We here at Lauda Finem have sat back and watched with complete amusement and a big grin over the past few weeks whilst the New Zealand Herald, followed by the NZ Labour Party’s unofficial propaganda rag, The Standard, as they have both published articles dissing Slater and allegedly two of his sources, throwing everything they could get their hands on but the kitchen sink.
True to form however the material that both culprits, being the New Zealand Herald’s David Fisher and the Standard’s Lynn Prentice, have managed to throw was nothing of any real significance. You know, little things like facts were conspicuous in their absence, instead both preferring hearsay and of course their seriously compromised opinions – opinionated shit that has not come close to even resembling evidence. Both men, if you wanted to call them that, are typical Kiwi bullshit artist’s really. Mind you, having said that, even New Zealand’s High Court judges are prone to using hearsay evidence, whilst calling it something else, when it suits their agenda.
Three articles by Fisher and Prentice were initially of interest, those articles then subsequently followed up with another three opinion pieces penned by The Daily Blog’s Martin Bradbury, most of which, while ill-informed on the issues surrounding Blomfield v Slater, appeared to be little more than an attempt to service a desperate desire to lash out at the New Zealand police for their dangerous anti-press freedom raid on the home of investigative Journo Nicky Hager and of course attack Slater just for the hell of it.
Of course Martin Bradbury has had his own very similar experiences to those of Hager with police threatening Bradbury with a prison term if he did not remove a satirical image dissing New Zealand’s police force over their corrupt lack of response to the Roast Busters rape case.
The six articles in question are as follows;
Ex-pizza boss Matt Blomfield: Whaleoil and me (David Fisher, The New Zealand Herald, 9th August 2014 at 4:00 pm [NZDST], url; http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11339962)
Even the police sense the hypocrisy (The Standard, Lynn Prentice, published 9th August 2014, 4:20 pm [NZDST], url; http://thestandard.org.nz/even-the-police-sense-the-hypocrisy/
How Slater manufactures smears (The Standard, Lynn Prentice, published 14th August 2014, 9:45 pm [NZDST], url; http://thestandard.org.nz/how-slater-manufactures-smears/
The things Whaleoil did to Matthew Blomfield & why haven’t Police chased his stolen emails the way they did for Slater? (Martin Bradbury, The Daily Blog, published 10th October 2014 at 11:00 am [NZDST], url; http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/10/the-things-whaleoil-did-to-matthew-blomfield-why-havent-police-chased-his-stolen-emails-the-way-they-did-for-slater/#sthash.pXFaNlzU.dpuf
The Blomfield IPCA letter – Has Dirty Politics leaked into the NZ Police force? – (Martin Bradbury, The Daily Blog, published 16th October 2014 at 10:00 am [NZDST], url; http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/16/the-blomfield-ipca-letter-has-dirty-politics-leaked-into-the-nz-police-force/#sthash.jEnpAs9O.dpuf
Comparing Police action – Hager raid vs Roast Buster case – (Martin Bradbury, The Daily Blog, published October 19, 2014 at 11:10 am [NZDST] url; http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/10/19/comparing-police-action-hager-raid-vs-roast-buster-case/#!prettyPhoto
David Fisher’s piece in the New Zealand Herald even appeared to have a completely different writing style to that which could normally be attributed, causing team LF to suspect that either Fisher had not been the author or he had been using crack or a spot of crystal meth whilst writing it, a suspicion that was finally laid to rest when the newspapers acting editor confirmed Fisher had in fact been the author, or at least that Fisher was willing to accept responsibility for it.
We now suspect, given the number of editorial changes that followed the posting of Fisher’s article, that it had been rushed to press for some reason before he had actually had time to craft and polish a finished product.
LF also suspects this to be the case because of the very short delay (a matter of minutes) in Lynn Prentice following Fishers lead in posting his own piece of crack addled horse shit. The time at which Fisher published his article is suspicious, 4:00pm on the 9th October 2014, late on a Thursday afternoon; not exactly consistent with the New Zealand Herald’s normal publishing habits, or has David Fisher suddenly taken up blogging?
