When it comes to anything Matthew Blomfield one always has to question the motivation behind the mans allegations. To date LF have exposed lie after lie, conspiracy, collusion and theft. We’ve also exposed a meriad of false police complaints, collusion with dodgy private investigators, all of them bent ex New Zealand cops. In fact given the evidence against Blomfield one would really have to ask the question, are the New Zealand police protecting Blomfield? If so why? Was he for example at some stage ever a police informant?
Whatever the reason the New Zealand Police have failed to curtail Blomfield’s bad habit of using police resources and time to advance his many agenda’s. Blomfield has accused all in sundry of having connections to outlaw gangs. First it was the Yelcich family in 2007, Blomfield, as is almost always part of his modus operandi, then arranging to have that lie promoted by both the local APN print media and one of New Zealand’s national television networks.
There have of course also been false police complaints against Cameron Slater, Mark Spring and Kiwi Justice Campaigner Dermot Nottingham, falsely alleging everything from gang threats to nasty threatening texts, yet not a peep from the New Zealand police with respect to charging Blomfield, not even a nuisance warning – why exactly is that?
However the police’s failure to halt Blomfield’s often conspiratorial harassment of people, somewhat ironically for the most part those who have accused Blomfield of harassment, a fact that is more than clear in High Court Justice Raynor Asher’s recent decision, this behaviour will eventually provide circumstantial evidence that should support Slater’s defence.
In this post it is Slater’s defence to the defamation tort that we are interested in analysing and as such we will be using just two example’s from Blomfield’s statement of claim which will undoubtedly prove difficult in getting over the line.
We will start with the claim at section (8) which deals with the above post published by Slater in May 2012:
8. That on the 4th of May 2012 the defendant wrote and published a story on the website www.whaleoil.co.nz entitled “Operation Kite” A copy of the story is annexed Schedule 3 and is available to anyone with internet access.
a) Statement 1: “To summarise, Matt Blomfield in tandem with advice from his faithful lawyers, and a number of emails to Waitakere City Council conspired to steal a cheque from a PO Box, using some private investigators..”
I. The plaintiff engaged in a conspiracy with private investigators to steal someone else’s property.
II. The plaintiff used the services of dishonest lawyers and attempted to mislead the Waitakere City Council in order to steal a cheque that did not belong to him.
III. The plaintiff is a thief.
b) Statement 2: “Matt, on the advice of his lawyer then tried to launder the money but was caught by a vigilant bank..”
I. The plaintiff was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to legitimise monies obtained dishonestly.
II. The plaintiff is a person who engages in criminal activity.
III. Without the vigilance of a bank, the plaintiff would have succeeded in appropriating illicit funds for his own benefit.
VI. The plaintiff is a thief.
The evidence is that Blomfield had indeed engaged in a conspiracy to grab a cheque from his then business partner Paul Claydon, that Blomfield had paid bent private investigator Daniel Toresen to assist with this conspiracy and that Blomfield then sort advice from his bent lawyer mate Mike Alexander on how he could get his hands on the money, Alexander advising that the cheque could be banked into the account of another party by endorsing the cheque as long as the bank didn’t smell a rat. Those events and facts have already been set out in previous LF posts.
Of obvious interest to LF is why Toresen (see below) chose to code name Blomfield’s plan to steal the cheque as “operation kite”? (Perhaps it had something to do with fraud, specifically cheque kiting)
As noted in previous posts, Infrastructure NZ was established in 2005 by Matthew Blomfield and Paul Claydon as an earthworks & contracting business.
It is apparent from the email correspondence that in December 2008 Matthew Blomfield’s empire was under significant duress. Westpac was pressing Blomfield for a large sum of money and Blomfield was telling Westpac that he had funds coming in from one of his companies. That company, of which he was indirectly a 50 percent shareholder in, via another entity (Tyrion Holdings Limited), and a director of was Infrastructure NZ Limited.
Note: Paul Micheal O’Connor the current sole director of Tyrion Holdings Limited, appointed apon the resignation of Blomfield’s defacto partner (Rebecca Blatchford), is a very close associate of Matthew Blomfield’s and prima facie appears to have been party to an ongoing conspiracy, commenced in 2010, to defeat Blomfield’s bankruptcy, the appointed official assignee and Blomfield’s creditors (see: BlomDumps, Act II – The modus operandi of brazen fraudster’s)
How Blomfield set about obtaining the money was the result of a falling out with partner Paul Claydon, and the aforementioned ‘Operation Kite’.
