Originally Kent Parker and his since departed cohorts believed that Trade Me was about to fight their defamation battle for them. They were overjoyed with the fact such was the depth of their delusions. When it finally sunk in that Trade Me's interests were it's own and TM had no ambition to shelter members of hate-sites from their liabilities, in fact the site shed them in large numbers from it's own message boards, Parker and co began a number of initiatives for help which have ultimately led to the most recent which appears to be sausage sizzles to save the damned. An event I suspect which will be about as popular as Melanie White's graveside vigil which nobody but herself attended.
But although he doesn't realise it, and may not even realise that damage he has done to himself, it is within the Court system and the pleadings of Parker and Purkiss, that the men undeniably help Joe Karam with his case both against the errant twins of spin but also TM. The kind of help TM don't need. Parker has admitted in his pleadings the obvious, that he had editorial control over what appeared on his Website. Parker admits under oath the ability to remove offensive or defamatory material from his website so it follows recognition of the responsibility for the same of TM. Parker and TM therefore cannot deny the responsibility of the defamatory or offensive material on their own websites that they had the power to remove. Remote that it may be that TM would agree with Parker's submissions to the Court, because it is not in their interest to do so, it remains that the Court has already accepted the concessions of Parker - that he owned and controlled the website (as TM own their own message board,) that he had the power to delete material (as TM also share the power to remove material, indeed posters,) that membership was restricted (the same as TM.)
Parker has for all intents and purposes admitted that which TM seek to deny, the power of control over their own boards. I've written before that although TM have sought to indemnify themselves with a set of rules it would be unprecedented if any publisher were not held responsible for what they publish, despite who may have written, or re-published any particular material. Para [46] in the recently released Judgement of Associate Judge Sargisson says 'Materially, the first defendant (Parker) appears to accept that his acts or omissions may constitute publication. He deposes at paragraph 4 of his affidavit of 3 March 2011:
With respect to the application to strike out the first action against me, while I had the technical ability to remove other people's post there was no moral or legal right...
The Judge goes on to say that the plaintiffs (Karam's) claim of publication is not clearly untenable and that it is a question for a Jury to determine whether or not Parker was the publisher of the posts of others. Therein, is also sunk Trade Me who possibly have even less arguments against being a publisher than Parker. Good work Kent, I'm sure Joe is very happy with you for cutting to the chase and admitting the obvious. The fact that Parker chose to swear no legal or moral was in fact a defence has allowed both the Court and any prospective Jury the opportunity to judge what legal or moral right was in force that allowed Karam, or any other member of the public, to have their character and reputation measured by a bunch of misinformed misfits that belonged to a hate-site where they published defamatory material which was also published on NZ's largest message board site, Trade Me. Own goal Kenty, shot of the century by a complete moron!
While Kent and Vic Purkiss calculate how many sausages must be cooked the administrators of Trade Me lurch closer toward a settlement with Joe Karam thanks to the good work of Kent. While the owners surely ask how could it be that TM administrators were so thick to not realise that the traditions and liabilities of print media are not distinguished by words on a written page compared to script appearing on a computer screen. So we live and learn, even Kent....eventually.
All of the 18 people identified by Joe Karam in his pleadings as having defamed him, who published on both on TM and the hate-sites have spread the liability, as Parker and Purkiss have inadvertently admitted in their sworn affidavits to the Auckland High Court.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
McVicar, Garrett, Rodney Hide and Simon Power kicked to touch.
Well, not exactly. But their impetus that led them into Parliament on the back of the fraudulent Three Strikes legislation is exposed as irrelevant. So is revealed, that single issues that capture public fear or animosity can and do set the political landscape beyond their single point. With the 3 Strikes legislation NZ was given some ACT MPs who before their Parliamentary terms had finished would be exposed for fraudulent behaviour. Instead of being given a good law that delivered on its promise the public were sold a duck, along with that they got an MP that would need to resign and another that would have to repay misused funds that when asked of that MP, Hide, if it was good for the public that he had chosen to take his then girlfriend on an overseas publicly funded trip, responded 'that it was good for him.' Yes indeed. It was also good for David Garret whose carefully researched proposed 3 Strike Legislation, along with the backing of McVicar and the nod of Simon Power, and popularised hoardings elevated Act into power and an 'easy' ticket for Power's party to ensure they had a compliant coalition partner if things got tight on numbers.
For McVicar it must have been the realisation of the political power he craved, never realising that his decision to remain silent that the author of the legislation Garret was already on his second strike, which Hide and McVicar ruled as not necessary to tell the public, would be exactly that which came to come back to bite them on the arse. Additionally, it remains evident that most likely it led to the decision of Power to end his Parliamentary career, or perhaps he was encouraged by the impact it would be seen to have made on the credibility of the Government. Of course Power's departure was not before he repealed laws that were working and made serious attacks on the freedoms of NZers. His intention was to remove rights in favour of an all powerful state, an elite. When he finally left office he spoke about the possible need for independent inquiries into the injustices that feature in our legal system and which he said were 'deeply troubling' or something similar. Perhaps, not realising or being too arrogant to care that when he was intent on changing laws left, right and centre it was within his power, indeed his obligation as a law maker, to put right things that were 'deeply troubling' within the Justice system.
However, for the bare bones of the once lauded 3 Strikes laws we now see it as a failure, a fraudulent failure. Kim Workman has spoken out about the actual progress of the Law and quoted that anybody that believes that it is a success should speak to the Government's Chief Science Adviser, or the Ministry of Justice. The core group to which the legislation was meant to impact upon showed a little over 25% had even heard of the legislation, and none understood how it actually worked. Hello, that's a zero impact. Blinking brilliant.
But fear not, Crusher Collins, whose crusher legislation has so far failed to crush a single car, was able to 'confirm' that 'it does work, because of the comments that police and Corrections are getting from prisoners' she said. Hello again, the departments own statistics don't confirm that it works, the Chief Science Advisor, but Crusher knows that it does because anonymous people told her that it does by quoting, yes, the crims themselves who don't understand it. Well folks can be comforted by that when the Minister of Police who is down on crims, tough on them, uses anecdotal evidence apparently supplied by the most credible source of all, the crims themselves. Life must be tough for a bullshitting politician, particularly those that chose to deceive and frighten the public to ensure they're elected. But what of honesty? What of the critical need to unite and empower the people with truth? We now see truth and compassion lose to political expedience and lust for power.
Though perhaps the information that we see now as the real truth is something which can be learnt from, something proverbial about which truth shall endure, and liars who corrupt it are no better than those they lie about to condemn, steal from or influence. As this Parliament rises for the elections not less that a handful of liars have been removed, or decided to leave, before the people judge them of their honesty while the dear Minister of Police supports her case with the veracity of criminals as McVicar and Hide limp away.
For McVicar it must have been the realisation of the political power he craved, never realising that his decision to remain silent that the author of the legislation Garret was already on his second strike, which Hide and McVicar ruled as not necessary to tell the public, would be exactly that which came to come back to bite them on the arse. Additionally, it remains evident that most likely it led to the decision of Power to end his Parliamentary career, or perhaps he was encouraged by the impact it would be seen to have made on the credibility of the Government. Of course Power's departure was not before he repealed laws that were working and made serious attacks on the freedoms of NZers. His intention was to remove rights in favour of an all powerful state, an elite. When he finally left office he spoke about the possible need for independent inquiries into the injustices that feature in our legal system and which he said were 'deeply troubling' or something similar. Perhaps, not realising or being too arrogant to care that when he was intent on changing laws left, right and centre it was within his power, indeed his obligation as a law maker, to put right things that were 'deeply troubling' within the Justice system.
However, for the bare bones of the once lauded 3 Strikes laws we now see it as a failure, a fraudulent failure. Kim Workman has spoken out about the actual progress of the Law and quoted that anybody that believes that it is a success should speak to the Government's Chief Science Adviser, or the Ministry of Justice. The core group to which the legislation was meant to impact upon showed a little over 25% had even heard of the legislation, and none understood how it actually worked. Hello, that's a zero impact. Blinking brilliant.
But fear not, Crusher Collins, whose crusher legislation has so far failed to crush a single car, was able to 'confirm' that 'it does work, because of the comments that police and Corrections are getting from prisoners' she said. Hello again, the departments own statistics don't confirm that it works, the Chief Science Advisor, but Crusher knows that it does because anonymous people told her that it does by quoting, yes, the crims themselves who don't understand it. Well folks can be comforted by that when the Minister of Police who is down on crims, tough on them, uses anecdotal evidence apparently supplied by the most credible source of all, the crims themselves. Life must be tough for a bullshitting politician, particularly those that chose to deceive and frighten the public to ensure they're elected. But what of honesty? What of the critical need to unite and empower the people with truth? We now see truth and compassion lose to political expedience and lust for power.
Though perhaps the information that we see now as the real truth is something which can be learnt from, something proverbial about which truth shall endure, and liars who corrupt it are no better than those they lie about to condemn, steal from or influence. As this Parliament rises for the elections not less that a handful of liars have been removed, or decided to leave, before the people judge them of their honesty while the dear Minister of Police supports her case with the veracity of criminals as McVicar and Hide limp away.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Kent Parker - desperate or just a dumbo. You decide.
The latest offering from the great leader is titled:
The People vs Joe Karam.
Taken no doubt from the American use of laying prosecutions, being The People, against some named individual. Of course this would put in the mind of any reader that it was Karam facing charges rather than Parker and Purkiss and that the charges were laid on behalf on the Crown (as it is in NZ.) This, much like all the subterfuge of the truth applied by Parker, is an intention to mislead in what essentially was a representation by Parker for financial help from those he misleads or might potentially mislead.
