defamation

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 »

Who is managing Labour’s social media campaign?

Settle down children, I’m about to tell you a story!

Let’s say a political leader, let’s call him Conservative Party leader Colin Craig, says that a woman’s place is in the home. ¬†And to make this more fun, another political leaders, let’s call him Green party co-leader Russel Norman, refers to this in a allegedly derogatory sense in a speech.

Now, Colin doesn’t like it and decides to sue Russel for defamation.

This is all over the media, and it looks like a mess.  The whole concept of women belonging in the home is somewhat ridiculous to most voters.

Apparently, neither Colin nor Russel think the Woman’s place is in the house, but they are going to court to fight over it anyway. ¬†The proper place for a woman is a hot political issue in 2014.

Meanwhile, in a political party, far, far, faaaar, away, some social media genius is thinking: “How shall I make an impact in this election?”

“Oh, I know!” Read more »

Using defamation to stifle free speech

Michael Tracinski has a great article about the current Mann vs Steyn defamation action being used by Michael Man in an attempt to shut down criticism.

I was reminded of this in coming across a little sidelight to Mann vs. Steyn, the defamation lawsuit filed by scientist-turned-activist Michael Mann in an attempt to suppress the speech of global warming skeptics, starting with conservative writer Mark Steyn.

As I have explained¬†elsewhere¬†Mann is attempting to legally punish any attempt to “question his intellect and reasoning”‚ÄĒthat’s from the DC Superior Court, which preposterously backed his argument‚ÄĒon the grounds that Mann’s scientific claims have been investigated by multiple government panels, which have exonerated him.

This claim, by the way, is already falling apart. As Steven McIntyre¬†explains, one of the examples Mann cites is a British panel that did not actually investigate Mann‚ÄĒits focus was on the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, the epicenter of “Climategate”‚ÄĒand in its announcement of its results criticized Mann’s methods as “inappropriate” and his results as “exaggerated.” At the time, Mann felt so exonerated that he sent harassing e-mails to the scientist who made that remark, demanding a retraction and an apology. Mann then went on to tell the BBC that such a retraction was forthcoming. It wasn’t. All of which tells you a great deal about Professor Mann’s credibility.

But that’s not the main issue. The main issue in the suit is Mann’s appeal to authority in the first place. He cites the various government investigations as reasons why, as the DC Superior Court put it, “to question [Mann's] intellect and reasoning is tantamount to a [libelous] accusation of fraud.” Mann’s goal is to make it a legally punishable offense to question a scientist’s honesty or even his thinking method.¬† Read more »