Quite simply, Blomfield in tandem with advice from his lawyer Mike Alexander, the use of a number of emails to Waitakere City Council conspired to intercept a $99,841.42 cheque from the council, payment to Infrastructure NZ Limited, that had been mailed to a PO Box in Greenhithe, Auckland. Using the services of Daniel Toresen and Paragon investigations (Paragon staffers, with the exception of Toresen, all being ex cops) to make sure Paul Claydon was kept at bay, Matthew Blomfield was successful in grabbing that cheque as planned, but it was not dealt with in the manner that had been set out in Toresen’s bogus brief;
“The objective of this agent is to ensure that BLOMFIELD gains possession of the cheque and banks it into the account of INFRASTRUCTURE. This is to be done lawfully and with a focus of preventing any violence or escalation/threat of violence” – Daniel Toresen
Blomfield’s intent had clearly never been to pay the cheque into the account of infrastructure NZ Limited as stated by Toresen. That had been a complete lie as can be seen with his next actions once he had obtained the cheque in question. Its also clear that Toresen was likely involved in the fabrication of the brief to cover his own arse.
Note: More recent evidence of Daniel Toresen’s willingness to enter into criminal conspiracies with Matthew Blomfield surfaced earlier this year, a scheme that backfired when one of LF’s police Kiwi insiders provided evidence in January, a false police statement supplied by Toresen; Blomfield then unwittingly confirming the plot in August with an email to his associate, solicitor Graham Hare (see; The Blomfield Files – The Thompson & Toresen Conspiracy Rapidly Unravels).
Blomfield immediately emailed Lawyer Mike Alexander and on the advice of Alexander (then employed by law firm Knight Coldicutt) laundered the money by depositing the $100’000 cheque into another account, but was in fact eventually caught by a bank. Whilst the bank did finally reverse the cheque it had not been as quick as Blomfield, by the time the bank had got around to reversing the cheque Blomfield had as was his plan already removed the funds from the account.
The bank of course pursued Blomfield for the $100k debt, but Blomfield vigorously opposed the claim, as usual using obstruction and deceit, the Banks perfectly legitimate claim, ultimately, with no plausible defense, Blomfield lost to the bank, to late for the bank to recover the funds however as Blomfield was up to his neck in debt and in 2010 bankrupted.
Just why it was that Blomfield was not then charged with Crime’s Act offences is completely beyond comprehension. Of course the Crimes Act is not subject to the same statute of limitations as civil claims, so the avenue of a criminal prosecution may still be available to the aggrieved creditors including paul Claydon.
The facts are that Blomfield, assisted by a Daniel Toresen (bent private investigator) and his lawyer Mike Alexander entered into a conspiracy to unlawfully obtain the cheque using a scenario fabricated by Blomfield, with intent of unlawfully transferring the funds into Blomfield’s own personal ASB account. Blomfield then spent the misappropriated funds on either himself or on paying down unrelated personal debt.
Blomfield clearly knew that he had no personal entitlement to the funds, that’s precisely why he sort Mike Alexanders advice on how best to have the cheque cleared in an account other than the payee’s. Alexander also clearly knew what Blomfield was up to was unlawful, Alexander’s statement, “Only thing is will the bank accept it….?”, would, to any reasonable observer, indicate that much.
It was therefore also quite reasonable for Slater, on the available evidence, to have drawn the conclusions he did. In fact it seems that the Official Assignee had probably drawn exactly the same conclusions when Blomfield was subsequently banned as a company director in 2010.
Clearly then Slater was correct on all counts but two:
“III. Without the vigilance of a bank, the plaintiff would have succeeded in appropriating illicit funds for his own benefit”
“VI. The plaintiff is a thief.”
Slater got these two points wrong, Blomfield had in fact been successful in misappropriating the cheque and then converting it, and the bank had in fact been to late to effect recovery. In LF’s view Blomfield should have been charged by police – so why wasn’t he?
Daniel Toresen and Mike Alexander should also have been investigated to ascertain the extent of their participation and to assertain the extent of any benefit they may have derived from the theft of $100’000.00.- They too escaped scrutiny – again why? It may well have had something to do with Daniel Toresen and Paragon Investigation’s often corrupt relationship with serving police officers inside the New Zealand Police force.
Next up in Blomfield’s Statement of Claim against Slater is the allegation that Slater had defamed him when he posted a story entitled “Ghostwriting for Repeaters 101”, Blomfield opines;
9. That on the 8th of May 2012 the defendant wrote and published a story on the website www.whaleoil.co.nz entitled Ghostwriting for Repeaters 101. A copy of the story is annexed Schedule 4 and is available to anyone with internet access.
a) Statement 1: “Ghostwriting for Repeaters 101” “So…..there are heaps of bad news stories about Hell Pizza, and about how Warren Powell is this mad, evil, narcissistic demagogue controlling and manipulating everyone….it makes for good copy and that is exactly what Matt Blomfield did…copy, loads of internal emails to tame and lazy journalists…like Maria Slade at the Herald on Sunday.”
I. The plaintiff has been personally responsible for all the ‘bad news’ stories written about Hell Pizza and Warren Powell.
II. The plaintiff actually wrote stories and articles that were published by the media.
III. The plaintiff has engaged in a conspiracy with journalists to publish negative stories.
b) Statement 2: “What is galling about this is that the information that Matt Blomfield sent Maria Slade was confidential court documents including the summary of defence. Maria Slade had a scoop, nicely packaged and fed to her by a Hell insider so that the story could be painted about a dysfunctional company.”
I. The plaintiff acted on his own and with malice in sending confidential court documents to a journalist in order to procure a story.
II. Hell Pizza directors were unaware of the plaintiff’s activities.
III. The plaintiff plotted with journalists to portray Hell Pizza in a light that he knew was false and malicious and did not paint a true picture of the company.
When it comes to item (9) on Blomfield’s defamation tort shopping list it would seem that he knew himself that he was in very hot water. At (9), (I) Blomfield states:
“The plaintiff has been personally responsible for all the ‘bad news’ stories written about Hell Pizza and Warren Powell”
The truth is that Blomfield had been personally responsible for every single “bad news” story that APN publications the Herald on Sunday and The New Zealand Herald and unrelated publication, The New Zealand National Business Review had published on the subject of Hell Pizza and Warren Powell, that’s a fact that is more than satisfactorily supported on with the available evidence. LF has made that same allegation for some time, providing the evidence in support.
What is however amazing is that Blomfield has all of that evidence himself, some of it obtained when the OA gave him a copy of the hard drive that Slater had provided Anthony Pullan with in 2012. Mores to the point Blomfield, despite this, lied like a fucking flat fish around this claim in particular.
That fact was further established when LF received the “Blombdump” files. Within the mass of documents we received anonymously we found a series of emails sent in mid 2012 from Blomfield to the APN journalist, Maria Slade, who had indeed been responsible for the article Slater had used to illustrate but one example of Blomfield’s malicious activities, targeting, at various junctures, either Hell Pizza and or Warren Powell.
Of course Blomfield draws a very long bow with some of the inferences and the subsequent conclusions he is asking the court to arrive at, claims that are unlikely to be sustained given the fundamental fact that Blomfield had, without a shred of doubt, been entirely responsible for Maria Slade and co-writer Alice Neville’s article “Big slice of trouble” which was published on March 14, 2010:
On Friday March 12, 2010 Maria Slade had in fact sent an email to Blomfield, attaching a copy of the final draft that was to appear two days later in the Herald on Sunday, but quite why it was that she was concerned that her article might appear somewhere other than her newspaper is puzzling.
One explanation is of course that Blomfield had, in addition to the confidential Hell Pizza court documents, also at some stage supplied her with his own draft, or brief, on what it was he had wanted Maria Slade to write and that she was subsequently afraid Blomfield had also supplied his draft to competing news outlets.
The inference can certainly be draw in this case, but we doubt that it had been Slater’s intent when he published his post “Ghostwriting for Repeaters 101”.
