Mr Jan Trotman full of it as usual

Keeping Stock catches out Mr Jan Trotman, 66, kept man of St Mary’s Bay.

Mr Jan Trotman, 66, kept man of St Mary’s Bay issued a press release about the tea-tapes claiming that the case had nothing to do with the Attorney-General. This drunk old fool thinks that it has nothing to do with the Attorney-General.

Except it does:

Check out the decision at this link. The heading of the decision reads like this (with our emphasis added):

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV 2011-404-7392
UNDER The Declaratory Judgments Act 1908
BETWEEN BRADLEY CHRISTOPHER GEOFFREY AMBROSE Plaintiff
AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant
Hearing: 22 November 2011

And here was I thinking that Mr Jan Trotman calls himself a lawyer.

This whole claim that costs is somehow retribution is a storm in teacup. Bradley Ambrose took the government to court to protect his own legal position and lost. Costs are levied against losers, happens every day, especially against vexatious litigants.

  • Troy

    The super sleuth is at it already.¬† I’m surprised it took him 4 days to open his trap and inevitably get something wrong – this is just the beginning, we have another 362 days of this fuckwit to put up with – thanks to numptie NZF voters.

    • RAS

      Don’t forget the tumble¬†down the stairs…

  • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

    Quite so Troy; and to think; Peters owes his seat in Parliament in no small part to Ambrose and to the media who beat up the Tea Tape “scandal”. Perhaps he should ask his missus for a few thou to go to Ambrose as a gesture of solidarity.

  • Apolonia

    Three more years, three more years……..

    • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

      Yep, but I can’t wait until Horan and Williams start to perform like trained seals…

  • GPT

    I doubt it would be seen as vexatious although that’s more a reflection on just how how a threshold it is to be declared vexatious than any merit in the claim.

    Ambrose asked the High Court to make a declaration ON THE PAPERS in a matter where the evidence is in dispute and that is subject to a police investigation.  In short he tried to be a smart ass and he lost. 

    Yet certain, holier than thou, media commentators seem to think that the whole thing is some sort of stalinist anti media plot.  I am at a loss as to why the law, both civil and criminal, should not apply to Mr Ambrose and, by implication, the media.

    As you quite correctly note costs are awarded against losers in court cases as a matter of routine – “costs follow the event” is the usual phrase.¬† Maybe Ambrose and his lawyers will put together an argument that this is an exceptional case where costs should lie where they fall but to suggest that the Crown should not even apply for costs is Martime Union logic.

    And I might add, as a separate matter to the costs application,¬†if Mr Ambrose was really on the moral highground why did he¬†not simply delete the “mistaken” recording…

  • http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/ Inventory2

    That is indeed the burning question GPT; why was Ambrose trying to flog off something which he didn’t even mean to record, and knew that he shouldn’t have?

    • GPT

      Without knowing the guy I suspect it is because he is a morally bankrupt tool.

  • Bo Jangles

    Ambrose now has the difficult task of asking his erstwhile legal backers to stump up his costs.
    Lets see how accommodating they will be now. Methinks they will leave him in the ditch where he belongs.

  • Killjoy

    To be fair, Winston is not claiming it didn’t have anything to do with the AG but that it SHOULDN’T have…

    To contextualise my comment, I wish they hadn’t given him the oxygen to get 5% of that whole sorry episode…

319%