The hate-sites hit a snag, again.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9498504/Joe-Karam-Defamation-claim-settled

 

The devastating defeat of the hate-sites continue. Since the Crown decided to pursue a second trial of David Bain after the first was determined to be an 'actual miscarriage of Justice' it's all been down hill. A verdict of innocent by the second Jury in record time, a finding of factual innocence by a Jurist tasked to inquiry into an application by David for compensation, then a Judicial Review of the Minister's decision to 'interfere' with that decision and a series of defeats as to the honesty and truth of those that have attacked Bain and Joe Karam for years.

 

The New Zealand Herald settled a defamation claim quite quickly on, Trade Me followed, so now have Fairfax - they have all retired from the 'truth' of the claims made against Karam and his simple analysis of a case of murder suicide from which a innocent young man spent over a dozen years in prison. If one was absolutely crazy they could believe that the failure of The Crown to prove a case against Bain, both at trial and again as part of a exercise to argue against compensation for him, was of no significant merit. Accordingly, they could look toward the Civil courts for The Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax to prove that they were not insane, batty or even delusional - the big guns would 'prove' the truth, reveal what the sisters knew as true.  All good, except the Herald, Trade Me and Fairfax couldn't prove the un-provable either, odd that. Boringly predictable unfortunately.

 

There has been some significant public benefit however. Fairfax have not resisted the proposition that what is posted on their sites, or linked to their sites, is there responsibility - whether the posting was the work of a bunch of nutters or not. The wider benefit of this is the development of the understanding on the use on the internet. The word should be out, that abusing or threatening others on line in a public forum is not only the responsibility of the persons posting, but of the publisher or medium. This is very fair, and to this point 'escaped' from The Herald, TradeMe and Fairfax. What they allow to published through their mediums is there responsibility, they are not somehow remote from it.

 

The message is out that while some dodo bird might 'speak their minds' on the net in a public forum the host remains responsible. So Facebook will be responsible for teens urging other teens to commit suicide or for abusing others on line. This is a clear and precise development in the use of the net, also very obvious. The New Zealand Courts have supported these settlements and others under the Harassment Act where there has been online stalking, threats and intimidation. The Law has caught up. Congratulations to Joe Karam and The Courts for understanding the net with it's apparent new frontier.

 

In the meantime, more bad news for the sisters - they've created a place in history for themselves and it's not the one they first imagined.

Cyber space harassment - you can act now!

The law appears to be moving slowly on the cyber space harassment issues that the Herald newspaper has been featuring this week. However there is law going back to 1997 that covers in under the Harassment Act 1997. While the The Act is not specific to on line harassment it actually includes the language for its use in Section 4 (1) where dealing with a specified act in

ss (d) making contact with that person (whether by telephone, correspondence, or in any other way. )

also (f) acting in any other way

I'm aware that the Courts have been somewhat reluctant to define what 'any other way' might mean. However, common sense is that 'any other way' must have been seen by the legislators as the vehicle by which the communication or threat was made, being simple language to ensure that a harasser wouldn't not be able to say 'I didn't telephone or correspondence with the person or attend their house or work, therefore I could not harass them' as somehow letting types of harassment fall outside the Law. Parliament can never have intended to do that, so they left in specific language but also included a vehicle for harassment to fall outside the specifics into the category of 'any other way.'

None of the above over looks 'correspondence' mentioned in 4 (1) (d.) One not need to consider too deeply that an email is correspondence, and that a message board post or blog is a derivative of correspondence in that it conveys a message by text - particularly so, where it addressed to another individual whether they are named specifically or not. For example a nick name, an offensive term or the reconstruction of a situation that makes it clear to the 'target' that they are the victim of the allegation or threats.

In the last few years there has been little progress with policing cyber space bullying because of what I believe has been a tardiness of mind of lawyers and the Courts to consider the elements of the Harassment Act as contemporary to the electronic age. I am aware of a case where a person threatened and harassed over a trade on Trade Me eventually took an order out against the individual but not against Trade Me. Although the individual was granted a restraining order the 'restrained' person was effectively allowed to continue their behaviour on Trade Me who eventually told the victim that perhaps TM wasn't the place for them. In other words because TM hadn't been named specifically in the order they chose to ignore it even though the harassment continued on TM.

Objectionable as that may be, last year when a director of Trade Me was faced with a application for a restraining order (later withdrawn) Trade Me almost immediately amended it's users rules to specifically prohibit on line harassment. While that measure might have been reluctantly taken the result was the message to not only internet users but also to The Courts that the owner of the largest message board in the country recognised that harassment can take place on line and acted after an application was issued under the 1997 Act. There is further evidence abroad of blog owners appreciating the need to abide by the Harassment Act 1997. When requested for details of board users allegedly using Kiwi Blog as the venue for a cyber attack, owner, David Farrar, acted according to the request in the following way....(altered to protect the 'privacy' of the alleged offenders)

I e-mailed the contact e-mail addresses for both Morris Minor and hiphip asking if they would object to their details being released. Morris Minor has asked me not to, and I’ve decided to respect their privacy and not release it. You may of course request a court order to reveal details.

The hiphip user has not responded to two e-mails, which I am taking as not objecting to the release of their details. The details I have for hiphip are:

M... S...

...............@mailingaddress.org

The IP address used is XXXXX, which is with the Orcon ISP.

Regards

DPF

This being another display of appreciation by site owners to their obligations under the Harassment Act. Farrar went on to submit to the Law Commission recently the following:

'A supporter of David Bain and Joe Karam said commentators who had named him were harassing him and requested their details for a Harassment Act claim. Asked commentators for consent. One refused, one did not reply. Have decided to only release details of the non-reply"

Showing again the 'good faith' of board owners not to have their sites involved in harassment, this is the reason why I blogged earlier in the week that the common Law was recognising that the frontiers of cyber-space were actually no different from print media (whether by telephone, correspondence, or in any other way. ) I wrote that in relation to the apology posted on Trade Me this week to Joe Karam for defamation and other offensive material published on TM in respect of Karam, the apology is a rich sink hole for the quandaries that seem to have beset the minds of those that thought there was no remedy in Law, or that a new Law was needed to prevent cyber space bullying.

In fact Justice Ministers Judith Collins is talking about fast tracking one law recommended by the Law Commission to which David Farrar submitted the comments above when it becomes available. However, in a recognition of the existing Law, and presumably understanding the complexity lawyers and Courts labour under simply stated that the Harassment Act might need to be more specific in terms of cyber-space relevance. For the foregoing reasons I don't agree, particularly because in  the common Law of practice, the owners of sites have already advanced to that position either from goodwill or from pressure to understand more fundamentally that a word is a word whether it be written in a letter, uttered over a phone or transported to a receiver in cyberspace. Nevertheless, the Justice Minister is sending out the right message now.

The Act is caught to some degree in a no where place, not prevailing under civil or criminal law but rather a hybrid, user friendly cocktail that has different levels of proof, production and evidence and so on. A particularly good opportunity for people to get their situations to Court for no expense (unless they decide to use a lawyer) and with the gritty reality of the situation able to be presented without the normal legalese tongue.

In a relatively short time several of the larger sites have cleaned up their acts, they have not lost 'customers' or members to any great degree as people have adjusted to the idea that they're responsible for what they say and will be 'found out' and exposed if they transgress into on line harassment or bullying. The Courts have followed that to some degree but I imagine will soon adopt to the ease that the original legislators envisaged to ensure that all perpetrators could be dealt with in a changing society using different communications.

If  Karam v Trade Me has shown  for all time that defamation does happen on line in NZ, then, in approximately comparative time, also it is being acknowledged that so does harassment and that the Law can be brought to bear. In the case I brought against a TM director, TM's lawyer, Marissa Flowerday, swore in an affidavit the number of letters of complaint that I had made about the on line harassment of Karam and Bain, as though the number was a reflection of me as a serial complainer without a substantial reason to complain, in fact as time has shown  the reflection was against TM itself as being a serial defamer and harasser and being unwilling or unable to deal with it. That is the reason they apologised to Karam and came to some financial conclusion with him, something they would not have needed to do had they heeded when I wrote to them outlining the activities of the hate-site members using TM to attack Karam and others. They also would not have needed to have amended their rules in 2011 to specify 'harassment' if they'd simply read the Act and complied. How far off the mark they were then is recorded in a letter to me where they claimed they 'were not susceptible to action under The Harassment Act.) I still wonder what sort of legal appreciation of the law their 'experts' had. Whatever the level, had they simply done what the message board 'Sella,' owned by the NZ Herald, had done when I wrote to them about an influx of hate-siters 'bringing their message' and shut all blogs relating to the topic down, after issuing an on line message, they would not have needed to be dragged to the reality at great financial cost and to the personal cost of those that were harassed on their boards. The later being an issue still yet to be resolved and which TM and others are no doubt hoping will go away.

Things that leave one cold...Defamation Karam.

Defamation reminder: Keep it clean 

Written by The Trade Me team in General at 2:00 pm, Tue 8 May

We remind all members of the importance of complying with Trade Me's terms and conditions and message board policy. These include requirements that members not post comments that are defamatory, abusive or offensive.

Trade Me apologises to Joe Karam for some members' use of the message board in breach of the terms and conditions to make comments about him personally and as a supporter of David Bain.

If anyone posts on the message board in breach of Trade Me's terms and conditions, they will have their message board privileges removed at Trade Me's discretion and without notice.

First of all it was reflecting on the 5 not guilty verdicts. A lot of people were excited by the result and expected that I would be the same but I wasn't because it's hard for me to celebrate a 'victory' from a battle that never should have taken place. David Bain should never have been charged, should never have suffered over a decade of false imprisonment and so while the verdicts were welcome I was left cold by what the man had been put through, by thinking that it had happened to others in the past and will happen to others in the future. The great victory, and even David might agree, would have been not only his deserved freedom but the system looking into to itself and making the appropriate corrections able to be observed by an independent authority with swift access to the Courts to adjudicate any decisions or omissions - much like Judicial Review.

Which brings me to the apology published on Trade Me today, it's been almost 3 years in the making but what it shows is that the common law has moved faster than statute. Whilst the Law Commission grapples with on line law breaking of any sort the common law has broken through. The apparent difference between a word written in a newspaper, on placard, in a public place is finally seen as no different to that written in cyber space. Common sense has prevailed, where the Law has reached out for new codes, common sense has shown the existing Laws fit cyber space and all that was needed was for the Courts to plug in, not to complexity but into the simple fact that language, not presentation is what makes a threat, an obscenity or that which is judged defamatory.

Clearly, Trade Me never defended their publications as not being defamatory. They simply claimed not to be responsible, however overwhelmingly naive that was being that they are the owner of the site and therefore the publisher. I'm not surprised to see they have settled, made a written apology, and apparently have banned or will ban for life the errant fools that thought that they had the right to publish what they liked. The settlement has now become a established precedent for cyber space publishers in New Zealand and probably overseas, a good step against which to measure how every person should conduct themselves in cyberspace as being no different than as if they were writing a letter to the editor of the daily which they hoped to have published.

There are some suggestions that the settlement figure is substantial, as it of course should be. But whatever the amount, the costs Trade Me would have agreed to have paid would have far outstripped the settlement figure. I asked the question yesterday, where to now for Kent Parker and the hate-siters? Today the answer has become even more obvious. I recall coldly the raucous laughter that accompanied the hate-siter's claims that 'Karam wouldn't dare sue.' The pompous obook making claims that cyber-space was like 'having a chat in the pub,' all the idiocies that one could imagine. And also the attacks against my family that attended some of those.

Kent has never been too bright, so I'll make it clear once again. TM didn't contest that the publications were not defamatory, they denied responsibility - the first was obvious the second was hopeful to the extreme and the reason on which they settled. There defence case was matchsticks and glue, albeit stronger than Parker's and Purkiss.

In the last couple of hours I have been recalling letters from TM asking for further information on what I considered was publication of defamation or hate-message on their boards, a serialised response to something they couldn't understand or didn't want to know about. Nor could they understand that if a thread was running, the theme was alive and any language signalling Joe or David didn't have to be specific - just as the Law says.

It isn't lost to me that the apology is not to David and I have said earlier that his case is the strongest, as have other commentators who consider the verdict in the retrial as a complete answer in Law to the defamatory filth that has been stacked against David. So things may not necessarily be finished there.

Van Beynan becomes more obvious on the landscape now, along with all the material passed to Parker and co. Parker by any measure is finished as he was before he even began, just like all the 'right thinking' hate-siters.

In the meantime congratulations to Joe, he's helped common sense prevail through complexity, allowed a word to be seen for what it is, whether in a letter or on a world wide computer screen.

Trade Me, finally get it and 'tweak' the twisted sisters...

