's hate-sites and crusades.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Try this Mike.
To Trade Me Support:
The following person, sponsor and member of the hate-sites Countersping and Justice(sic)ForRobinBain, continues to publicly defame Joe Karam on your message boards. The poster is a self-confessed apologist for pedophiles and has earlier described on your boards the 'innocence' of a particular act of pedophilia he supposed Robin Bain might have committed. This person Stockdale has also stalked people both on the boards and public, he is a stalker. Additionally to his admissions of stalking other members of TM, he has also admitted stalking the Jury, the details of which are recorded and may currently be part of an investigation of this man specifically, the hate-sites generally and the 'relationship' whereby hate-site members have freely published defamatory comment on Trade Me for over 1 year to such a degree that TM are now seen as both primary and secondary publishers of the defamatory content.
The following at ; http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=562&topic=7
States that Joe Karma was trying to manipulate evidence for the implied purposes of defeating the Course of Justice. No accusation of this nature has ever been made in any Court of Law or Forum, no person connected with the Prosecution, the Police or the Crown has given any evidence, made any assertion, directly or by implication that Joe Karam 'was trying to do' anything with the evidence, or 'wanted Bain home' or 'didn't want Bain arriving.' Mr. Karma only sought to have the truth placed before the Jury in a retrial that followed one of the worst 'actual miscarriages of Justice' to have ever happened in NZ Courts. Mr. Karam didn't try to manipulate, change or suppress material evidence and Stockdale's statement is defamatory harassment, not bound by privilege and highly offensive.
Ban this raving idiot Stockdale and disassociate TM from their co-accused from the hate-sites. The man is a liar and deranged fool of self-admitted suspect sexual inclinations.
'So it was obvious to me what Karam was trying to do.He was trying to get Bain's arrival time home to coincide with the time Denise Laney said she saw him ,around 6.45am.He didn't want Bain arriving home at around or just after 6.42am,which was when Bain himself said he would have probably arrived home,after having checked his watch at Heath Street,where it read exactly 6.40am,according to him.[and that is the time accepted by the Privy Council,as it happens.]This was all to do with the estimated computer turn-on time,6.44,Karam wanted Bain home after that.
But we are left with a conundrum here,and I will have a look at this conundrum in my next message.
Edited by supersleuth at 4:14 pm, Thu 7 Oct
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 4:03 pm, Thu 7 Oct #28086'
Yours etc
The following person, sponsor and member of the hate-sites Countersping and Justice(sic)ForRobinBain, continues to publicly defame Joe Karam on your message boards. The poster is a self-confessed apologist for pedophiles and has earlier described on your boards the 'innocence' of a particular act of pedophilia he supposed Robin Bain might have committed. This person Stockdale has also stalked people both on the boards and public, he is a stalker. Additionally to his admissions of stalking other members of TM, he has also admitted stalking the Jury, the details of which are recorded and may currently be part of an investigation of this man specifically, the hate-sites generally and the 'relationship' whereby hate-site members have freely published defamatory comment on Trade Me for over 1 year to such a degree that TM are now seen as both primary and secondary publishers of the defamatory content.
The following at ; http://www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=343730&p=562&topic=7
States that Joe Karma was trying to manipulate evidence for the implied purposes of defeating the Course of Justice. No accusation of this nature has ever been made in any Court of Law or Forum, no person connected with the Prosecution, the Police or the Crown has given any evidence, made any assertion, directly or by implication that Joe Karam 'was trying to do' anything with the evidence, or 'wanted Bain home' or 'didn't want Bain arriving.' Mr. Karma only sought to have the truth placed before the Jury in a retrial that followed one of the worst 'actual miscarriages of Justice' to have ever happened in NZ Courts. Mr. Karam didn't try to manipulate, change or suppress material evidence and Stockdale's statement is defamatory harassment, not bound by privilege and highly offensive.
Ban this raving idiot Stockdale and disassociate TM from their co-accused from the hate-sites. The man is a liar and deranged fool of self-admitted suspect sexual inclinations.
'So it was obvious to me what Karam was trying to do.He was trying to get Bain's arrival time home to coincide with the time Denise Laney said she saw him ,around 6.45am.He didn't want Bain arriving home at around or just after 6.42am,which was when Bain himself said he would have probably arrived home,after having checked his watch at Heath Street,where it read exactly 6.40am,according to him.[and that is the time accepted by the Privy Council,as it happens.]This was all to do with the estimated computer turn-on time,6.44,Karam wanted Bain home after that.
But we are left with a conundrum here,and I will have a look at this conundrum in my next message.
Edited by supersleuth at 4:14 pm, Thu 7 Oct
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 4:03 pm, Thu 7 Oct #28086'
Yours etc
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
More bad news for Kent Parker, Trade Me and the hate-siters.
The proposed new suppression laws have clarified the position of message boards as being no different than the print media. That solidifies the common law position that the liability of defamation (or broken court orders, as in the case of suppression) lies with the publisher as well as the speaker or writer - so underlying again that the current action in the Auckland High Court commenced by Joe Karam is against Parker&co as well as Trade Me for being the publishers. Trade Me won't like that (although they have already reserved their lawful position to enjoin posters,) Kent Parker will see the benefit to him not to have to carry the full liability of his publications because with his probable position of becoming 'a rat fleeing a sinking ship' this has had taken from him the 'moral' opportunity to exclude from liability the individuals whose comment he published.
It might be the only thing I could ever agree with Kent Parker on, although for obviously different reasons, but it would be an abhorrence if the nina_s, luckytraders, linz4mes, dcameron's of this world were not brought to task and could cowardly sit back while others took responsibility for their defamatory claims. I can't see the law allowing it for it would be a dangerous precedent. I imagine Joe Karam doesn't particularly care if the minnows are not enjoined because he clearly sees that without the hate-sites or Trade Me the pathetic, anonymous posters would not have had a venue for their defamatory filth. But on another level, beyond that of an individual plaintiff as Joe Karam is, it is important that the individual posters be brought to task, and Trade Me will certainly have an interest in that, as will Kent Parker who has already written about the subject. Those posters in particular, and the public in general, need to understand that they are responsible for what they say and write in public venue.
None of this is to say however, that Joe Karam might (and can) simply include (enjoin) all those whose posts he had determined to be defamatory of him. He may take the attitude in for a penny in for a pound. Well, as GNG use to say 'I'm glad it's not me getting sued.'
It might be the only thing I could ever agree with Kent Parker on, although for obviously different reasons, but it would be an abhorrence if the nina_s, luckytraders, linz4mes, dcameron's of this world were not brought to task and could cowardly sit back while others took responsibility for their defamatory claims. I can't see the law allowing it for it would be a dangerous precedent. I imagine Joe Karam doesn't particularly care if the minnows are not enjoined because he clearly sees that without the hate-sites or Trade Me the pathetic, anonymous posters would not have had a venue for their defamatory filth. But on another level, beyond that of an individual plaintiff as Joe Karam is, it is important that the individual posters be brought to task, and Trade Me will certainly have an interest in that, as will Kent Parker who has already written about the subject. Those posters in particular, and the public in general, need to understand that they are responsible for what they say and write in public venue.
None of this is to say however, that Joe Karam might (and can) simply include (enjoin) all those whose posts he had determined to be defamatory of him. He may take the attitude in for a penny in for a pound. Well, as GNG use to say 'I'm glad it's not me getting sued.'
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Brigadier said.....
Brigadier said...
I will also enjoy seeing these people tripping over their lying tongues as they try to defend their defaming lies. About time they were held accountable.
October 3, 2010 3:44 PM
Yes Brigadier, I will also enjoy seeing them trying to avoid telling lies. I assume that counsel for the plaintiff will will want to establish the patterns of networking between the hate-sites and their supporters to show the support and instigation of criminal stalking, dissemination of lies, attempts to interfere with witnesses and perhaps even the Jury post trial. This will be important to give the Jury the complete picture of what these arsewipes have been up to despite their claims to be soldiers of Justice. The Jury need to know what they really are and what has motivated them in order for the Jury to be appropriately able to award costs for what hasn't been and never was just 'random' comment but rather a deliberate and 'organised' effort to attack Joe Karam and ruin his reputation. The Jury need to see that Kent's 'lambs' are people of the worst kind who pay no regard to the possible consequences of their actions because of the misguided belief they are right. In fact, as has become apparent, and as is endorsed by a Jury's decision, they are completely wrong which makes their behaviour and defamation even worse.
I will also enjoy seeing these people tripping over their lying tongues as they try to defend their defaming lies. About time they were held accountable.
October 3, 2010 3:44 PM
Yes Brigadier, I will also enjoy seeing them trying to avoid telling lies. I assume that counsel for the plaintiff will will want to establish the patterns of networking between the hate-sites and their supporters to show the support and instigation of criminal stalking, dissemination of lies, attempts to interfere with witnesses and perhaps even the Jury post trial. This will be important to give the Jury the complete picture of what these arsewipes have been up to despite their claims to be soldiers of Justice. The Jury need to know what they really are and what has motivated them in order for the Jury to be appropriately able to award costs for what hasn't been and never was just 'random' comment but rather a deliberate and 'organised' effort to attack Joe Karam and ruin his reputation. The Jury need to see that Kent's 'lambs' are people of the worst kind who pay no regard to the possible consequences of their actions because of the misguided belief they are right. In fact, as has become apparent, and as is endorsed by a Jury's decision, they are completely wrong which makes their behaviour and defamation even worse.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
It's sort of nice to be missed even if its only by stalkers and pedo supporters.
Thanks folks for all kind words.
Here's an interesting one from nutbrow...
I agree. The blogs are however very interesting to one particular organization now so we don't need to bother to monitor them any more.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 1:19 pm, Fri 24 Sep #27631
And I see she or he wants me to write a book in the vain hope that he or she will have the chance to sue me. Well misspw, I know you have dribble and toiletry problems but of course there will be social agencies to help out with that. As far as being a half-wit I don't think there is any cure for you, Ralph and the other pedo supporters. The patriotic fervour you invoke doesn't cut the mustard because persecution is a hate crime and most folks don't agree with that, or with fiddling. Of course if you weren't a halfwit stalker you'd realise that naming you publicly Christine Williams as a stalker is provable from your very own words spoken in your foul breath.
Here's an interesting one from nutbrow...
I agree. The blogs are however very interesting to one particular organization now so we don't need to bother to monitor them any more.
Quotemisspw (65 ) 1:19 pm, Fri 24 Sep #27631
And I see she or he wants me to write a book in the vain hope that he or she will have the chance to sue me. Well misspw, I know you have dribble and toiletry problems but of course there will be social agencies to help out with that. As far as being a half-wit I don't think there is any cure for you, Ralph and the other pedo supporters. The patriotic fervour you invoke doesn't cut the mustard because persecution is a hate crime and most folks don't agree with that, or with fiddling. Of course if you weren't a halfwit stalker you'd realise that naming you publicly Christine Williams as a stalker is provable from your very own words spoken in your foul breath.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
BeTrayedMe
beTrayedMe said...
I feel a psychic episode descending upon me...
*wafts incense*
What do I see? I see a room... yes, an office. An office full of young people in casual clothes. Through the open door I can see a pool table and an inflatable green alien among tables with computers...a space redolent with earnest frivolity.
But in the room there is no frivolity. There are frowns and worried looks. An analyst recites from Judge Harvey's ruling. Pens scribble furiously on paper. There is no laughter. Someone says quietly: "Oh shit!".