What is interesting about these strange coincidences, the out of the blue timing of Fisher and Prentice’s articles, is the fact that the sudden appearance of their stories seemed to coincide with various New Zealand government agencies, creditors, receivers, liquidator’s and the Serious Fraud Office all having received a mysterious package from Lauda Finem, in fact in the majority of cases that very same day.
Those early Christmas presents contained LF’s recently acquired “blomdumps”, a large cache of anonymously supplied evidence further supporting Cameron Slater’s allegations in the case of Mr Blomfield’s nefarious activities around his bankruptcy, and various other frauds.
Of course Cameron Slater would have had no way of knowing that LF had been busy mailing evidence to New Zealand’s government policing and business oversight agencies, or even been aware of this extraordinary coincidence with the articles, when he penned his own response to Fisher’s spurious allegations and posted a tweet;
THE LIES BY OMISSION AND INFERENCE OF A TAINTED JOURNALIST [UPDATED]
by Cameron Slater on October 10, 2014 at 10:00am
David “Tainted” Fisher has let his personal hatred of me cloud his judgement. Perhaps he thought he could get away with it because his editor, Shayne Currie, is on leave.
He has written a piece on the NZ Herald site yesterday that has so many errors in it it could almost be called a work of fiction. The NZ Herald has already had to correct it twice, but I’ve thought overnight about the most outrageous claims by David Fisher and decided I couldn’t let it stand.
“Tainted” Fisher wrote this:
Blomfield had fought off the attacker, fiercely enough that police later found blood from which they took DNA.
He struggled to think who might want him hurt, or worse. In the end, he came up with a suspect list of 285,000 people – the monthly readership of the Whaleoil blog, who he believed had been given every reason to think he was one of the worst people in New Zealand.
So David Fisher, and his subject, have decided by inference that the person who attacked Mr Blomfield must have been one of you. You should feel outraged by this…not just by the inference but by the fact that David Fisher, and his subject, know who the attacker was, there was DNA evidence after all, and they also know that the attacker has been in custody since July. His details are displayed on the Police website, including what he has been charged with and when he was arrested.
My Police sources also tell me that this man is a Mongrel Mob associate and despite another person being named as the alleged attacker no evidence exists that proves that, nor do the police suspect that person and the naming of him is viewed as nothing but a vexatious complaint designed to hurt and malign. I don’t know about you guys but I suspect my readership is non-existent in Mongrel Mob circles.
Quite apart from the other simply wrong assertions, it is those ones, the ones that impinge the reputation of me, this site and the readers of this site by a lie of omission and then an inference is outrageous.
The fact that other blogs have spread this, has made their defamation worse.
If I had the money, or like Nicky Hager the services of a pro bono lawyer then I’d likely sue both the NZ Herald and David Fisher for such an egregious omission of fact. Fat chance I will ever get an apology from them for such an outrageous slur and defamation.
This is how the media operate in New Zealand, they run campaigns, they lie by omission, they seek to destroy without any facts.
It is time we were Freed from this sort of nonsense.
UPDATED: Matthew Blomfield has asked me to remove the details of the person who came to his property from the Whaleoil website. He has a young family and is concerned that associates and family members of this person will read the post. Unlikely as that is, as you all know I hold family in high regard so I have agreed.
Mr Blomfield also said that “He has no evidence that Mr Slater was involved in the attack at his home and that he made that very clear to David Fisher”
So David Fisher damn well knew that someone had been arrested and omitted that, and instead made the suggestion that both me or my readers were responsible.
– NZ Herald
We are not going to reproduce the articles in question, the url’s are above, no doubt interested readers will have already perused their specious contents and the half-baked conclusions that all three idiots arrive at whilst they deliberately continue to promulgate the spurious allegation that the all important Hard Drive was stolen – despite LF repeatedly providing evidence that the allegation is a complete and utter fabrication, albeit a lie that justice Raynor Asher conveniently picked up on, then inappropriately used in his judgement, again despite evidence to the contrary being offered up by Slater.