Looks like it, judging by the tweaking of the rules as follows..

Message board
The message board is provided for the enjoyment of the entire Trade Me community and is moderated by them and, at times, by Trade Me staff. The person posting a message on the boards may be liable for its content. Trade Me is not responsible for the content.

The basic rules are:

It's a family show
Keep your messages clean. Don't start messages about offensive or contentious topics, or post messages that include swearing, offensive or adult content.

Respect others
Don't abuse or harass people on the message board. Personal attacks are not acceptable. You may express a view on an issue, or criticise a particular approach. But the message boards are not a place for you to attack a person or their character.

The message board is also not an appropriate place to raise concerns about other traders or their auctions. If you have concerns about an auction, please use Community Watch (at the bottom of each auction). If you're concerned about a trader, please contact us directly.

People have a right to their privacy. Don't post any contact details in the message board, including your own, or reveal personal information about others.

No commercial use or self-promotion
Over-posting or spamming of the message board ruins it for others. The message board is for open discussion only, so please don't advertise any auction, product, or service. This includes trying to facilitate a trade through the message boards (including wanted postings).

Keep it legal
In particular, do not name, drop hints, or post any other information which identifies members of the public who have name suppression.

You also need to be careful you don't post defamatory statements about anyone. A widely used definition is:

A defamatory statement is one that tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or which tends to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided, or which tends to cause a person to be exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or which is a false statement about a person to his or her discredit. The statement may be in the form of words or pictures, visual images, gestures, and other means of signifying meaning.

Finally, anyone who breaches the rules above may have their message board privileges or membership removed.

In a week where there has been Judicial scrutiny of TM's message board operations they change their rules, or at least broaden them so that the very dim-witted might be better able to follow that when they post they're responsible for what they post, no less than TM are responsible for what is published on their boards (although the later are yet to fully concede that point.)
The moves, while short of pre-editing of posts, are welcome. Board users need to know that the can't attack and out others on TM boards, not only that they can't continue defamatory harassment campaigns on TM boards and what they say about others must be sustainable in fact and not be a backyard over the fence chat, or as the fat obook once claimed like a 'chat in the pub.'
The longest running Bain thread is gone. The idiots who have thought themselves to be above the law are on notice, those that have cut and pasted misinformation for years on end are under scrutiny, the Law speaks. Specifics of what are harassment and defamation are spelt out for the dim-witted who previously 'thought' they were entitled to harass families, stalk children and defame at will.
The world will not suddenly change, but it will certainly improve. A new decorum of public speech will be recognised as that of any type of publication. The hate-sites are pushed to the side, no longer able to imagine that TM will fight for them, or that their conduct as hate-sites is mirrored by what TM have appeared to set as precedent, because that has thankfully finally changed, or at least showed the signs of intention of change - if TM can maintain the discipline.
While there remain matters to be resolved, and others have long been critical of TM's policies, inaction, and inconsistency, a step is made, one which I've maintained will be easily adapted to by message board communities and consistent with the Law.
But will the sisters get it, eventually as things progress, the brighter among have already fled leaving the dullards, of which there are considerable number, to keep poking their fingers in electrical socks and touch spinning saw blades with the fascination of a moron for sparkling and spinning things. Spinners...hmmh.

Get it right Stockdale, you are a proven liar and pedo-apologist...

The only person who did lie was David Bain.He lied on oath when he took the stand and said he didn't know how that pair of his mother's glasses came to be in his room,that he hadn't thought about them,that he hadn't seen them for over a year.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:23 pm, Sun 23 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:20 pm, Sun 23 Jan #15581

The above from the filthy scumbag hate-site administrator who crawled back into TM with his crap after 2 weeks because he thought the coast is clear, well it ain't clear pig face - your number is up. By Wednesday the decision is made whether it is just you and Kennard going to Court or both you AND Trademe for facilitating your stalking and lies.
But I'm joking aren't I Stockdale, I'm just puff and wind aren't I bro?

Get a brain Lindsay Kennard - Toreador told you.

Trademe has blocked JFRB from being saved to VMN since Friday I guess they don't want it known that they have joined the battle against their own members.

Quotelinz4me (278 ) 9:42 pm, Sun 14 Nov #29942

You and your arsew... mates started the battle against yourselves like complete dickhea... Don't blame TM for your stalking and defamation on the boards or using the boards to further your propaganda to persecute others. TM are running a business they're not responsible for halfwits from hate-sites that can't control their own mouths, carnal instincts or criminal harassment. Good to see TM's belated response and an indication that they are beginning to comprehend the law. Good to see the Law finding its way in to your hate-sites and covens.

There is more to come, there always was it's just that you bunch of pedo-lovers always thought if it didn't happen tomorrow it would never happen. You were all warned and laughed, there may well be other people laughing at you now. Get use to it. Remember Toreador? Salute Toreador.

More from Judgement of Heath J 9 November 2010

The Pleadings...

[39] Similarly, a Statement of Defence must plead explicitly any affirmative defence. When 'truth' is the basis of a defence, it is necessary to make it clear what is said to be true, so the plaintiff knows what case he or she has to meet. Where a defendant raises an imputation of misconduct against a plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to to be able to go to trial with knowledge of the acts which are alleged and which the defendant intends to rely to justify the imputation. Similarly, where defences of honest opinion and/or qualified privilege are raised, sufficient particulars must be given to inform the plaintiff of the basis on which the opinion is based, or the circumstances which give rise to a privileged occasion.

I would imagine this is where dear old aunty kent is getting stuck in his statement of defence 'finding sufficient particulars must be given to inform the plaintiff of the basis on which the opinion is based.'

Of course it is recorded that Stockdale, Taylor, Purkiss, Parker are all mates of the same bent. In fact by description Stockdale and Taylor have 'spoken' for Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss because it is a given that both the writer and publisher are responsible. What Stockdale says, swears ....'there was no blood inside the rifle...David Bain had scratches on his chest on the morning of the killings...Karam lied on the Laws show....David was not stripped searched...I got from the horse's mouth.' is in fact the mouth of Parker and Purkiss, because the two ps are the publishers and the words spoken between any of the partners are in fact the words of those that remain silent, or who are complicit in the defamation being disseminated.

But we can go further, a lot further. Joe Karam is entitled to state his case on the issue of the forensic evidence against Robin and argue that his reputation was damaged by the claims that there was no blood in the rifle and so on and that he was a 'myth maker, making myths,' the many claims that are inaccurate and which the hate-sites continue to proliferate. The two ps have no defence that ursurps the trial transcript or evidence, they have nothing to point to support their claims (or those so published of their site members) they can't show the published articles were 'reports of truth on a subject of public interest...fair and accurate reports of statements made in courts.. honestly held opinion or comment based on true facts..' because none of the facts exists, even variations of them, they could find favour as a defence, don't exist. Literally, on such matters there is no credible defence. Parker and the others went far beyond honestly held opinion into defamation based on untruths, whether they were careless or not, or mislead into believing the 'truth' as it has existed for them - is wholly their responsibility. There is no room for saying that Aunt Agatha told me and I believed her.

Others have spoken about the aggravating factors of the defamation of Joe Karam in that it has continued as we all see by Taylor, Cameron and others on Trade Me - if had been simply that Parker had believed the mythical 'Aunt Agatha' until the point he discovered the truth, he was bound to withdraw and apologise - but he has maintained his position and in the last few weeks we have seen his 'gallants' revealed as deliberate liars continuing a propaganda campaign. If the blood in the barrel is one of the recorded offences, we may yet hear Stockdale reading from a credited trial transcript the evidence of Peter Ross, or directly from the job sheet of Hentschel the evidence regarding the 'extensive' blood in the rifle, and when asked where it was that he (Stockdale) in fact got his 'truth' we may yet hear who the horse's mouth is. That horse's mouth, or mouths have a lot to answer for and someone is coming calling for those answers. Who will it be? I hope also to hear from some old favourites fattonybalonyobook, nina_concertina, goobergoof, arsew..e - just to name a few explaining the 'truth' of their ongoing defamation.

How thick is he? from Kent Parker....

The following arrived in the mail box. Thanks Kent.

Submitted by Kent Parker on Mon, 25/10/2010 - 12:37pm
Stuff.co.nz have published what appears to be a statement from David Bain and Joe Karam. I assume that an interview did not take place because David Bain giving an interview would be a news item in itself. Rather this article looks like it is the result of a carefully crafted media statement timed perfectly to coincide with the recent publicity surrounding Rochelle Crewe's call for a re-investigation of her parents' murders in the wake of Ian Wishart's book on the subject.

