LF’s regular followers will have no doubt been awaiting the next installment in the Blomfield files, or perhaps more specifically the publishing of video footage LF managed to obtain in a sting operation some months ago. Readers will no doubt be asking why it has taken LF so long to report on this sting, now known as #Operation Haresay, part of our investigation into Matthew John Blomfield, an investigation that came about because of a Court facilitated fishing expedition by Blomfield in an attempt to force the New Zealand blogger Cameron Slater to disclose anonymous sources that prompted a series of posts that featured on his Whale Oil blog back in 2012.
LF have also be watching with a great deal of interest the seemingly unrelated development of yet another attack on this particular blogger, Cameron Slater following the release of investigative journalist Nicky Hager‘s latest book Dirty Politic’s. We say seemingly unrelated simply because it seems to LF that their may in fact be a relationship which seems to have been conveniently overlooked by those in the New Zealand media; those who have in fact covered this issue.
Hager’s book has it’s origins in the alleged hacking of Slater’s blog. Interestingly both Slater and the mainstream media at the time claimed that Slater’s blog had been targeted with a denial of service (Dos) attack. LF was in fact the only outlet that saw through these claims, we had formed the view that it was a hacker and that the target was likely Slater’s database, material such as his email archive.
LF has since been proven correct. It was indeed a hacker, not a Dos attack and they had indeed been successful in their aim of obtaining Slater’s confidential files and emails, four years worth in total, which they apparently then passed on to Hager.
Whilst Slater and the Kiwi MSM has been busy pointing the finger at the National Party’s main electioneering punching bag Kim Dotcom, LF suspects, as Dotcom himself is claiming, the hacking of Slater’s computer had absolutely nothing to do with the larger than life FBI target.
Dotcom is certainly guilty of bad taste and larger than life antic’s but he’s not that crass, in fact somewhat ironically the hacking, had the target not been himself, is actually more Slater’s style. There are also other suspects that had more reason to target Slater in such a way. Knowing what we know now at least two opposition political parties had ample reason, the Labour Party at the head of that list, themselves having been “hacked” by John Key’s henchmen and the material later fed to Slater.
Then of course there is Matthew Blomfield, the man who at the time obviously had very good reason to attempt to obtain Slater’s files and in particular his emails, after all he’d attempted to obtain access through the courts. One thing is however very certain, the alleged anonymous hacker was politically naive; either that or there was fuck all material that proved as explosive as might have been expected.
LF also has material that Cameron Slater would probably prefer we had not obtained in the course of our own investigations into the Blomfield issue, but more about that later.
LF had delayed the publishing of the #Operation Haresay tapes for one reason only, a particularly good reason, that ceased to be of relevance at the end of the day. The reason for LF’s decision to delay posting the #Operation Haresay tapes, whilst problematic in itself, also had an effect on another very important story, the Stephen Dudley case, again requiring LF to delay the publishing of that story for well over a week.
The reason for LF’s decision not to publish the tapes immediately was that LF had been working in collaboration with one of Fairfax New Zealand’s more prominent investigative journalist’s on a story that would have exposed Matthew Blomfield’s behaviour over many years. The story would also have likely embarrassed other Kiwi journalist’s and the New Zealand Herald, who have continued to provide Matthew Blomfield with a media platform from which to spin his embellishments, lies and deceit.
As recently as last Friday the New Zealand Herald was continuing to publish material vilifying Slater on Blomfield’s behalf, asking nothing of Blomfield that ran the risk of in anyway appearing balanced. Fridays piece was penned by Slater’s arch enemy, APN’s David Fisher. Now Fisher has a history in this battle, having contributed to aiding Blomfield with heavily slanted articles in the past, the last of which was his story covering Slater’s High Court appeal.
David Fisher’s latest effort was however a humdinger, an obvious attempt to yet again muddy the waters, so much so that one really is given ample cause to ask the question; what’s David Fisher’s real agenda?:
Slater faces prosecution for breaching privacy
Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater is being prosecuted for the same thing he is complaining about – using someone else’s private communications without their permission.
And the prosecution could see the blogger ordered to produce in court original copies of information used in Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics.