All three of these authors have now made much a do about the police investigation into Blomfield’s allegation of theft, but it is only since the police raid on Nicky Hager’s home that they have started alleging a conspiracy between Slater and the police, if one is to believe the tall stories, allegedly designed to bury Blomfield’s complaint, and then somewhat foolishly attempted to compare the hacking and theft of material from Slater’s blog and his various other online accounts earlier this year to that of the police’s raid on author Nicky Hager’s home, the police purportedly searching for evidence of the identity of “Raw Shark” (or should that be Rorschach?), the so-called hacker who has confessed to the thefts, also very publicly admitting to the illegality and danger of what he or she had done.
Now we know that all three authors do read Lauda Finem, despite being highly likely to deny that fact. We also know that they are fully aware of what we have produced in the way of evidence supporting our allegation that Blomfield’s claimed theft of the hard drive is completely false. Slater’s witness Marc Spring has also ensured, just for the hell of it, that these individuals are kept up to date and aware that the various new allegations against Slater cooked up by Blomfield are wholly false:
So why is it that all three (Fisher, Prentice and Bradbury), without producing a shred of evidence themselves in support of the claim’s made in their articles, remain hell-bent on promulgating Blomfield’s false accounts?
After all, not even the New Zealand police are now willing to accept Blomfield’s accounts at face value, in fact Blomfield’s proclivity for running to certain journalists, so as to obtain favourable media, has been noted by police and is, according to at least one investigating officer, of serious concern. It’s been a very bad habit that has apparently, if one is to again believe the police, hampered their investigations.
Well in the case of the leftist blogger’s Prentice and Bradbury the question as to why they continue to peddle a series of myths as fact could arguably be answered simply by pointing to their left leaning political agenda’s, in the case of Prentice as far left as you get (he’s obviously not been told that the USSR no longer exists), political activism, support for Kim Dotcom’s case (especially in the case of Bradbury, given Cameron Slater’s own one-eyed opinions in that area) and a subsequent personal dislike of the right-winged Slater – dislike might not in fact be a strong enough descriptive, as far as Prentice is concerned outright “hatred” would certainly be more apt.
David Fisher’s behaviour on the other hand is in an entirely different league. His involvement and promulgation of this particular falsehood is harder to explain, beyond his history of complicit dealings with Slater that he obviously now wishes to distance himself from, the only available explanation for his ignoring the evidence is the fact that the Herald on Sunday and it’s parent, APNZ, could well be facing a massive damages claim from the shareholders of the now defunct Tasman Pacific Foods (TPF), the former owners of Hell Pizza, courtesy of articles penned by Fishers APNZ (Herald on Sunday) associate Bevan Hurley at Blomfield’s instigation.
The New Zealand Herald, the Herald on Sunday or rather their parent APNZ could also soon be facing another court challenge, an attempt to claw back a fraudulent preferential payment of well in excess of $100’000 that was made by Matthew Blomfield to another APNZ company using unrelated investors money, funds that they had provided for another enterprise, cash that should properly have been invested in a completely unrelated corporate entity.
Now as regular readers will know we here at team LF are in no way fans of, or apologists for the New Zealand Police force, quite the opposite in fact and it would be complete idiocy to even attempt to suggest otherwise.
In fact it could justifiably be argued that LF would run rings around either Fisher, Prentice and or Bradbury when it came to exposing corrupt Kiwi cops and or pointing out the incompetence of the New Zealand police force in general.
On this occasion however it would seem that the boot is indeed on the other foot, albeit somewhat conveniently for the trio because it just happens to serve their respective agenda’s to continue to fabricate an unlikely scenario, the false notion that the New Zealand police have somehow failed to properly investigate a simple case of the alleged theft of a hard drive, claiming instead the intervention of Slater’s much touted political connections, an allegation that is hilariously inept in it’s over-the-top construct
In fact Lynn Prentice in particular has extrapolated on the myth to the extent that he’s even been willing to put words into the mouth of IPCA chair, David Carruthers, with both Prentice and Bradbury referring to a letter Blomfield received from the IPCA, a letter that Blomfield obviously promptly ensured was in the hands of at least two of the authors within a matter of minutes.
The IPCA letter has variously been used, again by Prentice in particular, to claim that the police officer responsible for the investigation into Blomfield’s false complaint was little more than a “junior officer”, although that particular claim is certainly nowhere to be found in Carruthers letter and is indeed so far from the truth as to be laughable.
All three, Fisher, Prentice and Bradbury have ignored the elephant in the room and instead preferred to accuse the police of incompetence and worse, corruption, in what was essentially a very simple investigation. Prentice, quoting Carruthers, opines;
“I can confirm that Police had reported to us that their investigation had “found the missing hard drive to have never been stolen”.
I can however now also confirm to you that Police are currently reviewing the investigation and that finding.
So the Police are now trying to decide if a junior officer got that decision right.
My personal guess in the wake of the Police’s raid on Nicky Hager for the same kind of allegedly stolen material is that Cameron Slater is going to wind up in court. Either facing charges on receiving stolen goods or as “witness” like Nicky Hager. Somehow I think that trying to cover himself with a figleaf of being a “journalist” is going to be less successful in court than a action of a real journalist like Nicky Hager is likely to be.
What is abundantly clear in the above excerpt is that Lynn Prentice clearly does not have a law degree or anything even resembling common sense for that matter, he’s little more than a grandiose posturing charlatan, long on rhetoric short on detail or indeed facts.
It’s clear from David Carruthers letter, when read in its entirety, not just the tit-bits that Prentice prefers, that he is now acting on another complaint to the IPCA, no doubt received from Blomfield, and that he personally has required that the police re-investigate their own investigation (as will become apparent, Slater himself had in fact already demanded that IPCA and police do exactly that) procedures and whether or not their finding that neither Slater or his sources played any part in the alleged theft of a hard drive, as claimed by Blomfield.
From the IPCA’s position all this means is that the bumbling Carruther’s is inclined to be covering all his base’s, if only to make sure that both the police and the IPCA can be seen to have applied “best practice”, just in case the shit hits the fan, because both parties are now claiming police corruption, albeit under very different circumstances, with very different allegations and with very different motivation’s.
From the police’s perspective, LF knowing what evidence should be in the investigating police officers’ possession, and the availability of additional material, in the way of material further supporting Slater’s claim that the hard drive was never stolen and that Blomfield was completely knowledgeable of that fact, will now be looking at their investigation to determine whether or not their investigation was deficient in any way.
Of course in the process of that review they will likely also revisit Slater’s suspicion of police impropriety in this case, wherein Slater had alleged that on the face of it there may have been a prior connection between Blomfield and the investigating officer, Martin Guest, given the way in which constable Guest aggressively pursued the first investigation, Blomfield’s systemic historic use of Auckland’s North Shore police station to file improper false complaints, the irregularities in the police’s own paperwork and the very close physical proximity of Martin Guest’s Greenhithe residence to that of Blomfield’s Rame Road home address – so close as to have been considered neighbours.
Of course these are all points that Slater raised with police and also the IPCA, strangely given Carruthers latest letter, to no avail. It is therefore highly unlikely, given the IPCA and police’s first “thorough” investigation into alleged police impropriety that the police’s new focus could possibly be on Slater or any of his sources for that matter.
There is after all, especially given the evidence police have, bugger all to be achieved by looking in that particular direction. Police already have the evidence required to prove that the hard drive was not in fact stolen, moreover that it was never at any time owned by Blomfield. Of course to seal the deal so to speak police may be requiring Blomfield to stump up with the all important receipt for his purported purchase of the device in question – a receipt that Blomfield does not have.
With the IPCA’s request that police take a closer look at their own officers actions whilst investigating Blomfield’s theft complaint the police will also be required to re-investigate the aforementioned allegations of Slater, a file that the IPCA’s chief Investigator, corrupt ex-cop, Pieter Roozendaal had advised Slater was closed (see IPCA letter below).
One of the allegations from the outset was that Blomfield had been a serial offender when it came to making false police complaints (listen to recorded conversation between Slater and constable Guest below). LF suspects that if police do head in this direction, as they should if they are doing their job without fear or favour, then they may well find evidence in and around Blomfield’s theft of circa $100K, better known as “Operation Kite“.
It is highly likely that Blomfield’s so called private investigator, Daniel Toresen, also contacted Auckland’s North Shore police warning them of his role in the affair immediately prior to the theft, in an attempt to legitamise the criminal conspiracy between himself and Blomfield.
Police will no doubt also be able to locate evidence of a pattern, with numerous prior false complaints having been made by Blomfield against Hell Pizza, Marc Spring, Warren Powell and last but by no means least Justice campaigner Dermot Nottingham. All complaints that very quickly went nowhere but which Blomfield then later used in various media smear campaigns, just like the one in which he is currently using David Fisher, Martin Bradbury and Lynn Prentice – the only inference available, given the systemic nature of Blomfield’s bad habits, is that he has systemically and corruptly USED the police, wasting valuable police time to further his own criminal agenda. This of course will not, should the police actually do their job, bode well for for Matthew Blomfield, once the police start joining the very obvious dots.
What has also been ignored by all three so called journo’s, most notably by Fisher, who being a seasoned professional investigative journalist would undoubtedly have known better, is that Police are also bound to preserve the rights of Journalists to protect their sources, in that police cannot simply kick in the doors of journalists offices and force them to divulge their sources in the course of an investigation. They too need to seek a Court order or warrant (as they did when searching Nicky Hager’s home), it’s for a High Court judge alone to decide and that is as it should be. Although having said that the warrants they did obtain in the case of Hager are likely highly questionable for the reason that they may have been obtained via a lowly court registrar or a District Court Judge, no doubt, if so, an attempt to avoid the Evidence Act 2006
In Slaters case the police had absolutely no evidence that an offence had been committed, at least evidence sufficient to have enabled the issuing of a search warrent against Slater. This then, it could be argued, may appear to have limited the police’s ability at the time of Blomfield’s false complaint to ascertain which of Slater’s sources had been responsible for supplying the hard drive. Not that in reality it ultimately did limit the scope and or outcome of the police’s primary investigation hence the one remaining unassailable fact, the hard drive was never stolen and Blomfield had no legitimate claim to it.
After all despite the passing of almost two years Blomfield has yet to produce so much as a purchase receipt or any evidence whatsoever that the hard-drive was in fact his, nor will he, a fact that was pointed out by none other than Asher J himself during the hearing of Slaters appeal, but subsequently somewhat strangely recalled differently by Asher (at para  of his judgement, the reverse of what had actually been established and in fact voiced by Asher at hearing), or perhaps just conveniently ignored in his judgement, with exactly the opposite inference being drawn, without a skerrick of evidence supporting Ashers twisted conclusion. Of course this outrageous misconduct should come as no surprise given the criticisms levelled at New Zealand’s judiciary in the recent past;
“What sort of madness has infected our legal system when what would be misconduct for a barrister becomes routine – and consequence-free – for a judge? It is certainly not consequence-free for the hapless litigant who gets seriously short-changed for his court filing and hearing fees.” – Tony Malloy QC
The IPCA’s Judge Carruthers makes passing mention of the fact that the police have now reopened the investigation, obviously at Blomfield’s insistence. What Curruther’s is less forthcoming about is why only now have police decided to reopen their investigation? The fact is that the police can only now be seen, at least publicly to do so because of Justice Asher’s seriously flawed and biased decision allows it – Slater’s sources are ostensibly no longer protected, becoming collateral damage born of Slater’s appeal, Blomfield having arguably unlawfully slipped in an appeal himself (allowed without seeking the ordinarily required leave to cross appeal) wherein Asher, at odds with the facts, then declared open season on Slater’s sources, thus the police can now arguably demand their identities, not that a need for them to do so has actually arisen, as the sources involved have all already been spoken to by police.
Of course this open season on Slater’s sources may in fact have had a very small window of opportunity, a very limited shelf-life that at a guess may now have expired with the likely advent of an appeal.
Lynn Prentice likes to label Slater (and supporters, LF included in this case) “legally ill-educated wits”. In fact so confident is Prentice of his superiority that he has made a habit of placing bets on the various interlocutory outcomes in this case, most of which, notably, he has to date lost. Most of those who follow Prentice in particular, admittedly with the odd exception, are hardcore leftist wannabe’s who’s comments on the real issues behind the Blomfield v Slater case are little more than perfunctory and ill-informed, commentary that by and large consists of little more than gratuitous personal attacks on Slater himself, as followers they are sheep, largely content with repeating the rhetoric of Prentice, hanging on to his every self congratulatory pronouncement and “prediction”. In fact the reality is that anyone who dares to hold an opinion different from that of Lynn Prentice or any one of his suck-hole co-contributors is prevented from posting.
“Of course that hasn’t stopped the lawless right like the the scamboys of Laura Finem taking photos of me and Blomfield in the high court in session without the permission of the Justice” – Lynn Prentice
By now it should be more than obvious that Lynn Prentice has made a very bad habit of publishing falsehood, whilst LF has never taken a photo of him or Blomfield for that matter, as our geographical location prohibits it, a number of our readers have and of course we have used them, as would any media outlet. Prentice also has a bad habit of labelling anyone who disagree’s with him ‘Right‘ wing or in our case ‘the lawless right’. Of course LF is neither ‘right’ or ‘left’ wing, our focus has never been politics per say, unlike the Standard, we support no one in a political context. Rather LF’s material has always been heavily focused on corruption and injustice. In fact most other Bloggers have deduced, correctly, that we in fact lean in most areas to what would ordinarilly be considered the ‘Left’ of the political spectrum (example: Jackal Blogroll), at least in that we are inclined to put human, civil and legal rights before any political consideration.
So, then, where did Prentice obtain the evidence to support his ‘Lawless Right’ label? Thats right, Prentice has again made an accusation without a shred of evidence to support it. Of course, having very thick skins, we are far from offended, but it is worth pointing out if only to establish yet again the ‘modus operandi’ Prentice is often given to employing in his feable attempts to discredit opponents.
Unfortunately for Prentice, and his precious Labour party, they have not figured out yet that readers are hungry for reliable information, facts in particular, not fucking regurgitated political rhetoric. In fact, get rid of idiots like prentice and the Labour party might even stand half a chance at the ballot box.
In one of his recent posts Prentice states “My personal guess in the wake of the Police’s raid on Nicky Hager for the same kind of allegedly stolen material is that Cameron Slater is going to wind up in court”. Just what the Nicky Hager raid has to do with the Slater v Blomfield case is anyones guess, but Prentice is often given to drawing long bows. The odds are not good for Prentice on that score however. In fact it seems, to us at least, that Prentice’s so-called personal “guess-work”, or for that matter his use of the word “allegedly” are not going to save him, Prentice is clearly delusional, determined to lose his shirt with his most recent wager.
LF on the other hand is apparently bucking the media trend, we’re willing to place a small bet on a little something that just might have better odds and actually pay off for Slater, that Slater will indeed again be in court, but only on the matter of an appeal. Justice Asher’s judgment (in the second part) was appallingly constructed, it paid little attention to law or for that matter the known facts presented during the hearing.
In fact Asher seemed to actually depart from anything resembling fact when determining Blomfield’s flawed and arguably unlawful application (made without leave to cross appeal) and that may come back to bite the judge on the arse. It’s a judgment thoroughly deserving of an appeal, in the “public interest” of course. It’s an observation that has also been picked up on by a number of LF readers, one example of which was eloquently presented by the adroit Mr Harry Stottle, Harry opines:
For the record – for disinterested [impartial] read uninterested [incurious]. Assuming Blomfield wants to take Slater for not more than $200,000 Blackie had jurisdiction to hear the cocksmoker’s interlocutory application in the District Court [see District Courts Act 1947 s 29(1)]. Blackie had jurisdiction in deciding Slater’s blog was not a news medium within the meaning of s 68(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 and, therefore, Slater was not a journalist under s.68(1) of that Act. The only authority he referred to in reaching that decision was a Law Commission report on which he commented that he could find no reference to support the contention that the defendant’s blog site could be regarded as a news medium.
Blackie either could not or did not read the report. As Asher J noted ”the report did not indicate a view that the definition of “news medium” could not apply to a blog… the Commission expressly considered the scope of the definition of “news medium” and stated the definition may be wide enough to encompass a blog or other website” Having reached this ill-founded decision Blackie relied on Rule 8.38 of the High Court Rules [Schedule 2 of the Judicature Act 1908], to order Slater to answer the cocksmoker’s interrogatories and make disclosure. He stated that ”the court has jurisdiction with reference to Rule 8.38 of the High Court Rules.” Yes, true. But Blackie confuses jurisdiction and authority. Clearly he couldn’t or didn’t read s.2 of the Judicature Act which defines Judge as ”a Judge of the High Court”. Only the latter can make an order under Rule 8.38. Blackie had jurisdiction to reach a decision but not to make the order which was an ultra vires act. Not surprisingly, given that it appears to be common practice amongst New Zealand’s judiciary, Asher J is silent on this point.
His silence does not inspire confidence in the administration of justice in New Zealand.
Neither do his comments in respect of Slater’s witnesses in the defamation proceedings. He states ”Therefore to sustain this defence Mr Slater will need to demonstrate that he genuinely held the views that he expressed. In this regard, the identity of those who provided information to Mr Slater may be relevant. While malice is irrelevant, if a source is known to be angry and biased, it may be less likely that the journalist had a genuine (that is honest) opinion about a vilifying statement. Conversely, if the information originated from an apparently reliable source, that fact could make it more likely that the opinion subsequently based on that source was genuine”.
Now I consider myself a normal reasonable person. I am not legally trained but a benefit of having attended school is that I can and do read, unlike Judge Blackie. To me Asher J is saying;
a) although I appear to be making hypothetical comments I am actually referring to Slater’s witnesses
b) Slater’s witnesses are angry and biased
c) they are not reliable sources
d) whilst dismissing malice as a factor the witnesses are nonetheless malicious and;
e) Slater will, in view of my comments, now have a hard time proving honest opinion.
No doubt if these comments ever become the subject of an appeal they will be described as ”unfortunate” by Asher J’s nonce in a wig mates rather than what they are – biased and prejudicial to Slater’s defence.
– LF Reader Comment, Harry Stottle, 18th September 2014, 9:40 pm [CET]
So we are therefore left with three big IF’s – IF Slater appeals, IF Slater is successful in said appeal (should he decide to attempt overturning Asher’s decision) – and last but by no means least IF the latest police investigation into the issues surrounding Blomfield’s complaint determine that Blomfield has indeed knowingly made a false accusation, will police then at last see fit to prosecute Blomfield for his systemic criminal offending in this area?
LF thinks, given the ongoing spin-doctored crap that Blomfield and his new media fuck buddies seem determined to keep promulgating, likely believing themselves shielded by Asher’s fanciful judgement, that it’s now more likely than ever that Blomfield could in fact be charged with conspiring to bring a false allegation when he has knowingly made a number of false complaints to police.
After all, as LF pointed out some months ago, Blomfield has made a very bad habit of using the police as his own personal stand-over men throughout his career as a fraudster and would have undoubtedly had his attention drawn to the small print at the bottom of his many police statements, just above where he was required to sign the documents.