Well Kent we all realise your paranoia would be at its highest at the moment. Interesting that you are so insanely jealous that anybody but yourself might be interviewed about the Bain case - even David. Don't be jealous Kent get over yourself. You're old news now, there's no interest in what you say, the papers won't print your press releases and wont run your advertisements. Having said that there is an extremely high interest in your expected demise in the Auckland High Court. Why don't you concentrate on that Kent, David giving an interview should be the least of your problems. 'carefully crafted media statement timed perfectly' is a little too far on the jealous side Kent, but if you may feel you're been given a lesson by someone with more brains and savvy than you - why simply not admit it. If you feel so absolutely left out I could consider you for the Moron award although I've been waiting for your complete capitulation to do that.

In the statement David makes a public appeal for a formal declaration of innocence from the Crown. I figure if the Crown was going to do that then they would have done it by now, but the reality is that there are far too many impediments against such a move, including the large amount of evidence that incriminates David in the murder of his family. Joe Karam may claim that there are 14 key items that indicate Robin's guilt, but there are at least 114 key items that indicate David's guilt, and the Crown calculates 'innocence' on the basis of balance of probabilities. 114 minus 14 equals 100 in favour of David Bain being guilty. As a well known justice campaigner once said: "A jury does not always get it right" (this was Joe Karam no less). I am not an expert on the history of juries, but I understand that the system was established to enable guilt or innocence of alleged criminals to be judged by a group of "peers" rather than by a group of people holding a privileged position. The trial system provides an event during which a select amount of evidence is paraded before the jury according to a complex set of rules that have gradually accumulated over the years. The judgment happens at a distinct point of time, when the jury delivers its verdict, and cannot easily be contraverted. There is ample opportunity within this system for the truth to be lost, for weak lawyers to inadequately argue the case, or for court rules to allow key evidence to be held inadmissable. The legal system acknowledges this by maintaining that a not guilty verdict does not equate with 'innocence'. If there is public unrest about a verdict and/or new evidence is found, a case that previously brought a not guilty verdict may be brought back to trial and deliver a guilty verdict. In the legal system, trial verdicts are often held in a state of flux awaiting new evidence or appeal.

I hope the above is not an indication of the formulation of your defence Kent because you'll quickly find yourself in the holding cells for contempt. Of course I understand that you have 114 key items that you believe indicate David's guilt, but imagination is no defence Kent, and David's guilt or innocence is no defence to the charges you face. Thanks for your history on the law, but you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about and I would remind you that trying to give the Judge of your trial a history in Law will result in you being placed in the dungeons that still fill the pit below the Auckland High Court.


We can forgive David for being naive about the true nature of his not guilty status, but in reading his statement we cannot avoid the probability that it has been engineered as part of Joe Karam's propaganda campaign to garner public support for his compensation bid. The latest news on the bid is that there is no news. There is nothing to report.

What planet are you on Kent, why would you imagine David Bain would won't to be forgiven by somebody like you. It is you that should ask to be forgiven by him. He's done you no harm, you've never met the man, apart from coming like a thief in the night to steal your way into his life and that of his late family.

In relation to the Crewe case, Joe Karam has the following to say: "If they want to satisfy the public they need somebody like me to work with them because I have an understanding of police files and court documents and procedures. Nobody could then accuse the police of another cover-up." Joe Karam is on another planet. His handling of the Bain case hardly represents "satisfying the public", so what makes him think that he would be any better with handling the Crewe case? This statement reflects very poor understanding by Karam of how "the public" view him. If Karam was to play a part in the Crewe case, then, defamation action notwithstanding, "the public" would be accusing Karam of a whole myriad of other things instead, as they have already done as a result of the Bain case. His controversial reputation and lack of impartiality would be enough to immediately exclude him from any such involvement.

Typically here, as always, your true motive is to attack a man you have driven yourself crazy with jealousy over. Someone who has knocked you off your high horse, who would never have heard of you or bothered with you if not for your attacks against his reputation, something you continue with today, acting like a childish prat that has no understanding of the situation you are in. It's your understanding that is at fault and that's why you are in court. You've stalked people, mounted campaigns based on lies and mistruths and been caught out. Don't you have a decent bone in your body, a mere pulse of brain activity that would tell you that your big mouth and careless ways has only just begun its toll on you.

