Keith Manch’s victim writes – Jackie Blue, Martin Honey – The “Big Mistake” Plot

This morning we received this letter in an email from the businessman that Mr Kieth Manch is trying to shaft, so as to bury the offending of Martin Honey Ray White Real Estates web fraud:

“Dear Lauda Finem

I read your post about Mr Manchs email to me blaming me for leaking the information that you have obtained from your whistleblower/s.

Chop Chop Manch

I am now likely aware that at least one of the whistleblowers is one of about only 10 persons that have access to our companies internet/email/hard drive facility.  I comprehend fully that the whistleblower/s may in fact be other person/s who are sourcing information from others and on it goes like a wheel conspiracy.  It may be that the final Whistleblower/s do not know the identity of the original sources.

That could widen the actual whistleblower numbers to 50 or more given that Mr Manchs attack on me on behalf of Ms Blue and Ray White has been the subject of disclosure and discussion with literally hundreds of persons given the number of references as to my integrity being sought, and I did not want those references to be obtained without the authors being fully aware of what was wrongfully alleged against me and what Ms Blue, Ray Whites, and the staff at the REAA, inclusive of Mr Manch have done denying me justice.

A number of those persons had material given to them to consider over a number of days before they could give a reference. All of those persons have been shocked by what Ms Blue, Nathan Guy and Mr Manch have committed to as an indefensible course of actions given the behaviour of Mr Honey.

Having discussed the leak with others they do not intend to change security as this does not impact on the companies performance  in relation to other matters such as confidential information of clients, and additionally the process of the REAA should be, like the Courts, completely transparent.

I find it interesting therefore that Mr Manch should feel it necessary to write intemperate threatening emails to the man the subject of false and wrongful, or inaccurate allegations.

I have asked Mr Manch to look at the evidence that proves that his allegations are wrong and he has categorically stated that he will not do this and has given me a week or so to reply when he has been investigating me for 8 months.  Mr Manch wants to make a “decision” just before he leaves for his new job.

At the moment I am very ill and require rest where possible.  Unfortunately most of our staff are also very ill with  various levels of the flu, with the worst approaching pneumonia [which I am one].

Following contact by Keith Manch in the email that you received I emailed Mr Manch stating that I would contact you requesting that you confirm that you did not receive any of the information you have directly from me and that he should give me an apology.  At that time I did not know that you had a copy of his extraordinary email as I told him that I will forward his email to you.

I now know that is not necessary as someone else has done that as they must have found the content deeply objectionable. They are not alone as I have shown the Manch email to numerous professional persons whom have all been amazed that Mr Manch should have been so reckless with implied threats and actual allegations.

One such reader called it the “bad cop email” explaining a reference to Mr Manch’s previous profession.

I find Mr Manch’s email to disclose a lack of compehension as to what evidence is, let alone evidence of supposed wrongdoing.

Could you please consider confirming that you did not receive the information from me and confirm whatever other details are necessary to stop Mr Manch sending ludicrous emails making unsubstantiated allegations in an attempt to intimidate me and my family.

I find it objectionable that he alleges that I am confrontational given his agressive and demanding behaviour which is based on assumption that I would be the only person that found his intimidating behaviour not in keeping with his role in the REAA; especially given the evidence against Mr Honey, and the fact that the REAA has initially upheld the complaint against Mr Honey (as being worthy of investigation), made by a director of our company.”

Lauda Finem does not reveal the identity of  whistle-blowers or any other source of information we receive. We are however happy to acknowledge that the businessman concerned is not one of the parties responsible for forwarding the information to us.

In this particular case we have had a number of sources from whom information has been received. We have sent and recieved emails from all number of parties, including the players at Ray White Real Estate, New Zealand and Australia.

Naturally where we do have a whistle-blowers details, their identities will not be disclosed. Perhaps Mr Manch might like to look inside his own organisation – the REAA.


Note: The video below was disabled by YouTube on  20 April 2012 after someone in power (we suspect via YouTube partner TVNZ) falsely alleged that what amounts to an evidential tape was defamatory. It is of course not defamatory, the truth never is, but the video does evidence Mr Honey’s criminal offending and that must be embarrassing for Mr Honey and the REAA.

Lauda Finem have also taken the extraordinary step of closing our YouTube account (in protest) and will be working over the weekend to have the video evidence up and running again, this time under the complete control of so that the likes of Martin Honey and his corrupt national party mates cant touch it………so pop back soon

Categorised in:

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: