Vexatious litigation

McCready pleads guilty to blackmail

Graham McCready, serial litigant, fantasist and convicted tax fraudster has plead guilty to blackmail.

Our dear friend, Lord of all f@ckwits, Graham McCready, has saved the court the tiresome burden of examining his difficult and complicated court case by pleading guilty to blackmail in the court yesterday. It has taken almost a year and as recently as two days ago he was sending emails to media proclaiming his innocence. The victim in this case currently has interim name suppression and well they should because otherwise the blackmailer wins.

He has also bizarrely claimed that somehow I have breached name suppression in this case, which I have not, being very careful to ensure I haven’t. He even went as far as laying a complaint with the Solicitor-General, just more vexatious activity from a psychopath wrapped up in his own bizarre little world.

No doubt the thought of porridge motivated him to acknowledge his guilt in the hope of remaining free. The judge will probably give him some sort of gentle custodian sentence, instead of the tougher sentence that tax and blackmail crook deserves.

Let’s note for the record that he’s previously plead guilty to tax fraud, and now blackmail. Lets also note he has brought a private prosecution against Ducky, and a failed prosecution against Banksie (though McCready is trying again, reputedly). He’s even made a pest of himself in Parliament trying to serve Judith Collins and other high-ranking judicial figures.

The judge should lock him up, or if the judge is intent on the wet bus ticket, do it in concert with some kind of legal restraining or vexatious litigant order to prevent more f@ckwittery in the future.

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.