Plead for a settlement Kent and come clean about your partners in defamation and harassment. It's your only hope and, afterall, it will continue to come out anyway. But anyway I'll see you there, I look forward to your arrival in the Courtroom.

PS. I forgot my manners. Thanks very much for the additional material.

Down to business...

The recent Judge Harvey decision about the length of time defamatory comment is left available to be viewed on the internet or elsewhere, being relevant to the amount of potential damage, is not new in the common law. That situation has been confirmed both in Australia and Italy, in one of those cases the issue was how long the comment had been allowed to 'rest' in public view before being removed, and whether its removal was timely. This analysis puts the culpability of Trade Me, Kent Parker and Vic Purkiss at the higher end for the following reasons.

TM left defamatory comment for extended periods of time after having first been warned a number of times and after concluding that they were not 'responsible,' plainly this aggravated the damage to Joe Karam's reputation. In all circumstances the publisher or publishers should err on the side of caution - for example saying 'while we don't believe the material is defamatory, or that we are the publisher we will remove it anyway.' That they did neither shall prove to be at their own considerable cost. But it goes further, their association with the hate-sites and which they were warned by letter about in November 2009. The association was plainly obvious and recorded. The relationship between the hate-sites and trade Me was and is transparent. This 'relationship,' while probably not deliberate on TM's part, however forms the test of 'err on the side of caution' and fails badly. Because the comment by nina_s, obook and others is clearly defamatory, their links to the hate-sites apparent to the point where mere 'caution' wasn't the issue as TM was deliberately being used in a manner that was and is defamatory harassment by a group of individuals organised to destroy the reputations of others (Jurors, witnesses etc.) And in fact went further than that and criminally stalked and harassed board members and others. No amount of head in the sand stuff can avoid that truth, it's all dutifully recorded not only in posts but also in correspondence. I would imagine investigators have been at work establishing the links between the networking hate-siters as well. I have no small amount of proof of their activities both in criminal behaviour and civil offence. Trade Me allowed it to continue by allowing the return of stalkers such as Annette Curran, Glenda OBrien, Christine Williams and a list that goes on and on supported by 'appearances' of these people in other identities as was the case with Glenda OBrien and nina_s, this all adds significantly to the damage done, and TM's inability or unwillingness to allow it to be done.

Switch now to mother duck and s for brains Vic. The same applies. But even more sinister information emerges. The stalking of the Jury with the knowledge of Vic and Kent, in fact with Vic, his involvement in the stalking - the proof provided by, yes - his very own words. Forays on to TM instigated by Vic. The serious stalking by kalnovitch, Golfergold, misspw, supersleuth and others the proof of which provided by - yes, themselves. So the Jury will see that it hasn't been just a few rash words said in the heat of the moment, but part of a criminal enterprise that has acted sub judiciously in a number of ways and illegally in a number of ways. These people's arses are going to be kicked ad infinitum and then they will pay with monetary recompense and hope to avoid prison. We have witnessed and continue to witness the 'dumb and dumber' of the cyber space world initiated by a bunch of half wit pedo supporters whose day is coming. This won't be a fight, it'll be a whitewash.

'It may spread virally'

These words from Judge Harvey, 'it may spread virally' were talking about the way suppression orders may dissolve on the Internet. When I wrote to Kent Parker about such spread I called it leaking when reminding him he was still responsible. At the moment Kent's sites still leak, the eager twisted Christine Williams, sopheir, and Maryanne Newton citing from a copy of a Trial Transcript, happily in Contempt of Court.

Suddenly, the door is closed.

The recognition of the responsibility of cyber media is upon us.

What we print, or allow to be printed, is clearly now definitive. Cyber defamation, or stalking, defamatory harassment on message boards or on blogs is now recognised as the responsibility, of the author, the publisher or re publisher. The net result of 'I didn't say it', or that 'I thought someone else was responsible' for what someone publishes is now officially on the dung heap. What you say and what you have said is the millstone around your neck, particularly if you thought you could defame and harass others in cyberspace because it was like a 'chat in the pub' as the lard arse osook once presented.

From Judge Harvey's decision today, making judgement on whaleoil the over blown cyber ghost, we now see the damage to an individual or the breach of an order of law is not somehow forgiven by 'I didn't know' or 'I copied from somewhere else' or 'it's what I believed as free speech' is abreast of the times. The rights of an individual and due process regain their foothold. The wild west of cyberspace is corralled. One step at a time of course, but the ramifications are clear - the speaker, or writer, or re printer is responsible for their own words, just the way it should be.