The actual name of the case for which he seeks 'financial help' that 'requires the services of a legal defamation expert' is in fact Between, Joseph Francis Karam Plaintiff and Kent Parker First Defendant and Vic Purkiss Second Defendant. Parker goes onto say that Karam has sued 18 members of the self-claimed 'Justice for Robin Bain Group' for 'defamation on the basis that 18 members of the general public have said in online discussion boards about the Bain Case.' He goes on to describe the 18 as students, housewives, small business owners, workers, teachers, retirees, 'people like you and me.'
Of course the truth is that Karam hasn't sued 18 people as the record and pleadings show. He's sued Parker and Purkiss for allegedly defamatory things they've said about him and for publishing the allegedly defamatory comments of 16 others. Parker clearly has some aversion to the truth, or perhaps it is simply that he is so deranged that he doesn't know fact from fiction - so we'll take the Court documents, which he has patently shown by his own pleadings that he can't follow, as the undeniable truth.
But even within his lies there are other lies. The 'people like you and me' are in fact not general members of society, they are people who decided to join a hate site and embark on a campaign that included threatening behaviour, stalking and harassing members of the public for a cause that was both unlawful and not specific to them in any personal way. In short they were a bunch of nutters given the opportunity by Parker and Purkiss to give full reign to their hate and righteous indignation. Among them certainly were housewives, retirees, students and so forth but they distinguish themselves as different than the mass of the population because they were 'enlignened' by the truth and in some case 'holiness' to maraud into the lives of other nzers, many of whom had done nothing more than held a different opinion to the group or no opinion at all - in short they adopted the tactic quote made famous by American outlaw MC riders 'if you are not with us you are against us' something even adopted in American Foreign policy - but not adopted by the average nzer that Kent Parker trys to elevate his companions as.
Suddenly in his rambling or sheer cunning Parker has projected his own plight as being a person who merely had online conversations with his cohorts. Even that is a lie as the pleadings show for the 'conversations' were not private and were taken elsewhere (to TM for example) and were based on an unprovable allegation of what Karam's motives were. Of course in full flight the conversations degenerated into simple defamatory mockery based on misinformation, rumour and deliberate lies - they were kids in a lolly shop of deceit and all restraint was stripped from them by the 'power' they suddenly found that allowed them to denigrate and defame other nzers at will. It remains however, that at least at this stage, the claim is solely against Purkiss and Parker.
While Purkiss is no doubt trying to convince others to part with their money by a fraudulent representation of the truth, at the same time he is reminding (threatening) the remaining 16 (not named as defendants) of a peril which might befall them. This is Parker in full flight, using a representation of himself and others as bringing proceedings against Karam when in fact it is the opposite, then enlarging the number of defendants in order to keep some control of fear against those not named.
Enough? Not on planet Parker. Bring out the hankies. He goes onto say that this is an issue of 'freedom of political speech.' Invoking the sacrifices of generations passed. 'Our forefathers sacrificed their lives to preserve freedoms like this. Lest we forget.' How touching for morons to be able to believe that defamation is indeed 'political speech' when the only time politics has entered the question was at the time the deluded Parker claimed to going to start a political party. Similarly, what a distortion to claim our forefathers sacrificed their lives so that a bunch of sick perverts could snoop into the lives of others and spread messages of hate, the fight was actually against that in more respects than one. I don't know Parker but it disturbs me that the rotten lying prick uses the war dead as a shield in a fight he started against honesty, truth and Justice.
Yes folks Parker's ambitions (manifold that they were) included the subterfuge of hiding the truth and in doing so deny Justice. Now he whimpers for help, the same person who actively encouraged the stalking of families and children not involved in the Bain case or any other controversial matter now whimpers. In his soulful self-pity he continues using the same tools of deceit, he has no capacity to recognise the harm he has caused and intended to cause he can only cry and whinge about himself and even them without the recognition that his state of denial worsens his situation by the day.
As for the errant 16 and others that supported the 'cause' it is recognised that many of them were simply carried along by the opportunity to exert power and be 'all knowing.' Many were able to temporarily transport the hate from their lives and heap it upon others. Some simply were misguided, didn't understand and didn't know when to take a breath. Kent Parker at the helm was in full narcissistic flight, he was a crusader for good, a politician in waiting, the leader of a 'powerful' political movement that only he could harness, a musician, godlike and a fool.
The People vs Joe Karam.
Taken no doubt from the American use of laying prosecutions, being The People, against some named individual. Of course this would put in the mind of any reader that it was Karam facing charges rather than Parker and Purkiss and that the charges were laid on behalf on the Crown (as it is in NZ.) This, much like all the subterfuge of the truth applied by Parker, is an intention to mislead in what essentially was a representation by Parker for financial help from those he misleads or might potentially mislead.
The actual name of the case for which he seeks 'financial help' that 'requires the services of a legal defamation expert' is in fact Between, Joseph Francis Karam Plaintiff and Kent Parker First Defendant and Vic Purkiss Second Defendant. Parker goes onto say that Karam has sued 18 members of the self-claimed 'Justice for Robin Bain Group' for 'defamation on the basis that 18 members of the general public have said in online discussion boards about the Bain Case.' He goes on to describe the 18 as students, housewives, small business owners, workers, teachers, retirees, 'people like you and me.'