Slater, as does LF, knew that Blomfield certainly had editorial control over the content of Maria Slade’s piece, that much is unquestionable but he also knew that Blomfield’s behind the scene’s “editorial” imput had not been limited to just Maria Slade’s Herald on Sunday article “Big Slice of trouble”:
The fact is Blomfield had undoubtedly also been behind Slade’s APN associate Bevan Hurley’s anti Hell Pizza and Warren Powell campaign. The stories that Hurley penned on the Serious Fraud Office raid on Hell Pizza and Warren Powell’s home are but one example of Blomfield’s hand being behind the “bad news” APN media coverage.
LF reported on Blomfield’s SFO scam in an earlier post, “The Genesis of a defamation scam” where we again used recently obtained emails to evidence that Blomfield had undoubtedly orchestrated the SFO raid itself, making a series of malicious and false allegations against Hell Pizza and its directors, and then supped that information to Hurley, prompting the Herald on Sunday article’s reporting on those same events.
There are of course additional emails that prove beyond doubt that Blomfield was behind every “bad news” story ever written by either Bevan Hurley or Maria Slade on the subject of Hell Pizza and or Warren Powell and that the APN staffer’s lied, actively engaging in a conspiracy to conceal Blomfield’s involvement:
There is also evidence, again emails, that link Blomfield to similarly themed “bad news” articles that appeared in New Zealand’s National Business Review during the same period.
Blomfield had an extensive history of using his media contacts to write “bad news” stories when it suited his agenda. He had in fact been doing it as far back as 2007 when he was attempting to fuck over a Northland farming couple, Boris and Jean Yelcich and their son Regan Yelcich. On that occasion in addition to the print media Blomfield also employed the services of another dodgy security firm, a Kiwi television network and well known television journo, ex 60 Minutes presenter, John Hudson, all chomping at the bit to do Blomfield’s dirty work (See: TVNZ, John Hudson, Matthew Blomfield and the Ruawai Property Scam – Part Two).
What’s interesting about Blomfield’s claim against Slater however is that Blomfield himself admits that he does not have the evidence necessary to prove that Slater had defamed him, as he has alleged in section (8) of the statement of claim. What’s also clear is that Blomfield was not at all deterred by that fact, by the looks of it he’d planned to coerce his media mates into inventing the evidence for him.
LF have obtained a series of emails from July 2012 between Blomfield, Slade another Herald on Sunday part-time feature writer, Damien Grant and lawyer, Angela Hansen, who was closely associated with his one of his fraudster mates, solicitor Mike Alexander, the man that is caught red handed in an email setting out a conspiracy that defeated Blomfield’s bankruptcy, his creditors and the Official Assignee to boot (see: BlomDumps, Act II – The modus operandi of brazen fraudster’s).
Suffice to say, true to form, Blomfield has lied in his statement of claim against Slater. In fact Blomfield has been lying and inventing stories for years, not just for the benefit of his media mates however, he’s also lied to the New Zealand police, the office of the Official Assignee, crown lawyers and on many occasions, other than the Blomfield v Slater matter, he’s lied to the Court.
What is unusual about his dealings with Maria Slade, just in case anyone missed it, Blomfield appears to be attempting to coax Slade, and later Hemsaith Alexander’s Angela Hansen, into providing him with false testimony, perhaps in affidavit form. What exactly was it that Blomfield meant to convey with his statement “Talk to Mike, think about it……whatever you can or can’t do“
Why did he feel the need to provide Slade with precise details of his purported recollection of events, then setting out what he needed her to say? Surely, had Maria Slade any recall of her own it would have been available without the need for the obvious “prompts”.
Again, it seems to us that Blomfield was coaching both Slade and Hansen on exactly what it was he needed them to provide him with.
This pattern of behaviour is also found in an email Blomfield sent to another of his dodgy lawyer mates, Bruce Johnson, again attempting to obtain evidence that would corroborate his own version of history and counter Cameron Slater’s. It seems that in all three emails Blomfield is coaching the potential witnesses, asking them to provide a little something extra, to go that extra mile, otherwise known as perjury?:
It appears that lawyer Bruce Johnson was the only one that eventually obliged Blomfield by providing what he had asked for, although by the time Blomfield had filed it three days later Bruce Johnson had also been very careful in how he worded his affidavit. What exactly did Blomfield mean by “We all have our little part to play……….”. What part was it that Blomfield had wanted Bruce Johnson to play and to protect who exactly?:
LF has now obtained fresh evidence of yet another false police complaint laid by Blomfield, only two weeks ago in fact. That very interesting story is coming up soon.