Slater filed a complaint with the Privacy Commission after Hager used years of hacked email and social media conversations to write the book, which paints a picture of a National government which encourages attack politics through blogs.
But the Commission has recently decided Slater had breached the privacy of businessman Matt Blomfield after the blogger published dozens of posts on Whale Oil based on a computer hard drive he had obtained.
It passed the case to the office of the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, which is now prosecuting him over five days in October.
Barrister Simon Judd, who is prosecuting the case for the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, said Slater was defending the case by claiming he was a journalist and not subject to the Privacy Act.
He said it would be argued Slater was not a journalist – and even if he was, the material he published on Mr Blomfield was not a “news media activity”.
“If he’s putting stuff on the internet about Mr Blomfield where this is no public interest and the stuff he is putting on is private information, we would argue that can’t possibly be a news activity.”
He said he believed some material highlighted in Dirty Politics could be sought from Slater through discovery rules because it had relevance to the prosecution.
Dirty Politics claimed there was an arrangement which saw public relations specialist Carrick Graham feeding posts to Slater’s blog attacking those who challenged his clients.
The posts included attacks on those campaigning against alcohol, obesity and smoking.
He said it could make the case that Slater’s involvement in “public relations work for corporates” was not an activity which was consistent with claims he was a journalist.
Mr Judd said if the prosecution was successful then remedies could includes a financial damages award and an order for Slater to attend a training session on privacy rights.
Mr Blomfield claimed Slater obtained a computer hard drive with 10 years of data on it, including emails, family photographs and legal documents.
The material was used to write content for the blog which had a “huge” impact, said Mr Blomfield.
“It is not just the feeling of having no privacy whatsoever. It’s the privacy of everyone around you that is taken away as well. It’s a very good way to destroy any relationship you have with anyone in terms of trust.”
He said the Dirty Politics case was different as it Hager had removed personal details from the hacked content and it was about public figures.
“I’m running my household. They’re running the country.”
Mr Blomfield is also suing Slater for defamation with a full hearing expected next year.
A High Court decision is pending in the case on whether Slater is a journalist – a status he is seeking in the belief it will allow him to withhold information about his sources from Mr Blomfield.
Slater did not return calls for comment.
The appearance of Fisher’s story last Friday is suspicious for a number of reasons, the misleading content being significant, as is the timing of the articles appearance and Fishers spurious attempt to liken the unlawful hacking of Slater’s website files to that of the circumstances surrounding Slater having allegedly been given the contents of a filing cabinet and digital hard drive.
Moreover, Fisher’ article, it’s spurious content and the timing, is even more curious when combined with the release of Nicki Hager’s book Dirty Politics, in particular one small detail in the content of the first chapter of “Dirty Politics”.
In fact when it comes to Fishers efforts, as they relate to Blomfield v Slater, what’s overwhelmingly obvious is the fact that he has made absolutely no effort to contact or interview Slater’s so called “anonymous” sources, preferring instead to rely soley on Blomfield and anyone else who becomes ensnared in the web, the latest being the office of the human Rights Commission and the Auckland Barrister, Simon Judd, whos been engaged to represent the Commissioner in the HRC’s prosecution of Slater.
As aforesaid, the timing of Fishers piece is curious for a number of reasons. The fact that the HRC was intending to prosecute Slater was announce sometime ago, and the case is not scheduled to be heard for another two months, October in fact. So why did David Fisher decide that this was suddenly newsworthy and needed to be published last Friday?
The other questions that need asking really should be addressed to Simon Judd, the barrister representing the HRC. How was it that Mr Judd came to be contacted for comment? Why was it that he felt it appropriate, as an officer of the court, to pre-empt the High Court’s decision with his own opinion, and it is obviously his opinion, despite the way he has couched his response to Fisher’s questions, because the HRC has decided to prosecute:
Slater was defending the case by claiming he was a journalist and not subject to the Privacy Act…………
“If he’s putting stuff on the internet about Mr Blomfield where this is no public interest and the stuff he is putting on is private information, we would argue that can’t possibly be a news activity.”
