defamation

McCullum vs Cairns: Only one can be right

collage_650_052014024443

What are the odds of both Brendan McCullum and Chris Cairns speaking the truth and both stories work in together flawlessly? ¬†¬† Read more »

Colin Craig suddenly not so litigous

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman and Conservative Party leader Colin Craig have resolved their dispute over Norman’s comments about Craig at the Big Gay Out earlier this year.

Craig had filed a lawsuit against Norman after the Greens co-leader claimed that Craig thought a woman’s place was in the kitchen and a gay man’s was in the closet.

A joint statement issued by the Greens said both accepted that the comments were made on a political occasion, but they disagreed about what the comments were understood to mean.

“Neither party considers there is value in continuing with the dispute in the courts.

“They jointly issue this statement to draw a line under the dispute. There is no issue about damages, since Mr Craig never sought them, and both parties have agreed to bear their own costs.”

Didn’t Russel Norman get a boat load of money to fight the lawsuit? ¬† Wonder where that ended up?

 

– Stuff

EXCLUSIVE: Another Hager and Fisher lie exposed

“Mr” Hager, using my stolen emails, drawing conclusions based on incomplete information, writing a narrative and not checking it with the people involved,¬†any of the people involved for factual correctness before publishing, has been pushing the idea that I was involved in having a prisoner moved. ¬† He’s published a lie that Minister Judith Collins organised this.

David Fisher, in his partial and very sanitised “Mea Culpa – I used to be manipulated against my will by Cameron Slater” piece in the Herald the other day may also take note of the fact, instead of how he likes to present things.

Below, is an OIA reply from the Department of Corrections.  All personal details have been redacted to respect the privacy of the person who requested the OIA.  A non-redacted copy is in my possession.

1a

Read more »

The Simpson Grierson Challenge

Yesterday, Kim Dotcom revealed that two “junior” lawyers are tasked with keeping up to date with Whaleoil every day so they may compile material for a rumoured defamation suit.

It’s nice to know we have you here. ¬†I’ve called you Tom and Jerry. ¬†It’s so much nicer to have names. ¬†After all, you know mine.

il_340x270.565679397_rsuv

Not really Tom and Jerry. Actually, I don’t know this. This may in fact be Tom and Jerry. But I’m fairly sure it isn’t Tom and Jerry from Simpson Grierson

Now, I don’t see why you should have your enjoyment of Whaleoil spoiled by actually having to do real work.

Just so you know I’m thinking of you, I’ve encrypted something truly defamatory. ¬†Your challenge is to decrypt it.

d7 42 c4 13 ba 08 f3 eb 23 35 82 1b 27 96 96 5f 72 89 a5 cc e7 aa 1f 19 c3 08 69 4a dc 7c a3 2e 05 22 12 5c 11 b7 bc f8 fd 46 d3 5a 69 dd d3 46 17 2e 9d 7c 6f 0d 87 5e 62 7d ba 83 b7 30 82 5a 77 52 b3 dc 8d e2 59 86 d3 f7 02 1a 7a 07 e8 23 2a ff 3e 5a 79 cf c0 0f b7 8b 5d a8 5f 1b 95 11 69 06 be 6e 9e 57 4a 7d 87 e8 7a c6 a2 c8 84 d9 75 17 c1 9c 9e ff eb 36 f8 94 10 15 ec 76 9e 4b e8 99 73 1f 27 c5 b4 58 48 8c fe 5e 39 99 c3 61 bf b8 36 e4 c5 e9 d6 28 ec ad 54 e0 21 ae 53 b8 63 b6 3e aa 2d 48 d2 11 5c 44 6f 20 67 c4 82 d2 06 f5 26 16 c8 ae bc 78 d5 7c cf 44 03 a1 d1 9b 5b dc d9 1b 65 dd 2a 24 91 df 65 09 08 c3 f6 d3 86 a8 57 21 09 23 b9 4c 01 5c 06 7a e3 eb d5 6d 80 03 e8 f8 b2 e6 57 aa b1 9b e0 99 7b 43 a8 cd 70 46 34 14 3f f8 1b b8 2e e1 40 6c c5 a0 f7 60 93 bd 4f 49 9b 48 0c 03 9a 3e 40 a9 bc 6e 27 bd 0f a0 bd 64 86 25 b2 56 02 f0 d6 5f 82 26 fd f5 af 1b ff 49 6b f2 1f ab d9 2a f5 44 1f 7a 24 ab a2 e9 8c cb c5 ab c7 ce 54 30 41 a4 3e 1e 6e 4a ac f4 de 13 26 1c c4 14 fc 92 27 0e 2a 89 57 8b 1e a7 f3 ba 44 b5 63 fa 0e a7 f7 69 7e 6c 8b 85 50 20 18 97 01 a8 88 8f d4 c1 11 84 72 d7 51 0d 28 12 03 fd dd ab cd 78 96 4b a3 10 94 d6 16 e6 b2 e4 6a 0a 24 d1 d2 f4 be 49 87 52 a6 e8 6e eb af 1c 62 7e 3f 86 02 99 45 be ef 1b 25 1c e0 ed 5b d3 a2 c1 08 02 9d 37 2b 87 2a d3 85 2a b6 0a f7 5b b0 90 85 ec 43 c0 24 6a d6 3d a8 25 c8 81 88 a6 4a 7b e6 4c ff ad 7d df ef 3b 96 b4 26 Read more »

More impertinent questions

Is Kim Dotcom the person with the most active court actions in NZ right now?

Is he McCready’s 2nd cousin?

