Colin Craig

Should Family First be renamed Misogyny First?

Three wives, numerous mistresses, nearly a dozen victims coming forward, but Bob McCoskrie’s Family First re-tweeting in Donald Trump’s defence.

One of the most extraordinary days during the Williams v Craig defamation trial was when Colin Craig was lining up cronies to try to defend the indefensible in his treatment of Rachel MacGregor.  The various witnesses – mostly Conservative Party officials and staff -all coincidently sung off the identical song sheet: “inappropriate” nothing more, nothing less. They even all had the same spelling mistake in their briefs of evidence.

They were forced to read the “You are wonderful” love letter with the “You have the most beautiful…” line.  They all refused to accept that it was ‘sleazy’ or evidence of sexual harassment when questioned by Williams’ lawyers. They merely parroted Colin Craig’s favourite word ‘inappropriate’.   Read more »

What do Angelina Jolie and Colin Craig have in common?

You wouldn’t think that Hollywood star Angelina Jolie and Colin Craig would have anything in common but it turns out that they do share one trait. They share a belief that they can use their wealth to control what famous bloggers write about them.

Angelina Jolie is threatening to sue Perez Hilton.

The lawyers for the 41-year-old actress… have emailed the celebrity blogger to ask him to change certain aspects of his report on her split from Brad Pitt, or face legal action.

Posting a screenshot of his email response on Instagram, the 37-year-old star wrote: “In other news, #AngelinaJolie’s lawyers at Greenberg Glusker have just threatened to sue me for my coverage of her split from #BradPitt. ME!! I have always been one of Angelina Jolie’s loudest and strongest supporters and defenders!!!!! This was my email back to Angelina’s lawyers, #BertFields and#PriyaSapori. Glad I’m not running for president!! [sic]”

Read more »

Lessons for Crazy Colin from David Lange

David Cohen writes at the NBR about some lessons for Colin Craig:

A jury has found that the onetime Conservative Party leader Colin Craig defamed Taxpayers Union founder Jordan Williams. The country has found out a lot more about Mr Craig’s style of office management and questionable poetic skills. So what was in the widely covered case for the media to discover?

Mr Craig’s whopping loss – the jury ordered that he pay a plump $1.27m in total – has been described as a classic defeat for the onetime political aspirant who has spent a significant amount of time in recent years launching his own defamation actions against some critics.

Indeed Mr Craig first came to many people’s attention in 2013 when he threatened a satirical news website with legal action after claiming it published a story designed, as a lawyer’s letter put it, “to make him look ridiculous.”

On the face of it that action only seemed to underscore the proposition being argued against, as well as suggesting Mr Craig had no idea about the purpose of satire.

A year later, of course, he was at it again with another defamation suit, this time against the Green Party’s Russel Norman for having effectively accused the Conservative Party leader of being a conservative in his views on homosexuals and women – at which point the expensive arguments seemed to be getting inexplicably ridiculous.

In life as in law, though, arguments are sometimes not about what they’re about.

Read more »

Who is afraid of being sued by Colin Craig?


Who is afraid of being sued by Colin Craig? If the flurry of articles in the media critical of Colin Craig are anything to go by I would say almost 100% fewer people than the day before Jordan Williams won his defamation case against Colin in court.

Media and individuals had good reason to be afraid. Not many men have the kind of money that allows them to silence critics with merely the threat of a lawsuit. Colin Craig is a very wealthy man with deep pockets. So deep in fact that he thought nothing of spending almost 2 million dollars of his and his wife’s money on a vanity project that they both felt ” passionate ” about.

Before Mr Craig lost to Mr Williams editors were vigilant, telling their journalists to dial it back whenever they strayed into subject matter that might attract Craig’s legal attention. After all, Mr Craig has a history of threatening to sue people whenever they say something he doesn’t like. The satirical site The Civilian, for example, caught his attention and was threatened with legal action. They swiftly backed down but maintained their satirical bent with a carefully crafted apology.

“We retract the statement and apologise to Mr Craig for any harm we have caused to his impeccable reputation. We would like to note that we have also taken the additional measure of bolding the statement in question so that everybody knows which thing it was that Mr Craig did not say.”

-The Civilian

Since Jordan William’s win, however, it seems as if the Editors have turned to their journalists and said, “Go ahead, knock yourselves out, say whatever you like.”

If you think I am exaggerating here are some quotes from satirical site, The Spinoff.