So much of what surrounds Blomfield is born of what can only be called complete fabrication, lies and deceit, so just why is it that Blomfield appears to be getting away with it?
We know that Blomfield managed to avoid remaining a banned director because he managed to con lawyer Graham Hare into fronting a company he in reality owned for him, but given the reasons for Blomfield having been banned in the first place why exactly is it that various government departments, including the official assignees office, the Serious Fraud Office, the Inland Revenue Department, the New Zealand Police and now the Human Rights Commission appear to be bending over backwards to facilitate Blomfield’s escape and the persecution of his past victims?
The answers to those questions and much more may well have been answered with the publishing of the aforementioned Sunday Star Times article that LF and others had collaborated on with the aforementioned unnamed Journalist for almost six months.
That article was due to be published last Sunday and would have been a natural fit, providing an appropriate response, the long overdue balance that’s been missing from the bullshit material penned by APN journo’s David Fisher and Bevan Hurley.
Almost six month’s and literally hundreds of hours of research, including first hand interviews, went into writing the article which was to have appeared on the front page of the Sunday Star Times, an article that would no doubt have embarrassed various government agencies and APN’s Herald on Sunday, but at the eleventh hour the Sunday Star Times editor pulled the plug – WHY?
The Article was first to have run two week’s before, with all those who had contributed being advised of its impending publication. With this in mind LF decided to hold off on another very important story, that of the Stephen Dudley case, the police skullduggery involved and the assailants identities.
LF of course asked for the reasons behind the editors decision not to publish the story, being told that it was because the editor did not like the contract LF had with the journo and Fairfax. The interesting thing about that is that the contract had no bearing whatsoever on what the journo could or could not do with respect to how the story itself was presented, the contract simply prevented the newspaper from trashing LF and ensured that we received credit where credit was in fact due.
The reason for the existence of that contract is simple enough. In LF’s experience the New Zealand media is exceptionally dirty, it has a very bad habit of playing the man and not the ball, some Kiwi journo’s and editors seem to get a great deal of pleasure from shooting the messenger, instead of doing their jobs exposing dirt and shedding light on the truth. The New Zealand Herald’s recent sustained attack on Cameron Slater, employing unrelated spurious material, is a well documented case in point.
Soon after LF was advised of the situation we suggested that the journo again approach the editor and ask the question, what if Lauda Finem were prepared to tear up the written agreement with Fairfax – the answer was still an emphatic NO – the story was dead and it obviously had little if anything to do with LF’s agreement with Fairfax.
So why was it that recently arrived editor, Jonathan Milne, decide, after six months of hard work by all involved, at the last moment to pull the plug on a story that would have given many of Matthew Blomfield’s victims a much needed voice and would have been a more accurate and balanced version of what had really transpired? The reasons could be many but LF, based on the available evidence have settled on two more than likely reasons.
The first is that the editor LF had done the deal with had left the Sunday Star Times and had been replaced by another, someone who was obviously willing to work for less, given Fairfax’s recent cuts. That new editor was not happy with the story from the day he had started with Fairfax, a situation that LF suspected would be inevitable simply because the incoming editor had been none other than the second in command at the New Zealand Herald on Sunday – David Fisher and Bevan Hurleys ex-boss.
Had the seriously conflicted journeyman editor Jonathan Milne not already been looking for reasons to abort the story before LF published our article on Stephen Dudley we would have suspected that he had caved in to police pressure not to give LF any oxygen. LF knows that Milne, along with various other Kiwi editors and news outlets were contacted by the New Zealand police and asked not to give LF any publicity, but that request clearly had little if anything to do with Milne axing of the article given the offer to rip up the contract for the sake of the story.
The bottom-line is that it must have been the story itself that worried Milne, as it would have likely left his buddies at APN, and possibly himself, open to a legal claim from those, the likes of the Yelcich family, who had been demonstrably unfairly attacked on what appears to have been Blomfields orders over the preceding seven years. Publication of the SST story would have also blown the Human Rights Commissions case against Slater out of the water, a case which is built largely on seriously flawed reasoning, inclusive of their charge that the publishing of Blomfield’s antic’s by Slater was not in the public interest; which of course is complete and utter horse-shit.