September 15, 2010 1:02 AM
Post a Comment
Interesting use of words but I don't see that the impact of the damage Trade Me have proliferated is of much concern to individual staff members? The most they can lose is their job, they are anonymous people largely, and the harm they have facilitated is apparently of little or no concern to them. They don't get it, because they're not in the firing line. Everything for them is distant and anonymous, there will be jokes abroad among them as to various contentious issues for which they must pretend concern, but nothing to take home with them, nothing of the nature of the harm they have caused David or Joe and others.
But I think it helps give a clearer construct of the overall picture, although it is still uncertain why TM continue to allow defamation when the law (made clear in the whaleoil case) shows their responsibility. I now think that perhaps they've employed the head in the sand tactic to their disadvantage, because all the Law, according to Judge Harvey, links their responsibility, day by day Trade Me add to the harm, having already received complaints, been sued, and then having had additionally citations brought against them. Even the obvious enjoinment of posters such as nina_s, rodney osook, cannot mitigate the larger destruction of their position, that they didn't act, when obviously, very very obviously,they, along with the individual posters, are liable.
I feel a psychic episode descending upon me...
*wafts incense*
What do I see? I see a room... yes, an office. An office full of young people in casual clothes. Through the open door I can see a pool table and an inflatable green alien among tables with computers...a space redolent with earnest frivolity.
But in the room there is no frivolity. There are frowns and worried looks. An analyst recites from Judge Harvey's ruling. Pens scribble furiously on paper. There is no laughter. Someone says quietly: "Oh shit!".
September 15, 2010 1:02 AM
Post a Comment
Interesting use of words but I don't see that the impact of the damage Trade Me have proliferated is of much concern to individual staff members? The most they can lose is their job, they are anonymous people largely, and the harm they have facilitated is apparently of little or no concern to them. They don't get it, because they're not in the firing line. Everything for them is distant and anonymous, there will be jokes abroad among them as to various contentious issues for which they must pretend concern, but nothing to take home with them, nothing of the nature of the harm they have caused David or Joe and others.
But I think it helps give a clearer construct of the overall picture, although it is still uncertain why TM continue to allow defamation when the law (made clear in the whaleoil case) shows their responsibility. I now think that perhaps they've employed the head in the sand tactic to their disadvantage, because all the Law, according to Judge Harvey, links their responsibility, day by day Trade Me add to the harm, having already received complaints, been sued, and then having had additionally citations brought against them. Even the obvious enjoinment of posters such as nina_s, rodney osook, cannot mitigate the larger destruction of their position, that they didn't act, when obviously, very very obviously,they, along with the individual posters, are liable.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Shift toward enjoinment?
Don't think 'enjoinment' is an actual word but I'm using in context of what could be another signal that Trade Me will soon enjoin posters who have made defamatory comment about Joe Karam.
We know the first hurdle has been passed already in that The Court has agreed to the option that TM can enjoin posters who were the primary source of the defamatory comments, 'people' like kalnovitch, luckytrader, nina_s, misspw, rodney osook to name just a few. Anybody that has watched TM will have noted that apart from a few wise heads who have simply run for cover, most of those that have posted defamatory material continue, or continued as long possible do so with a 'hare looking from a hole' policy. Tentatively looking out from its hole, like a frightened hare and sniffing before defaming, or else trying to appear suddenly innocent and then after awhile returning to former habits. First of all for those so deluded, it can be a single event of defamation, it doesn't have to be continuous and is not somehow mitigated by the poster appearing to turn over a new leaf. All these simple tactics or illusions only satisfy the simple minded - of which the hangbainer's ranks are replete.
But the most recent signal (after the application to enjoin posters) is that Trade Me moderating policy was recently 'beefed up.' Not only that, but of recent weeks defamatory posts of Joe Karam have become prevalent again, and whilst defamatory comment against David was for awhile curtailed is again in full force - and Trade Me are not removing the defamatory material. This has to be deliberate on TM's part, despite the fact it can effectively be seen as turning 180 degrees in possibly a too transparent, and too late tactic. One has to ask why TM would do this and have the risk of further citations brought against them. Would it be because TM has decided to enjoin posters and the policy change on removing defamatory material is a (some what belated) effort to say, again - it's stated in the T&C that posters are responsible, that the posters are wholly responsible for the defamation, informed of those conditions and in agreement with them. I'm starting to think so.
Personally, I am not at all surprised that TM are clearly considering enjoining their 'side show' customers. It makes sense for Trade Me. TM has the opportunity to show itself as a somewhat amateur, cottage industry type, publisher relying on the good sense of its users to abide by it's rules. Do I think it will work? No, not completely, but it might take a 0 or two of the final sum of payment and shift those sums of money to the supergoofs, swissy, golfergolds and other similar morons of the cyber world. Won't it be fun?
We know the first hurdle has been passed already in that The Court has agreed to the option that TM can enjoin posters who were the primary source of the defamatory comments, 'people' like kalnovitch, luckytrader, nina_s, misspw, rodney osook to name just a few. Anybody that has watched TM will have noted that apart from a few wise heads who have simply run for cover, most of those that have posted defamatory material continue, or continued as long possible do so with a 'hare looking from a hole' policy. Tentatively looking out from its hole, like a frightened hare and sniffing before defaming, or else trying to appear suddenly innocent and then after awhile returning to former habits. First of all for those so deluded, it can be a single event of defamation, it doesn't have to be continuous and is not somehow mitigated by the poster appearing to turn over a new leaf. All these simple tactics or illusions only satisfy the simple minded - of which the hangbainer's ranks are replete.