Of course the truth is that Karam hasn't sued 18 people as the record and pleadings show. He's sued Parker and Purkiss for allegedly defamatory things they've said about him and for publishing the allegedly defamatory comments of 16 others. Parker clearly has some aversion to the truth, or perhaps it is simply that he is so deranged that he doesn't know fact from fiction - so we'll take the Court documents, which he has patently shown by his own pleadings that he can't follow, as the undeniable truth.
But even within his lies there are other lies. The 'people like you and me' are in fact not general members of society, they are people who decided to join a hate site and embark on a campaign that included threatening behaviour, stalking and harassing members of the public for a cause that was both unlawful and not specific to them in any personal way. In short they were a bunch of nutters given the opportunity by Parker and Purkiss to give full reign to their hate and righteous indignation. Among them certainly were housewives, retirees, students and so forth but they distinguish themselves as different than the mass of the population because they were 'enlignened' by the truth and in some case 'holiness' to maraud into the lives of other nzers, many of whom had done nothing more than held a different opinion to the group or no opinion at all - in short they adopted the tactic quote made famous by American outlaw MC riders 'if you are not with us you are against us' something even adopted in American Foreign policy - but not adopted by the average nzer that Kent Parker trys to elevate his companions as.
Suddenly in his rambling or sheer cunning Parker has projected his own plight as being a person who merely had online conversations with his cohorts. Even that is a lie as the pleadings show for the 'conversations' were not private and were taken elsewhere (to TM for example) and were based on an unprovable allegation of what Karam's motives were. Of course in full flight the conversations degenerated into simple defamatory mockery based on misinformation, rumour and deliberate lies - they were kids in a lolly shop of deceit and all restraint was stripped from them by the 'power' they suddenly found that allowed them to denigrate and defame other nzers at will. It remains however, that at least at this stage, the claim is solely against Purkiss and Parker.
While Purkiss is no doubt trying to convince others to part with their money by a fraudulent representation of the truth, at the same time he is reminding (threatening) the remaining 16 (not named as defendants) of a peril which might befall them. This is Parker in full flight, using a representation of himself and others as bringing proceedings against Karam when in fact it is the opposite, then enlarging the number of defendants in order to keep some control of fear against those not named.
Enough? Not on planet Parker. Bring out the hankies. He goes onto say that this is an issue of 'freedom of political speech.' Invoking the sacrifices of generations passed. 'Our forefathers sacrificed their lives to preserve freedoms like this. Lest we forget.' How touching for morons to be able to believe that defamation is indeed 'political speech' when the only time politics has entered the question was at the time the deluded Parker claimed to going to start a political party. Similarly, what a distortion to claim our forefathers sacrificed their lives so that a bunch of sick perverts could snoop into the lives of others and spread messages of hate, the fight was actually against that in more respects than one. I don't know Parker but it disturbs me that the rotten lying prick uses the war dead as a shield in a fight he started against honesty, truth and Justice.
Yes folks Parker's ambitions (manifold that they were) included the subterfuge of hiding the truth and in doing so deny Justice. Now he whimpers for help, the same person who actively encouraged the stalking of families and children not involved in the Bain case or any other controversial matter now whimpers. In his soulful self-pity he continues using the same tools of deceit, he has no capacity to recognise the harm he has caused and intended to cause he can only cry and whinge about himself and even them without the recognition that his state of denial worsens his situation by the day.
As for the errant 16 and others that supported the 'cause' it is recognised that many of them were simply carried along by the opportunity to exert power and be 'all knowing.' Many were able to temporarily transport the hate from their lives and heap it upon others. Some simply were misguided, didn't understand and didn't know when to take a breath. Kent Parker at the helm was in full narcissistic flight, he was a crusader for good, a politician in waiting, the leader of a 'powerful' political movement that only he could harness, a musician, godlike and a fool.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Injustices by percentage?
From a correspondent:
If the odds of innocence are similar to USA then the figure of 2-5% in
NZ represents 160-400 people that may well be innocent of the crimes
they are currently incarcerated for..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/justice-system/news/article.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10757045
Even at the lower figure, and halved ,could be a good indication that on any day 40 nzers are being held under a Miscarriage of Justice. In this year alone there was recognition by the authorities of at least four men falsely imprisoned and since released, so around 10% of that lower divided total. At least part of the shortfall in NZ is made up of prisoners who admit crimes they haven't committed, either under pressure from gang or crime associates, or the police. Similarly, in other cases the police using 'mopping up' charges - being those that strike a deal to plead to crimes they didn't commit in order to escape heavier punishment on crimes they did commit. Probably more interesting are the formerly mentioned - those who admit crimes they haven't committed either from pressure from gang or crime associates. This being the one area of law where the adage the 'ends justify the means' is employed by both the criminals and the police to the same end at the same time. One example of this could be the Burdett case (quoting from memory here) where a man is serving life imprisonment for the rape and murder of this woman despite DNA showing the semen of Rewa, a convicted multiple rapist, having been sampled from the deceased body.
Some readers will recall when there might be unsolved very public crimes suspected of underworld figures a tactic is often employed by the police and leaked to the media that other 'heavies' are upset with all the police 'heat' and are considering taking the 'law' into their own hands so as to be able to get back to business. How much of that is true is debatable but it shows at the very least the police admitting that both 'sides' might apply, or be encouraged to apply, someone to come forward and fess up, or a stoolie to drop someone else in it so that normal routines are resumed. This is a very grey, unsavoury area of policing that is passed its used by date. It is from these exercises of 'intelligence' gathering that result in unsafe convictions on the basis of deals done between crims and police. This situation as recorded in earlier blogs here is all but too common in NZ and a frequent factor in Miscarriages of Justice in NZ.
If the odds of innocence are similar to USA then the figure of 2-5% in
NZ represents 160-400 people that may well be innocent of the crimes
they are currently incarcerated for..
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/justice-system/news/article.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10757045
Even at the lower figure, and halved ,could be a good indication that on any day 40 nzers are being held under a Miscarriage of Justice. In this year alone there was recognition by the authorities of at least four men falsely imprisoned and since released, so around 10% of that lower divided total. At least part of the shortfall in NZ is made up of prisoners who admit crimes they haven't committed, either under pressure from gang or crime associates, or the police. Similarly, in other cases the police using 'mopping up' charges - being those that strike a deal to plead to crimes they didn't commit in order to escape heavier punishment on crimes they did commit. Probably more interesting are the formerly mentioned - those who admit crimes they haven't committed either from pressure from gang or crime associates. This being the one area of law where the adage the 'ends justify the means' is employed by both the criminals and the police to the same end at the same time. One example of this could be the Burdett case (quoting from memory here) where a man is serving life imprisonment for the rape and murder of this woman despite DNA showing the semen of Rewa, a convicted multiple rapist, having been sampled from the deceased body.
Some readers will recall when there might be unsolved very public crimes suspected of underworld figures a tactic is often employed by the police and leaked to the media that other 'heavies' are upset with all the police 'heat' and are considering taking the 'law' into their own hands so as to be able to get back to business. How much of that is true is debatable but it shows at the very least the police admitting that both 'sides' might apply, or be encouraged to apply, someone to come forward and fess up, or a stoolie to drop someone else in it so that normal routines are resumed. This is a very grey, unsavoury area of policing that is passed its used by date. It is from these exercises of 'intelligence' gathering that result in unsafe convictions on the basis of deals done between crims and police. This situation as recorded in earlier blogs here is all but too common in NZ and a frequent factor in Miscarriages of Justice in NZ.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The accquittal of Amanda Knox underlies the tragedy of the execution of Troy Davis.
Almost two weeks after the State of Georgia executed Troy Davis, Amanda Knox walks free from an Italian Court acquitted of murder for which she has been imprisoned for 4 years. The case against Knox appears to have fallen apart as the stark result of Court ordered tests on DNA evidence, some of which had been miraculously found weeks after earlier searches and which was most recently determined by the Court appointed scientists to be unreliable and unsafe in determining Knox's guilt.
On the other hand the case against Troy Davis had in part relied upon 11 witnesses 9 of whom later recanted. From what I have read some of points on appeal were rejected because he hadn't raised them earlier when he hadn't known about them. Additionally, since his conviction a law had been passed which sought to 'expediate' the appeal progress and which contained other provisions to enhance laws dealing with terrorism. None of the new laws successfully answered questions arising from witnesses later admitting that they had wrongfully identified Davis as the shooter, that another man had admitted to others that he was in fact the killer, or that some members of the Jury have said they changed their minds about his guilt.
I don't know enough of the details of the claim that another man had admitted the crime to other persons to comment about it one way or another, although certainly with a man's life at stake it was of critical importance. However, what I do know is that the 9 of 11 witnesses who recanted was significant beyond all proportion not to have added weight on the innocence of Troy Davis. Witnesses do not lightly recant, they can face prosecution for doing so - probably of more concern to them is that they can face the wrath of the Police for no longer being compliant in a set-up. Because a set-up often relies upon an accused friends to spill the beans on him or her whether they're guilty or not, and the motive never is anything more than the advantage that the witness might gain. We've had here in NZ at least one recent case where a compliant witness was actually the murderer and many others where the witnesses have been made secret payments and had charges dropped for telling the 'truth.' A 'truth' which unfortunately ultimately is used against somebody the police 'want' to have found guilty of a crime for which they have already been charged or are anticipated to be charged.
These witnesses by their nature don't easily recant. That 9 recanted in one case against Troy Davis defies comprehension that the evidence of his 'guilt' was not all but destroyed, or that it should at the very least have returned to a retrial. But the State of Georgia needed to kill Troy Davis and that might the real truth of the matter. That he died because in part of because of legislation that sought to expedite executions, also exercised provisions that the fact a condemned man was responsible for not knowing something at an earlier point in time was no reason not to kill him. That those laws, were in part much like our own surveillance laws, designed as tools in the fight against terrorism, betray that part of their real intention is to undermine checks and balances in the Prosecution of Justice in everyday law.
And where does terrorism lie when a man can have the evidence of 9 important witnesses against him disregarded for the convenience of the free State whom wishes to takes his life as an Judicial expedient. Also, what free State values so little the lives of its citizens that it designs laws that allow the 'legal' killing of not only the presumed guilty but also the presumed innocent in a single mix. If substantial ingredients of a prosecution fail, the entire prosecution fails, at the very least promotes the difference of a 'fair' trial where an earlier one is shown as corrupt, or changed in some substantial way. If a presumption of guilt is removed, only one thing remains in a free land - a presumption of innocence.
So now as Amanda Fox flys home to a land where the just days ago Troy Davis was killed, she may appreciate more than most a country or countries that do not sanction the taking of life, and which do not assume the corrupt power of an ancient Caesar to cast a thumb either up or down in a fickle decision over the life of others, countrymen or not.
On the other hand the case against Troy Davis had in part relied upon 11 witnesses 9 of whom later recanted. From what I have read some of points on appeal were rejected because he hadn't raised them earlier when he hadn't known about them. Additionally, since his conviction a law had been passed which sought to 'expediate' the appeal progress and which contained other provisions to enhance laws dealing with terrorism. None of the new laws successfully answered questions arising from witnesses later admitting that they had wrongfully identified Davis as the shooter, that another man had admitted to others that he was in fact the killer, or that some members of the Jury have said they changed their minds about his guilt.
I don't know enough of the details of the claim that another man had admitted the crime to other persons to comment about it one way or another, although certainly with a man's life at stake it was of critical importance. However, what I do know is that the 9 of 11 witnesses who recanted was significant beyond all proportion not to have added weight on the innocence of Troy Davis. Witnesses do not lightly recant, they can face prosecution for doing so - probably of more concern to them is that they can face the wrath of the Police for no longer being compliant in a set-up. Because a set-up often relies upon an accused friends to spill the beans on him or her whether they're guilty or not, and the motive never is anything more than the advantage that the witness might gain. We've had here in NZ at least one recent case where a compliant witness was actually the murderer and many others where the witnesses have been made secret payments and had charges dropped for telling the 'truth.' A 'truth' which unfortunately ultimately is used against somebody the police 'want' to have found guilty of a crime for which they have already been charged or are anticipated to be charged.
These witnesses by their nature don't easily recant. That 9 recanted in one case against Troy Davis defies comprehension that the evidence of his 'guilt' was not all but destroyed, or that it should at the very least have returned to a retrial. But the State of Georgia needed to kill Troy Davis and that might the real truth of the matter. That he died because in part of because of legislation that sought to expedite executions, also exercised provisions that the fact a condemned man was responsible for not knowing something at an earlier point in time was no reason not to kill him. That those laws, were in part much like our own surveillance laws, designed as tools in the fight against terrorism, betray that part of their real intention is to undermine checks and balances in the Prosecution of Justice in everyday law.
And where does terrorism lie when a man can have the evidence of 9 important witnesses against him disregarded for the convenience of the free State whom wishes to takes his life as an Judicial expedient. Also, what free State values so little the lives of its citizens that it designs laws that allow the 'legal' killing of not only the presumed guilty but also the presumed innocent in a single mix. If substantial ingredients of a prosecution fail, the entire prosecution fails, at the very least promotes the difference of a 'fair' trial where an earlier one is shown as corrupt, or changed in some substantial way. If a presumption of guilt is removed, only one thing remains in a free land - a presumption of innocence.
So now as Amanda Fox flys home to a land where the just days ago Troy Davis was killed, she may appreciate more than most a country or countries that do not sanction the taking of life, and which do not assume the corrupt power of an ancient Caesar to cast a thumb either up or down in a fickle decision over the life of others, countrymen or not.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Kent Parker - the rise and fall of a hate-siter.
Kent Parker is an interesting, if rare bird, on the NZ landscape, most particularly because of his abortive attempt to use cyber-space in a novel way, for New Zealand, - to begin hate-sites and hate campaigns. But probably the most fascinating aspect of his failed attempt is that it ought to have been obvious to him and his followers that they were bound for failure. There are a number of reasons for this.
1/That he didn't understand the medium (cyber-space) he used.
2/That he was impetuous and driven by something other than that which he claimed was motivating his campaign. In other words he was insincere and sought to take advantage of others, many of whom were sincere if but also misguided.
3/He didn't know his subject and paid no critical analysis of 'information' supplied to him.
4/He has no ability to think on his feet or change a position, he becomes angry if there is any suggestion that he might be wrong.
5/He became obsessed with Joe Karam in particular to the point where he showing a type of bizarre jealousy.
The above in more detail
1/Kent thought that defaming or stalking people on line had no possible consequence. He clearly misunderstood that despite the word 'space' cyber-space was contained by international borders and law, where words written in 'space' landed and any relay points along the way were in fact all culpable under the law. He has consistently failed to understand this and even in recent pleadings to the High Court displayed the incapacity to follow that he was a publisher no different from a publisher in print media, he claimed that he couldn't take material of his own sites without approval of members of his site. Not only has he demonstrated that he is responsible for what he has published he also failed to realise his culpability in providing a site where he and others conspired to commit crimes contravening the Crimes Act.
2/The fact that Kent's insincerity was lost on many of his followers for some time provided him the opportunity to capitalise on the sincere anxiety of his followers so that he was able to meld them to his cause - himself. He may or may not have realised that the less 'enlightened' of his followers saw Kent's willingness to 'go public,' have a website and so forth, as legitimising things which were morally wrong and in many cases illegal. It's hard to blame the weaker minded individuals that were attracted to Parker because he empowered them, encouraged them in the belief that they were the 'only' ones that saw the truth and that those that did not were 'outsiders' an enemy.
3/Because Kent didn't know his subject and accepted whatever suited the cause, and rejected what did not, he further disadvantaged those that were acting on a 'gut feeling,' what somebody told them, 'facts' that existed no where accept in their minds and the minds of those that had provided them. For example, it was almost 18 months before Kent's group finally understood that Bain had been 'strip searched' and (perhaps) the significance of that. Most people would need the information that he wasn't searched before claiming that and hanging their hats on such a 'fact.' Their campaign was riddled with misinformation and speculation heightened by 'information' leaked to them from various sources, in many ways they were pawns, and Kent in turn, was a pawn of others, but so arrogant he is he would be unable to even consider that. Put succinctly, Parker went to 'war' with no understanding of the war and instead saw what the spoils of war might offer him and paid no regard or reservation on doing the research before reaching an opinion, in fact he worked backwards - much like the police inquiry, decided who it was then 'found' the 'right' evidence and ignored contrary evidence.
4/Parker is unable to think on his feet. The times when he has made a change have most often resulted in him back-tracking to where he was originally placed, most often these have been attended by Kent re-inventing the wheel, re-convincing himself of something and expecting others to follow. The various flip-flops in his defence to the defamation charges show this, particularly his recent attempt to have the pleadings struck out with such things, as that mentioned above. that he 'couldn't' removed defamatory material without a 'consensus' of members - many of whom it is obvious have long since headed for the hills.
5/Kent's obsession with Karam is obvious and only requires the comment that it is far from Kent's proclamations about 'victims,' his attempts to become a musician, politician, court the media etc belie his true cause, himself.
All of which Kent now sees as his predicament of; 'The People vs Joe Karam.' More on that delusional 'title' later.
1/That he didn't understand the medium (cyber-space) he used.
2/That he was impetuous and driven by something other than that which he claimed was motivating his campaign. In other words he was insincere and sought to take advantage of others, many of whom were sincere if but also misguided.
3/He didn't know his subject and paid no critical analysis of 'information' supplied to him.
4/He has no ability to think on his feet or change a position, he becomes angry if there is any suggestion that he might be wrong.
5/He became obsessed with Joe Karam in particular to the point where he showing a type of bizarre jealousy.
The above in more detail
1/Kent thought that defaming or stalking people on line had no possible consequence. He clearly misunderstood that despite the word 'space' cyber-space was contained by international borders and law, where words written in 'space' landed and any relay points along the way were in fact all culpable under the law. He has consistently failed to understand this and even in recent pleadings to the High Court displayed the incapacity to follow that he was a publisher no different from a publisher in print media, he claimed that he couldn't take material of his own sites without approval of members of his site. Not only has he demonstrated that he is responsible for what he has published he also failed to realise his culpability in providing a site where he and others conspired to commit crimes contravening the Crimes Act.
2/The fact that Kent's insincerity was lost on many of his followers for some time provided him the opportunity to capitalise on the sincere anxiety of his followers so that he was able to meld them to his cause - himself. He may or may not have realised that the less 'enlightened' of his followers saw Kent's willingness to 'go public,' have a website and so forth, as legitimising things which were morally wrong and in many cases illegal. It's hard to blame the weaker minded individuals that were attracted to Parker because he empowered them, encouraged them in the belief that they were the 'only' ones that saw the truth and that those that did not were 'outsiders' an enemy.
3/Because Kent didn't know his subject and accepted whatever suited the cause, and rejected what did not, he further disadvantaged those that were acting on a 'gut feeling,' what somebody told them, 'facts' that existed no where accept in their minds and the minds of those that had provided them. For example, it was almost 18 months before Kent's group finally understood that Bain had been 'strip searched' and (perhaps) the significance of that. Most people would need the information that he wasn't searched before claiming that and hanging their hats on such a 'fact.' Their campaign was riddled with misinformation and speculation heightened by 'information' leaked to them from various sources, in many ways they were pawns, and Kent in turn, was a pawn of others, but so arrogant he is he would be unable to even consider that. Put succinctly, Parker went to 'war' with no understanding of the war and instead saw what the spoils of war might offer him and paid no regard or reservation on doing the research before reaching an opinion, in fact he worked backwards - much like the police inquiry, decided who it was then 'found' the 'right' evidence and ignored contrary evidence.