Whilst Fairfax has pulled out of the joint investigation and publishing their investigative report LF will continue to investigate this case.
For those that have been following LF’s reports it must be clear by now that Blomfield and his “business” cronies will stop at nothing in pursuing their agenda. That fact will be more than apparent to those who have read our last post in this series, The Blomfield Files, wherein LF documents the conspiracy between Auckland real estate agent Martin Honey Ray White, a firm of second-rate private investigators, father and son team, Toresen and Thompson and Matthew Blomfield himself, to manufacture evidence designed to again entice the New Zealand police into obtaining a search warrant (to search the telco records of Justice and consumer campaigner Dermot Nottingham) in an attempt to find LF
Blomfield additionally, so as to facilitate the above, knowingly made a false police complaint against Nottingham, alleging he’d sent threatening text messages. That false allegation was the third such false complaint that Blomfield has made in the past 8 months, the other complaints, all with the same M/O, also alleging the use of the Kiwi gang the Head Hunters to intimidate.
In fact it was these repeated attempts by Blomfield to enlist police help in his endeavours to conceal his own likely criminal offending that prompted LF to go in search of evidence, evidence of his contemporary activities beyond that which had already covered during the period prior to Blomfield’s bankruptcy and his being declared a banned director.
LF’s search eventually led to the man responsible for Blomfield’s special exemption status, Lawyer and business partner Graham Hare, who for the duration of Blomfield’s bankruptcy (and beyond) had knowingly acted as a front for companies that were in reality under Blomfield’s control.
As things had begun to heat up and become dramatically more expensive in the Blomfield v Slater defamation case Hare had become increasingly nervous with Blomfield, his tactics and unlawful behaviour. Hare had in fact been forced to conclude that he had gone into business with what he had grown to realise were, to use his own words, three criminals.
The following recording is the second in a series of four covert intercepts between Slater’s witness Mr Marc Spring and Graham Charles Hare.
It was the only occasion where both video and audio recording was possible owing to the outdoor location. Readers should be aware that this tape and an explanatory post were to have been posted last Sunday in conjunction with the material the Sunday Star Times had intended to run prior to Jonathan Milne pulling the plug on the investigative feature the paper had planned to publish.
LF will be posting a slightly modified version of the report we had intended go with the recording in the coming days. We felt however, given the article (above) penned by David Fisher and published in the New Zealand Herald, that it was important that we started to release the recorded material documenting the skullduggery, and the latest collapse in a whole raft of failed Blomfield business relationships; this one being of particular importance given the role Graham Hare played in having set Blomfield loose on an unsuspecting at risk public.
“I’ve been ripped off by Colosimo, but he’s not an evil cunt like Matt” – Graham Hare
(Source: Video below)
One thing is for sure, the HRC may well have it’s work cut out establishing that Slater’s posts were not in the public interest, it may well be that all they eventually achieve is to evidence, in a very public way, just how gravely let down the New Zealand consumer has been at the hands of other equally incompetent government agencies.
Slater may be a political animal who the politically correct, right thinking Kiwi’s on the left of the political spectrum love to despise. Slater may have contributed little to cleaning up the corrupt political landscape of New Zealand, in fact quite the reverse, but in this instance Slater was completely justified in attempting to expose a crook. It’s just unfortunate that he achieved little more in that process than bashing his own head against a proverbial brick wall, otherwise known as New Zealand’s corrupted civil service and mainstream media outlets.
In addition to the covertly obtained #Operation Haresay recordings LF will be presenting evidence of Matthew Blomfield’s involvement in providing corrupt inducements to right aligned local body politicians with connections to the National party; obtaining favourable decisions and response times that other New Zealand businesses could only dream of.
The video below, the second in a set of four that LF managed to capture, absolutely kills the spurious misinformation that been deseminated by Blomfield’s mainstream media bum-boy’s David Fisher and Bevan Hurley. Remember until the shit hit the fan earlier this year Graham Hare was probably Blomfields closest ally, he was certainly the legal entity that Blomfield had repeatedly used to conceal his ownership of property and business activities from New Zealand’s policing authorities and the Official Assignee’s Office;