But the most recent signal (after the application to enjoin posters) is that Trade Me moderating policy was recently 'beefed up.' Not only that, but of recent weeks defamatory posts of Joe Karam have become prevalent again, and whilst defamatory comment against David was for awhile curtailed is again in full force - and Trade Me are not removing the defamatory material. This has to be deliberate on TM's part, despite the fact it can effectively be seen as turning 180 degrees in possibly a too transparent, and too late tactic. One has to ask why TM would do this and have the risk of further citations brought against them. Would it be because TM has decided to enjoin posters and the policy change on removing defamatory material is a (some what belated) effort to say, again - it's stated in the T&C that posters are responsible, that the posters are wholly responsible for the defamation, informed of those conditions and in agreement with them. I'm starting to think so.
Personally, I am not at all surprised that TM are clearly considering enjoining their 'side show' customers. It makes sense for Trade Me. TM has the opportunity to show itself as a somewhat amateur, cottage industry type, publisher relying on the good sense of its users to abide by it's rules. Do I think it will work? No, not completely, but it might take a 0 or two of the final sum of payment and shift those sums of money to the supergoofs, swissy, golfergolds and other similar morons of the cyber world. Won't it be fun?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
A Trail Back to Kent Parker,Defamation 'hidden' as free speech.
First this on Counterspin:
Joe Karam verses Michael Laws Radio Live debate. Is Joe Karam telling the truth? You be the judge.
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
Submitted by Bob on Mon, 30/08/2010 - 7:52pm
Karams version of what constable Andrews said at court, from radio live.
Karam [Quote] David Bain did faint, when he fainted he crashed down between, and banged his head, the officer Andrews who was with David when David fainted and crashed down behind the bed saw David crash down behind the bed and it was the constable Andrews who gave this evidence about him crashing down and banging his head on the wall by the window sill in his bedroom on the right side of his face, now that’s the evidence in the trial. [End Quote] Click on the attachment further down the page to listen to this excerpt.
Evidence given at court in 2009 by Constable Leslie Andrew
From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2257185/Crown-alleges-David-Bain-faked-a-fit
Leslie Andrew, a police constable who was one of the first three officers to enter the house after the 111 call from Bain, said he stayed with Bain as the two other officers checked the house.
He watched Bain from the doorway of his bedroom and when a dog barked from down the hall, Bain called: "Here Casey, Casey, Casey." When the other officers shouted that they had found five bodies, he saw Bain shaking for about 10 seconds and then falling backwards.
He noticed Bain's eyes were normal before he fell back, which he thought was "a bit strange".
"If he was having a fit his eyes would react as well," Andrew said.
He had seen people have fits before and had noticed their eyes would flicker and the whites of the eyes become prominent.
Andrew said he had pulled Bain out from the tight spot where he had fallen and placed him in a recovery position.
Bain, who looked straight at him as he pulled him out, did not hit his head or any part of his body and was limp.
From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2254954/Crown-questions-Bain-fit
Earlier, the police officer who saw David Bain have the fit that morning, Constable Leslie Andrew, said the episode seemed "strange''.
Andrew said Bain was sitting on his bedroom floor and then began shaking for 10 to 12 seconds before he fell backwards in a fit the Crown says was fake.
Andrew had observed other people have fits and their eyes normally changed and the whites became prominent before an attack.
Bain's eyes did not change before the fit and his episode seemed "strange'', he said.
Bain did not strike his head in the fit and when he went to assist David his eyes were open and he was "looking straight at me'', he said.
Andrew dragged a limp Bain into the recovery position and an ambulance officer was called.
As you can see Joe Karams version of what was said, completely contradicts what Constable Leslie Andrew actually said in his evidence given at the Bain trial in 2009 as reported by both Martin Van Beynen and Ian Steward.
*****
The above, somewhat edited to prevent it's recognition as being from a hate-site, was posted on Trade Me by a 'new' poster with zero trades 'sophie8.' What is very clear is that it's intention was to provide proof that Joe Karam was a liar, in fact to defame him. All the usual hate-sites suspects (Stockdale, jeeves, Racheal from Otorahanga, kookybelle etc) lauded these 'fresh' revelations as proof that Joe Karam was indeed a liar. Later we saw material posted on TM which was from the actual evidence.
********
Relying on newspaper reports is not wise, because they rarely reported the cross examination of the witnesses to any great extent. Andrew admitted in cross examination that David went into shock and fell to the floor with the right side of his body including his head against the wall between the wall and the bed. This was a very confined space barely enough for a body to fit in, meaning that he had to make contact with the wall and the floor in the process. (page 339 to 346 of the trial transcript) The photo reference for the jury was photo B2.
Also, Andrew agreed he could only see David’s legs after the fall, because his body and head were hidden by the bed. *He could not see whether his head had hit the wall* when he fell backwards to the floor. He also agreed that he dragged him out of that space holding on to his left arm and leg meaning the right side of his torso and head were on the floor, creating a further possibility for the right side of his head to be bumped and bruised. While being dragged out, his head and body had to pass a hard suitcase and a wooden dresser only 200-300 ml from the corner of the bed. So it’s very obvious – and was obvious to the jury – that there was plenty of opportunity for this bruising to have been caused this way. It would be more remarkable if he showed no signs of this!
Edited by ro42 at 11:52 am, Wed 1 Sep
Quotero42 (133 ) 11:49 am, Wed 1 Sep #23709
******
All the following material comes from Counterspin. You'll note not one word of caution about 'Bob's' revelation. In fact it's backed up in various ways, going to be sent on to Michael Laws, rather 'believe' Journalists etc. So before it is carefully confirmed, it is hot news, a breakthrough of some sort that, like all else from the hate-sites, proves to be a fizzer.
»
Bob's blog
Add new comment
Subscribe to: This post
Subscribe to: Posts by Bob
Submitted by Kent Parker on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 7:54pm.
Well we have two journalists
Well we have two journalists (albeit from the same paper) stating emphatically that Andrews said that DB didn't hit his head and JK equally emphatically stating that Andews did say that DB hit his head. I personally would be inclined to go with what the journos say. Looks like JK missed again. Typical! As Rhys Darby would say.
reply
Submitted by Vic Pur on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 8:24pm.
They were reporting what was
They were reporting what was said where as jk was stating what he wanted said.
Perhaps we should release a pamphlet like jk did only call it The Guilty Pamphlet.
reply
Submitted by Bob on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 9:15pm. New
Joe Karam said to Laws in the
Joe Karam said to Laws in the debate "I hope its not about winning for you Michael" I would suggest that it is all about winning for Karam' and at any cost, especially the truth, he would have known full well exactly what the Constable said, but totally ignored it in an effort to win, which just shows you the mentality of the man, of course he did not win, I think of the thousands who voted at the end of the debate 84% thought David was the killer, Joe and Dave's credibility I believe has never been at such a low ebb.
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 9:25pm. New
I'm thinking of doing a blog
I'm thinking of doing a blog post where I summarize all the errors we have found that JK made in the debate and then send Michael Laws a link to it.
reply
Submitted by Bob on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 9:41pm. New
Have sent Laws the bit about
Have sent Laws the bit about what Andrews said already Kent
*******
All of the forgoing is a big problem for Counterspin, Kent Parker, and the sacrificial lambs that spread the message elsewhere. I've earlier talked about Kent's hate-site leaking and that Kent's hate-site is still responsible for any defamatory material that finds itself into mainstream cybermedia, and that equally the republishers of such material are equally responsible.
Looking at the minions who take the defamation to TM and hide behind their pseudonyms, if taken to account they would claim, they believed it to be true. But a reasonable person doesn't take reference to material from a hate-site that sole purpose is to harass and stalk other people and which is already facing many hundreds of charges of defamation.
Disclaimer:
I have recorded the above defamatory hate-site material knowing that it is false, intended to be defamatory and bring Joe Karam, in particular, into disrepute. My intention in placing the material here is to provide a general reader the opportunity to be acquainted with another of the mechanism's by which the hate-sites distribute their vitriol and lies. I have done this in order to show that no reasonable person would join a hate-site such as Counterspin, Justice(sic) For Robin Bain, or guiltyfreeforums. Or that if an reasonable person did join they would soon realise what shattered world they had entered and leave it for the devils which inhabit it. Also to show what an absolute joke Kent Parker is with his 'Petition' and airs of importance. The man is a dangerous fraud, a cultist and hate-siter and so are his few members who remain.
Joe Karam verses Michael Laws Radio Live debate. Is Joe Karam telling the truth? You be the judge.
Blog posts at counterspin are by nature opinion pieces. Please adhere to our Terms and Conditions when posting.
Submitted by Bob on Mon, 30/08/2010 - 7:52pm
Karams version of what constable Andrews said at court, from radio live.
Karam [Quote] David Bain did faint, when he fainted he crashed down between, and banged his head, the officer Andrews who was with David when David fainted and crashed down behind the bed saw David crash down behind the bed and it was the constable Andrews who gave this evidence about him crashing down and banging his head on the wall by the window sill in his bedroom on the right side of his face, now that’s the evidence in the trial. [End Quote] Click on the attachment further down the page to listen to this excerpt.
Evidence given at court in 2009 by Constable Leslie Andrew
From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2257185/Crown-alleges-David-Bain-faked-a-fit
Leslie Andrew, a police constable who was one of the first three officers to enter the house after the 111 call from Bain, said he stayed with Bain as the two other officers checked the house.
He watched Bain from the doorway of his bedroom and when a dog barked from down the hall, Bain called: "Here Casey, Casey, Casey." When the other officers shouted that they had found five bodies, he saw Bain shaking for about 10 seconds and then falling backwards.
He noticed Bain's eyes were normal before he fell back, which he thought was "a bit strange".
"If he was having a fit his eyes would react as well," Andrew said.
He had seen people have fits before and had noticed their eyes would flicker and the whites of the eyes become prominent.
Andrew said he had pulled Bain out from the tight spot where he had fallen and placed him in a recovery position.
Bain, who looked straight at him as he pulled him out, did not hit his head or any part of his body and was limp.
From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/2254954/Crown-questions-Bain-fit
Earlier, the police officer who saw David Bain have the fit that morning, Constable Leslie Andrew, said the episode seemed "strange''.
Andrew said Bain was sitting on his bedroom floor and then began shaking for 10 to 12 seconds before he fell backwards in a fit the Crown says was fake.
Andrew had observed other people have fits and their eyes normally changed and the whites became prominent before an attack.
Bain's eyes did not change before the fit and his episode seemed "strange'', he said.
Bain did not strike his head in the fit and when he went to assist David his eyes were open and he was "looking straight at me'', he said.
Andrew dragged a limp Bain into the recovery position and an ambulance officer was called.
As you can see Joe Karams version of what was said, completely contradicts what Constable Leslie Andrew actually said in his evidence given at the Bain trial in 2009 as reported by both Martin Van Beynen and Ian Steward.
*****
The above, somewhat edited to prevent it's recognition as being from a hate-site, was posted on Trade Me by a 'new' poster with zero trades 'sophie8.' What is very clear is that it's intention was to provide proof that Joe Karam was a liar, in fact to defame him. All the usual hate-sites suspects (Stockdale, jeeves, Racheal from Otorahanga, kookybelle etc) lauded these 'fresh' revelations as proof that Joe Karam was indeed a liar. Later we saw material posted on TM which was from the actual evidence.
********
Relying on newspaper reports is not wise, because they rarely reported the cross examination of the witnesses to any great extent. Andrew admitted in cross examination that David went into shock and fell to the floor with the right side of his body including his head against the wall between the wall and the bed. This was a very confined space barely enough for a body to fit in, meaning that he had to make contact with the wall and the floor in the process. (page 339 to 346 of the trial transcript) The photo reference for the jury was photo B2.