4/Parker is unable to think on his feet. The times when he has made a change have most often resulted in him back-tracking to where he was originally placed, most often these have been attended by Kent re-inventing the wheel, re-convincing himself of something and expecting others to follow. The various flip-flops in his defence to the defamation charges show this, particularly his recent attempt to have the pleadings struck out with such things, as that mentioned above. that he 'couldn't' removed defamatory material without a 'consensus' of members - many of whom it is obvious have long since headed for the hills.
5/Kent's obsession with Karam is obvious and only requires the comment that it is far from Kent's proclamations about 'victims,' his attempts to become a musician, politician, court the media etc belie his true cause, himself.
All of which Kent now sees as his predicament of; 'The People vs Joe Karam.' More on that delusional 'title' later.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Oh look, Kent Parker is begging, again.
Cut it out Kent. I know things are tough and you probably have orders for $60,000 or more against you for preliminary costs for proving to the High Court what a dickhead you are, but there's no need to beg. Man up will ya and do the arithmetic. You claim your hate-site has 600 members and you're asking them to give $10 each so that you can get a lawyer, that's after you've said that you already have a lawyer. But the truth is Kent you need to find 6,000 morons to give you $10 each to pay costs before you can employ a lawyer to defend you and Purkiss for stalking and defaming honest nzers.
Tell the truth Kent, get over yourself. People generally don't rate morons on a scale and your attempts to prove you're the biggest moron that ever got his sorry arse sued for being a dick are unlikely to encourage anyone to open their wallets, even from pity, in your futile attempt to evade the law. Toughen up Kent. You were willing to lie and distort the truth in order to harm real people, prepared to actively encourage idiots to threaten and stalk other nzers who rejected an innocent man being imprisoned by rumour and lies, and now you beg for help?
You, and the idiot Purkiss, who wrote messages on items of fruit in Coromandel stores, in order to poisen others, aren't the 'People' called nzers, you are law-breaking rejects, dangerous psychopathic idiots that chose to ride a wave that might bring you fame at the expense of truth. I didn't expect you or Purkiss to have any backbone Parker, and I was right. You are a gutless liar who now trys to extort money out of other nzers to pay for the lawbreaking of you and a few motley others. You don't have 600 members to your rotten hate-sites, you barely have 6. Not only is science, logic, forensic and common sense against you Kent but also opinion that you kicked others when you thought they were down, and now when the hens have come home to roost you beg and flounder like a gutless coward.
Toughen up for sake of your family, don't let them see you prostitute yourself when the fire you directed at others you thought were down, is returned. Grow some gonads, I hear there is some cheap potting mix on sale that could help your endeavour to become a man willing to fight when the chips are down. You chose what you thought were easy targets Parker, and now those targets dine on your cowardice and weakness. Have you no backbone at all? Tonight would be a good night to send your 'followers' after me and I will return them packaged with $10 notes stuck will coconut oil to their foreheads and garlands of flowers hiding their depleted bosom so that you will finally understand that your hate has consumed you and your dreams are ghosts.
Tell the truth Kent, get over yourself. People generally don't rate morons on a scale and your attempts to prove you're the biggest moron that ever got his sorry arse sued for being a dick are unlikely to encourage anyone to open their wallets, even from pity, in your futile attempt to evade the law. Toughen up Kent. You were willing to lie and distort the truth in order to harm real people, prepared to actively encourage idiots to threaten and stalk other nzers who rejected an innocent man being imprisoned by rumour and lies, and now you beg for help?
You, and the idiot Purkiss, who wrote messages on items of fruit in Coromandel stores, in order to poisen others, aren't the 'People' called nzers, you are law-breaking rejects, dangerous psychopathic idiots that chose to ride a wave that might bring you fame at the expense of truth. I didn't expect you or Purkiss to have any backbone Parker, and I was right. You are a gutless liar who now trys to extort money out of other nzers to pay for the lawbreaking of you and a few motley others. You don't have 600 members to your rotten hate-sites, you barely have 6. Not only is science, logic, forensic and common sense against you Kent but also opinion that you kicked others when you thought they were down, and now when the hens have come home to roost you beg and flounder like a gutless coward.
Toughen up for sake of your family, don't let them see you prostitute yourself when the fire you directed at others you thought were down, is returned. Grow some gonads, I hear there is some cheap potting mix on sale that could help your endeavour to become a man willing to fight when the chips are down. You chose what you thought were easy targets Parker, and now those targets dine on your cowardice and weakness. Have you no backbone at all? Tonight would be a good night to send your 'followers' after me and I will return them packaged with $10 notes stuck will coconut oil to their foreheads and garlands of flowers hiding their depleted bosom so that you will finally understand that your hate has consumed you and your dreams are ghosts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)