Read more »

Colin Craig commits to the long game of beating Williams, Stringer and me in court

Colin Craig is digging in for the long haul:

“We put 10 years of savings into it, we gave it all our heart and soul, it was our number one priority and we lived it for three years – we absolutely care about it, it’s a passion for us.

“Whether there’s an opportunity to be involved in the future, there’s a lot of water that’s got to go under the bridge before we can answer that question.”

He got “very uninvolved” in his business affairs while running for election, and says that’s also on the backburner.

Instead, his number one priority is dealing with his legal disputes, as well as spending more time with his children and wife Helen, who stood by his side throughout the defamation trial.

“I have an amazing wife, children that I love and who love me, and a strong family network, that’s very valuable at times like this.”

Read more »

Colin Craig becomes Nigel No Mates

The media asked John Key about the possibility of any accommodation with the Conservative party next year, or indeed anything at all involving Creepy Colin.

John Key believes it would be unlikely for the National Party to make any deal with Colin Craig or the Conservative Party for a seat in Parliament following the defamation case against Mr Craig.

“He might have a few more bills to pay first,” said Mr Key.

Mr Craig was found guilty of defamation last week and ordered to pay Jordan Williams $1.27m, and just this week it was revealed the Human Rights Tribunal ordered Mr Craig to pay Rachel MacGregor $128,780 earlier this year for breaching a confidential agreement between the two.   Read more »

So who was the spy?

If you didn’t think the Colin Craig shenanigans could get any there is spy in the mix.

A suspicious man wearing dark sunglasses and a black jacket spotted lurking around Jordan Williams’ lawyers’ chambers during the Colin Craig defamation trial worried his team that he was a spy.

It turned out to be a witness who was later subpoenaed but Williams’ legal team tried to link the “so called lurking incident” to Craig.

In judicial minutes released to media today, Justice Sarah Katz detailed the drama which happened at the end of the first week of the trial heard at the Auckland High Court.

Justice Katz said on Monday, September 12 she received an email from Williams’ lawyer Peter McKnight about an “incident of concern” the previous Friday evening.

When they were leaving the lawyer’s chambers, they saw “a man with black square glasses ([t dusk] and a black jacket, peering into the foyer, seemingly attempting to read the tenant information”.   Read more »

Someone needs to learn to STFU

Fresh from a weekend slapping after losing a major defamation suit, Colin Craig has gotten slammed by the Human Rights Review Tribunal with another record sum.

You couldn’t read a more damning report with line after line essentially describing Colin Craig as a creep and one who was extremely self-serving and very economical with the truth.

The stories he has told for the past 18 months have been laid bare finally.

You’d think he would shut his gob.

Mr Craig, responding to the release of the ruling, said he respected the decision, but believed there were mitigating factors to his breaching of the confidentiality agreement.

“Either I stayed silent, no matter what people said about me and watched as my silence was interpreted as guilt, or I broke my confidentiality agreement with Rachel MacGregor in the course of defending myself,” he said in a statement.

“I accepted that I was in breach of my confidentiality obligations both publicly and when the breach was considered by the HRRT.

“However, I thought there were very strong mitigating circumstances.   Read more »

Conservative Party keeping door open to allow Colin Craig to return

Leighton Baker, via The Press

Leighton Baker, via The Press

As reported by Newstalk ZB earlier today

Conservative Party spokesperson Leighton Baker said the door is still open to Craig coming back, but they don’t know what his plans are yet.

“If I was in his shoes I probably wouldn’t want to,” Baker said. Read more »

Dancing on the head of a legal pin

Colin Craig’s lawyer, Stephen Mills QC, says they will appeal on the basis that the jury did not consider the argument of qualified privilege.

That is simply dancing on the head of a legal pin.

Here is the problem. The jury was given what is called a Question Trail. That is a trail of questions they need to answer in a logical manner to step them through the legal complexity of defamation law. The judge spent two hours summing up and directing the jury on how to use this Question trail to come to their decisions.

The Question Trail was drafted by Craig’s lawyer, then approved by Jordan’s lawyer and then finally by the Judge. Mills drafted the Question Trail to start with the defence of Qualified Privilege, then move to truth when that failed and then to honest opinion after that.

The Question Trail contained 14 questions, and there were two counts, so the jury had to step through 28 questions and write up their reasoning beside each one and hand that to the judge after the verdict was given.

The first few questions stepped through qualified privilege. They would not have been required to step through any more questions if the jury had considered qualified privilege and decided it applied. They clearly passed through those questions after quite some time…they deliberated for 10 hours.   Read more »