I bet the sisters are pleased.

Defamatory Harassment

Earlier I briefly touched upon what I called a new phenomenon 'defamatory harassment.' I also mentioned the Harassment Act 1997. The Bain case reached an interesting point much earlier when harassers and defamers of Bain were in full rein on a number of sites. That continued even after Joe Karam's law suit was filed in The Auckland High Court. I noted comment abroad that David wouldn't sue because it would 'open' him up to cross-examination. This revelation drove the rate of defamation against the man for some time, attended by a type of joy and self-satisfaction for the hate-siters and their allies. It is something I would like to examine but before doing so I raise the question of what is the 'value' of an acquittal.

In my opinion the value of an acquittal is the ultimate proclamation of innocence, it is the complete an utter test of guilt or innocence. While it assumes that all admissible and relevant evidence has been placed before a Jury it allows a Jury of various backgrounds and experience to arrive at a decision based on the facts. No one apart from the Jury know how they decided on the merits of facts, and in some cases any Juror may not necessarily know why other members reached a particular decision of the facts. The legal systems has for a day a week or a month proceeded in the time honoured fashion of presenting evidence to the Jury, following which the Judge has instructed the Jury on the law relating to that evidence, until finally the Jury are asked to apply their common sense, experience and knowledge to decide the merits of the facts and whether an accused is guilty or not.

Courts will seldom interfere with Jury decisions, most orders for a retrail rely on the Judge not having explained the Law fully, or in some other way not properly instructing the Jury. In rare cases it is because of new or with held evidence. Ultimately David has the value of an acquittal, a sacrosanct value by old law and legal definition, something I believe the Law was originally designed to prevent fear or favour finding it's place in the administration of Justice. For hundreds of years the law has rested on that point - the value of a properly instructed and informed Jury deciding guilt or innocence, a precept that properly doesn't allow any investigation of that decision. A common law value of being judged by ones peers.

So who is this person that calls David a killer or murderer, or psychopath? Who is this person that enters an opinion of a deliberation or investigation of matters of which he or she were never involved, never having heard all the evidence, and never taking part in the deliberations of a Jury sworn, and under oath to do a job on behalf of the citizens of an entire country. He is a defamer. Who is this person who continues to defame David in the 'belief' that David can't or is unable to do anything. He is a cowardly defamer. Who is this person that spreads lies, misrepresents the evidence, makes claims of confessions, sexual misconduct et al, he is a cowardly defamer who lies. Who is this person that continues his comment ad infinitum? He is defamatory harraser to whom every part of the legal system has in his myopic site been seen to have failed, and all the individuals that took part in that 'failure' are to be equally condemned or defamed.

What of this defaming harasser, smugly sitting in a position of power, able to say what he/she likes without consequence? Sue him I say. Sue him for defamatory harassment. Sue him on the basis that his or her comments that David is any number of things are unproveable in law. Sue him and cite the continued harassment as proof that the 'defendant' yes, he has become a defendant (just like Kenty boy, Vic and any posters kent, Vic or Trade Me might enjoin.) Was has David to prove, not the defamation because that is a given - supported by an acquittal as the ultimate test in law of guilt and innocence as an enshrined centuries old right that speaks for itself and for David by its verdict under oath, only the harassment needs to be proved. Where is the proof of that, recorded in many thousands of cases, stored also in private files and provider files all of which note the harassment.

Does David need to speak. No, unless he wishes. Because he has the facts (yes, facts again - the domain of the Jury.) The fact he was held for 13 years under an actual Miscarriage of Justice, the additional fact that a fully informed and instructed Jury gave their verdict of not guilty. He need prove no more than the facts and chose whether or not to give evidence on facts which speak for themselves loudly as defamatory harassment. Ah, says a hate-siter persecutor, but I will call him to give evidence because I 'know' that David is guilty and I just need to conduct a fresh trial. But sorry Ralph, Bligh, the only trial would be your own. If David took the stand he would only need to give evidence regarding the issue before The Court and not to face further harassment as laid out in his Statement of Claim. But by then Ralph, Bligh, Kalnovitch et al your false 'courage and committment' will be spent because like all true cyber-stalkers and harassers the light of day will have defeated you.