Also, Andrew agreed he could only see David’s legs after the fall, because his body and head were hidden by the bed. *He could not see whether his head had hit the wall* when he fell backwards to the floor. He also agreed that he dragged him out of that space holding on to his left arm and leg meaning the right side of his torso and head were on the floor, creating a further possibility for the right side of his head to be bumped and bruised. While being dragged out, his head and body had to pass a hard suitcase and a wooden dresser only 200-300 ml from the corner of the bed. So it’s very obvious – and was obvious to the jury – that there was plenty of opportunity for this bruising to have been caused this way. It would be more remarkable if he showed no signs of this!
Edited by ro42 at 11:52 am, Wed 1 Sep
Quotero42 (133 ) 11:49 am, Wed 1 Sep #23709
******
All the following material comes from Counterspin. You'll note not one word of caution about 'Bob's' revelation. In fact it's backed up in various ways, going to be sent on to Michael Laws, rather 'believe' Journalists etc. So before it is carefully confirmed, it is hot news, a breakthrough of some sort that, like all else from the hate-sites, proves to be a fizzer.
»
Bob's blog
Add new comment
Subscribe to: This post
Subscribe to: Posts by Bob
Submitted by Kent Parker on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 7:54pm.
Well we have two journalists
Well we have two journalists (albeit from the same paper) stating emphatically that Andrews said that DB didn't hit his head and JK equally emphatically stating that Andews did say that DB hit his head. I personally would be inclined to go with what the journos say. Looks like JK missed again. Typical! As Rhys Darby would say.
reply
Submitted by Vic Pur on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 8:24pm.
They were reporting what was
They were reporting what was said where as jk was stating what he wanted said.
Perhaps we should release a pamphlet like jk did only call it The Guilty Pamphlet.
reply
Submitted by Bob on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 9:15pm. New
Joe Karam said to Laws in the
Joe Karam said to Laws in the debate "I hope its not about winning for you Michael" I would suggest that it is all about winning for Karam' and at any cost, especially the truth, he would have known full well exactly what the Constable said, but totally ignored it in an effort to win, which just shows you the mentality of the man, of course he did not win, I think of the thousands who voted at the end of the debate 84% thought David was the killer, Joe and Dave's credibility I believe has never been at such a low ebb.
reply
Submitted by Kent Parker on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 9:25pm. New
I'm thinking of doing a blog
I'm thinking of doing a blog post where I summarize all the errors we have found that JK made in the debate and then send Michael Laws a link to it.
reply
Submitted by Bob on Tue, 31/08/2010 - 9:41pm. New
Have sent Laws the bit about
Have sent Laws the bit about what Andrews said already Kent
*******
All of the forgoing is a big problem for Counterspin, Kent Parker, and the sacrificial lambs that spread the message elsewhere. I've earlier talked about Kent's hate-site leaking and that Kent's hate-site is still responsible for any defamatory material that finds itself into mainstream cybermedia, and that equally the republishers of such material are equally responsible.
Looking at the minions who take the defamation to TM and hide behind their pseudonyms, if taken to account they would claim, they believed it to be true. But a reasonable person doesn't take reference to material from a hate-site that sole purpose is to harass and stalk other people and which is already facing many hundreds of charges of defamation.
Disclaimer:
I have recorded the above defamatory hate-site material knowing that it is false, intended to be defamatory and bring Joe Karam, in particular, into disrepute. My intention in placing the material here is to provide a general reader the opportunity to be acquainted with another of the mechanism's by which the hate-sites distribute their vitriol and lies. I have done this in order to show that no reasonable person would join a hate-site such as Counterspin, Justice(sic) For Robin Bain, or guiltyfreeforums. Or that if an reasonable person did join they would soon realise what shattered world they had entered and leave it for the devils which inhabit it. Also to show what an absolute joke Kent Parker is with his 'Petition' and airs of importance. The man is a dangerous fraud, a cultist and hate-siter and so are his few members who remain.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Defamation:contd.
Anonymous said...
You say that TradeMe can 'enjoin' posters. Does that mean make them personally liable for their posts? Aren't they already liable for their posts under the TM terms and conditions? Can they do this retrospectively, or would it be just for posts made after they were told they were being involved? And with defamation, you can go back two years, right? So does that mean all the posts from the time of the trial, too? Scary stuff!
August 19, 2010 10:31 AM
I think it has always been obvious that Trade Me can enjoin posters and this was often debated in the bad old days where defamation was rife on the TM boards, much the same as it is today. As I've written earlier, because various posters were not named as defendants (although they were named and their statements identified)I understand TM lawyers have applied to enjoin posters should they so decide. Yes, the posters are liable anyway under TM's T&C. But in a broader aspect they are liable despite whatever rules TM have in their T&C because they have chosen a public forum to make their claims, and that is the issue - they're their claims and no one elses. That being the case I still don't think TM can avoid their own liability as publisher, or co-publisher or host, simply by enjoining the posters, certainly though it might create some 'bargaining' toward a settlement. Any such bargaining would obviously be at the 'expense' of individual posters in some way financially.
I haven't the time to look it up at the moment, but the time limit might have only been six months within which to instigate proceedings, with a proviso that the defamation could be seen as continuing thereby stretching the period of time in which proceedings should be commenced. The issue of time means little in my opinion, particularly in this case, and I assume that the Courts would have to pay regard to defamation and the circumstances before upholding any time restrictions.
In the case of some 'famous' defamers, nina_s, obook, kalnovitch and others, are all 'double dippers' in that they have been constant defamers with some gaps in between. Even after apparently stopping they've repeated their behaviour. Another complicating factor for them is the defamatory material that has leaked from the hate-sites. Overall, being a member of a hate-site, supporter or associate might dispense with any need by the plaintiff to be time-constrained by virtue of being able to say this group (the hate-siters) have been defamatory for a period of (say) 2 years and which continues. I don't think a plaintiff would need to show much more than that to prove that it was continuing and by identifying statements the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory, said by who and when.
In terms of defamation being made somehow redundant by the idea that posters didn't know they were liable until they were told, or any other such retrospective claim - won't hold water for a second. They knew what they said, they knew they were responsible for what came out of their own mouths and that's where it ends.
Footnote:
6A) Subject to subsection (6B) of this section, a defamation action shall not be brought after the expiration of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued
I apologise to anonymous above, the limitation is actually 2 years. Where I used the word 'continuing' above (meaning that defamation was ongoing for some time) I attribute 'continuing' as to being the same as 'cause of action accrued.' So yes, scary stuff for some.
You say that TradeMe can 'enjoin' posters. Does that mean make them personally liable for their posts? Aren't they already liable for their posts under the TM terms and conditions? Can they do this retrospectively, or would it be just for posts made after they were told they were being involved? And with defamation, you can go back two years, right? So does that mean all the posts from the time of the trial, too? Scary stuff!
August 19, 2010 10:31 AM
I think it has always been obvious that Trade Me can enjoin posters and this was often debated in the bad old days where defamation was rife on the TM boards, much the same as it is today. As I've written earlier, because various posters were not named as defendants (although they were named and their statements identified)I understand TM lawyers have applied to enjoin posters should they so decide. Yes, the posters are liable anyway under TM's T&C. But in a broader aspect they are liable despite whatever rules TM have in their T&C because they have chosen a public forum to make their claims, and that is the issue - they're their claims and no one elses. That being the case I still don't think TM can avoid their own liability as publisher, or co-publisher or host, simply by enjoining the posters, certainly though it might create some 'bargaining' toward a settlement. Any such bargaining would obviously be at the 'expense' of individual posters in some way financially.
I haven't the time to look it up at the moment, but the time limit might have only been six months within which to instigate proceedings, with a proviso that the defamation could be seen as continuing thereby stretching the period of time in which proceedings should be commenced. The issue of time means little in my opinion, particularly in this case, and I assume that the Courts would have to pay regard to defamation and the circumstances before upholding any time restrictions.
In the case of some 'famous' defamers, nina_s, obook, kalnovitch and others, are all 'double dippers' in that they have been constant defamers with some gaps in between. Even after apparently stopping they've repeated their behaviour. Another complicating factor for them is the defamatory material that has leaked from the hate-sites. Overall, being a member of a hate-site, supporter or associate might dispense with any need by the plaintiff to be time-constrained by virtue of being able to say this group (the hate-siters) have been defamatory for a period of (say) 2 years and which continues. I don't think a plaintiff would need to show much more than that to prove that it was continuing and by identifying statements the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory, said by who and when.
In terms of defamation being made somehow redundant by the idea that posters didn't know they were liable until they were told, or any other such retrospective claim - won't hold water for a second. They knew what they said, they knew they were responsible for what came out of their own mouths and that's where it ends.
Footnote:
6A) Subject to subsection (6B) of this section, a defamation action shall not be brought after the expiration of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued
I apologise to anonymous above, the limitation is actually 2 years. Where I used the word 'continuing' above (meaning that defamation was ongoing for some time) I attribute 'continuing' as to being the same as 'cause of action accrued.' So yes, scary stuff for some.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Can a jury be defamed?
Anonymous said...
I just hope those who are partaking in this ridiculous occupation of defaming jury members, have the money to cover the costs of 12 defamation cases, taken against them.
Defamation
1. The civil law cause of action of defamation may be brought against any one who publishes (either through written or spoken word) a defamatory statement about a person.
2. A statement is published if it is conveyed to a third person.
3.A plaintiff must prove that the statement refers to them (although they do not have to be specifically named).
4. A person will generally be identified if someone who knows them thinks the statement refers to them.
Secondly, a plaintiff must prove that the statement was in fact defamatory.
5.A statement will be defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the opinion of right thinking members of society.
6. A statement may also be defamatory if it exposes a plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or if it tends to make people shun or avoid the plaintiff.
7. A plaintiff does not need actual evidence that the statement in fact caused people to think less of them or that it was believed by those to whom it was published.
Given note number 3, you will see that the person does not have to be mentioned by name. Therefore, simply mention a member of a jury from a particular trial, is sufficient proof for each and every member of that jury, to presume the statement was about them.
Number 4, could include any member of NZ society, who knows about the jury in the Bain trial, and therefore, knows who the statement was referring to. ie any member of that jury.
Number 6 is particularly relevant, because as soon as making the claim about a jury member, the defamers, then go on to encourage other posters to ridicule the jury member. Thus confirming point 6.
It is not often someone is stupid enough to defame 12 people at once, and then go on to provide further evidence of the claim by organising the mass ridicule of the person/people defamed.
To quote Kulkkulbelle ' you've been warned'.
August 16, 2010 4:44 PM
I'm not sure that a Jury can be defamed in a way that could lead to a law suit. Before I explain why I should say that the Bain jury has been defamed without doubt, and based on scurrilous, unable to be proven lies and misinformation much of which I maintain started with the 'opinion' piece in The Press.
The problems that I could see for a Jury to sue would be that there would necessarily need to be a collective agreement for them to do so. Any remedy for them might be more appropriately directed at The Crown to whom they had sworn to do their duty. This however, would not necessarily preclude an individual juror from suing. The particularly disgusting and defamatory attack on a particular juror at the moment on the TM boards would be a case in point, having regard to the both implied and stated allegation that this juror 'might' have slept with Karam either before or after the verdict and which somehow influenced the outcome of the Trial. In the case of Karam, who already has a case running, and which I understand has had it's statement of claim amended to include more defamatory statements made since his paperwork was filed, it would be a relatively straight forward matter to include this most recent defamatory claim.
On the issue of who is liable as you posted above it is the publisher, you may be aware, that TM have apparently already applied to the High Court for a motion to allow it enjoin particular posters. I understand that would be a fall back type defence - TM saying we are not the publishers, the posters are. In fact I believe both the TM and the posters are the publishers. Now that kalnovitch, dcameron, and cookingwithgas have also hung another noose about their necks with this absolute unprovable carbage we may see that TM's hand is slightly strengthened in attempting to remove itself from liability with the argument that whilst earlier material was 'opinion' the current stuff is defamatory and therefore the responsibility of the posters only. To do that it would have to have been removed quickly and to this point TM have been very slow in reacting to a lot of published stuff that ought to have been removed immediately, or indeed never published.
But back to the Jury as a group, whilst they may be unable or unwilling to sue as a group (we have to accept they're merely a cross section of society who now have gone about getting on with their lives - albeit, with this dross directed at them from June last year,) I still see a responsibility of The Crown to these people. Whilst the Jury hopefully are generally anonymous to the Public (whilst not to the hate-siters as I printed earlier)the ongoing attack against them in the only public venue to my knowledge still allowing it (TradeMe) continue as a Contempt of Court issue more than a year after the trial.
I hope readers here will direct complaints to the Ministry over this, citing the information lifted from the hate-sites and published here, and material stored on TM files and on Votemenot. There is a long history exposed there, with nina_s and rodney osook having been very prolific on the matter earlier. In any such complaints I would imagine the Ministry of Justice should be asked to examine under oath the relationship between Kent Parker, Vic Purkiss, Neil Purkess and van beynan in the first instance and the Editor of The Press in the second.
I just hope those who are partaking in this ridiculous occupation of defaming jury members, have the money to cover the costs of 12 defamation cases, taken against them.
Defamation
1. The civil law cause of action of defamation may be brought against any one who publishes (either through written or spoken word) a defamatory statement about a person.
2. A statement is published if it is conveyed to a third person.
3.A plaintiff must prove that the statement refers to them (although they do not have to be specifically named).
4. A person will generally be identified if someone who knows them thinks the statement refers to them.
Secondly, a plaintiff must prove that the statement was in fact defamatory.
5.A statement will be defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the opinion of right thinking members of society.
6. A statement may also be defamatory if it exposes a plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or if it tends to make people shun or avoid the plaintiff.
7. A plaintiff does not need actual evidence that the statement in fact caused people to think less of them or that it was believed by those to whom it was published.
Given note number 3, you will see that the person does not have to be mentioned by name. Therefore, simply mention a member of a jury from a particular trial, is sufficient proof for each and every member of that jury, to presume the statement was about them.
Number 4, could include any member of NZ society, who knows about the jury in the Bain trial, and therefore, knows who the statement was referring to. ie any member of that jury.
Number 6 is particularly relevant, because as soon as making the claim about a jury member, the defamers, then go on to encourage other posters to ridicule the jury member. Thus confirming point 6.
It is not often someone is stupid enough to defame 12 people at once, and then go on to provide further evidence of the claim by organising the mass ridicule of the person/people defamed.
To quote Kulkkulbelle ' you've been warned'.
August 16, 2010 4:44 PM
I'm not sure that a Jury can be defamed in a way that could lead to a law suit. Before I explain why I should say that the Bain jury has been defamed without doubt, and based on scurrilous, unable to be proven lies and misinformation much of which I maintain started with the 'opinion' piece in The Press.
The problems that I could see for a Jury to sue would be that there would necessarily need to be a collective agreement for them to do so. Any remedy for them might be more appropriately directed at The Crown to whom they had sworn to do their duty. This however, would not necessarily preclude an individual juror from suing. The particularly disgusting and defamatory attack on a particular juror at the moment on the TM boards would be a case in point, having regard to the both implied and stated allegation that this juror 'might' have slept with Karam either before or after the verdict and which somehow influenced the outcome of the Trial. In the case of Karam, who already has a case running, and which I understand has had it's statement of claim amended to include more defamatory statements made since his paperwork was filed, it would be a relatively straight forward matter to include this most recent defamatory claim.
On the issue of who is liable as you posted above it is the publisher, you may be aware, that TM have apparently already applied to the High Court for a motion to allow it enjoin particular posters. I understand that would be a fall back type defence - TM saying we are not the publishers, the posters are. In fact I believe both the TM and the posters are the publishers. Now that kalnovitch, dcameron, and cookingwithgas have also hung another noose about their necks with this absolute unprovable carbage we may see that TM's hand is slightly strengthened in attempting to remove itself from liability with the argument that whilst earlier material was 'opinion' the current stuff is defamatory and therefore the responsibility of the posters only. To do that it would have to have been removed quickly and to this point TM have been very slow in reacting to a lot of published stuff that ought to have been removed immediately, or indeed never published.
But back to the Jury as a group, whilst they may be unable or unwilling to sue as a group (we have to accept they're merely a cross section of society who now have gone about getting on with their lives - albeit, with this dross directed at them from June last year,) I still see a responsibility of The Crown to these people. Whilst the Jury hopefully are generally anonymous to the Public (whilst not to the hate-siters as I printed earlier)the ongoing attack against them in the only public venue to my knowledge still allowing it (TradeMe) continue as a Contempt of Court issue more than a year after the trial.
I hope readers here will direct complaints to the Ministry over this, citing the information lifted from the hate-sites and published here, and material stored on TM files and on Votemenot. There is a long history exposed there, with nina_s and rodney osook having been very prolific on the matter earlier. In any such complaints I would imagine the Ministry of Justice should be asked to examine under oath the relationship between Kent Parker, Vic Purkiss, Neil Purkess and van beynan in the first instance and the Editor of The Press in the second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)