How many of those did he start himself?

Why so many?

Is Whaleoil the¬†only media organisation that hasn’t had a legal letter yet?

When will the bullying to silence criticism stop?

Was the Church of Scientology analogy reasonable?

 

Internet Party defamation lawsuit: I will welcome the chance to present every fact I know

qw2 Explaining to Mathew Backhouse, Dotcom says:

Dotcom said he had a meeting with a company that had suggested surveillance of Slater, including taking photographs and seeing who he was meeting. “But then I thought about my own GCSB experience and I felt very uncomfortable with the idea of doing that, so I just didn’t go ahead with it.” Dotcom said his legal team was monitoring the Whale Oil blogsite. “There are two junior lawyers that every day go there to see what new defamation he is writing, and they have been building the case. So that is what I was talking about.”

The defence phase of a defamation trial is simply fascinating. ¬† Read more »

Internet Party defamation lawsuit: I will welcome discovery

qw2

Explaining to Mathew Backhouse, Dotcom says:

Dotcom said he had a meeting with a company that had suggested surveillance of Slater, including taking photographs and seeing who he was meeting.

“But then I thought about my own GCSB experience and I felt very uncomfortable with the idea of doing that, so I just didn’t go ahead with it.”

Dotcom said his legal team was monitoring the Whale Oil blogsite.

“There are two junior lawyers that every day go there to see what new defamation he is writing, and they have been building the case. So that is what I was talking about.”

The discovery phase of a defamation trial is simply fascinating. ¬† Read more »

Another court declares that bloggers are indeed media

While my own case winds slowly through the judicial process, being opposed now by two recently appointed barristers, we can now see that other jurisdictions are catching up with developments in the media world.

In a court in Florida, in a similar case to my own, the court has found that a blogger and their blog can be and are considered to be media, and as a result can be considered a legitimate media property.

A few years ago, we¬†wrote about¬†the bizarre and quixotic effort by Florida businessman Christopher Comins to find any possible way to sue University of Florida student and blogger Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis for¬†his blog post¬†concerning a widely publicized event in which Comins¬†shot two dogs¬†in a field (video link). The story made lots of news at the time, but Comins didn’t go after any of the major media — instead targeting VanVoorhis for a defamation suit. The original blog post is “novelistic” but it’s difficult to see how it’s defamatory. Either way, Comins’ case was¬†shot down¬†on fairly specific procedural grounds: namely that Florida defamation law requires specific notice be given to media properties at least 5 days before a lawsuit is launched. Specifically, the law says:

Before any civil action is brought for publication or broadcast, in a newspaper, periodical, or other medium, of a libel or slander, the plaintiff shall, at least 5 days before instituting such action, serve notice in writing on the defendant, specifying the article or broadcast and the statements therein which he or she alleges to be false and defamatory.

Comins’ lawsuit was dumped because he failed to give such notice. Comins argues that he did give such a notice (though the letter he sent did not meet the requirements of such notice under the law) and (more importantly for this discussion) that VanVoorhis’ blog did not count as a media publication, and thus the law did not apply. The original court ruling rejected that pretty quickly, and now on appeal, a state appeals court has¬†not just rejected Comins’ anti-blog claim more thoroughly, but also highlighted¬†the importance of blogs to our media landscape. ¬† Read more »

An outing at the High Court

Yesterday I spent the morning at the High Court.

I was all set to argue the point about my media status and all of a sudden things got a little strange.

Not to worry a new date has been set and the Judge is seeking counsel to assist. I am ok with the proceedings as they were today.

A Queen’s counsel will be asked to weigh in on Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater’s appeal over whether he is part of the media.

Slater’s appeal was adjourned today in the High Court in Auckland with Justice Raynor Asher saying the issue was “quite important”. It would require an interpretation of an aspect of Section 68 of the Evidence Act for the first time.

Slater and businessman Matthew Blomfield are representing themselves.

The judge said he wanted a defamation expert appointed as amicus curiae – an adviser to the court – to research the law and give him an impartial view before he made his decision.¬† Read more »

So, I’m a journalist now

Cameron Slater went to the High Court last Thursday to overcome the next legal hurdle in the defamation case taken out against him by Mr Matt Blomfield.

For those of you late to the story, Whaleoil was given access to information about Mr Blomfield’s business dealings regarding Hell Pizza. ¬†Due to a series of events, allegedly supported by Mr Blomfield’s own documents (allegedly, because we’re still subject to legal action), some of Mr Blomfield’s business dealings ¬†were reported on, especially those surrounding Hell Pizza and Hell Pizza sponsorship.

Mr Blomfield took exception to having his business emails published and took Cameron Slater to court for defamation. ¬†Part of this process is that all the articles about Mr Blomfield on¬†Whaleoil have been removed from public view, and we are under a suppression order from the Court that stops us from revealing any new information about Mr Blomfield – anything that isn’t already out in the public domain.

As part of that legal tussle, Mr Blomfield wanted to know who provided Cam Slater with access to the emails and documentation. ¬†Whaleoil doesn’t reveal sources. ¬†We never have and we never will, so Slater respectfully told the judge he couldn’t do that, and invoked protections under the law allowing journalists not to be compelled to reveal their sources by a Court.

The next legal step was therefore obvious to Mr Blomfield: ¬†insist that Cameron Slater isn’t a journalist, and Whaleoil isn’t part of the media.

A District Court judge found in Mr Blomfield’s favour, and insisted Cameron Slater reveal his sources. ¬†Again, this was resisted, even though Cam Slater was now clearly in contempt of court. ¬† Read more »