Knowing the New Zealand police as we do however we won’t be holding our breath, or waging any money on police prosecuting Blomfield. We do however suspect that Slater and the others that Blomfield has made a bad habit of falsely accusing will certainly now be completely within their rights to also agressively pursue a result from this apparently “reinvigorated” police investigation:
“I confirm the truth and accuracy of this statement. I make the statement with the knowledge that it is to be used in court proceedings. I am aware that it is an offence to make a statement that is known to me to be false or intended by me to mislead.”
The remaining content of the aforementioned articles produced by Fisher, Prentice and Bradbury is completely irrelevant to the case, it is in fact nothing less than puerile unrelated vitriol aimed squarely at their nemesis, Cameron Slater.
Despite everything written by these clowns the elephant in the room however remains standing alone and it’s a beast that Blomfield should have been more cautious of, that being that “the police note that their investigation found that the hard drive never to have been stolen” A statement of fact that police alone supplied to the IPCA and which the IPCA then relied on to allay Slater’s own well documented fears, that being that Blomfield had the investigating officer, constable Martin Guest, in his pocket.
Quite why it was that the now retired judge Carruthers saw fit to demean his position and that of the supposedly untouchable anti-corruption agency the IPCA by feeling it necessary to invite a serial fraudster to use his letter as he saw fit is a complete mystery, especially given that Cameron Slater had been the subject of a media gag order, issued by Blackie DCJ, since late 2013, quite inequitable we would have thought and extraordinary behaviour on the part of an IPCA chair, again highly prejudicial to Slater’s defence.
So why are the police now re-investigating the matter? Well simply put its most likely been a political decision, the very beast that dip-shits like the leftist prolls, Prentice and Bradbury, have accused the police of in the past. It certainly has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the myth being promulgated by Fisher, Prentice and Bradbury – being that Slater somehow managed to have the police bury Blomfield’s complaint.
In fact the contrary is more likely than not the reality, the police having already determined beyond reasonable doubt that the hard drive in question was never stolen, they will undoubtedly now also be looking for evidence of other potential criminal offending, in particular whether or not they can find enough evidence to prove that Blomfield has knowingly made a false police complaint on any occasion, and if it eventuates that is the case, then that’s as it should be.
Given the “politically charged” environment that the police are now being forced to operate in, an environment created with the numerous spurious ill-advised attempts by Blomfield and the aforementioned media to link Blomfield’s false allegation of theft of a hard drive that he never owned to that of the search warrant on Nicky Hager’s home, police will undoubtedly be looking at all the available responses that may flow from the outcome of their latest investigation, if they don’t, given the existence of two complaints of impropriety, then there would certainly be something seriously amiss.
If someone has been falsely accused of a crime then he or she has the right to expect that the malicious accuser should themselves in turn face prosecution. Whilst any such action by police does not legally require that an originating complaint be made by those who have been falsely accused, it would certainly increase the likelihood of police using the option. With this in mind there are at least five individuals who would now be completely justified in bringing a complaint against Blomfield, Slater included, perhaps now is a good time for that option to be considered.
Now with respect to the first investigation just what exactly was it that the police did when investigating Blomfield’s complaint. First up we invite readers to listen to Cameron Slater’s telephone interview with Constable Martin Guest, the police officer initially charged with investigating the matter.
Police constable Martin Guest questions Cameron Slater
For those readers who were in fact bothered to listen to the recording it’s all rather self explanatory, Slater was up front and honest with Constable guest, he did however, as was his right, protect his sources identities whilst assisting the police with their investigations. We know for a fact that constable Guest later spoke with Slater’s sources, at least those that Blomfield had named, and appeared to be satisfied that Blomfield in fact held no legitimate claim to the hard drive in question.
Now we also invite readers to listen to two recordings from a series of telephone conversation’s between Matthew Blomfield and Cameron Slater two years ago, this pair of conversations recorded on Friday the 4th May 2012.
Again for those readers who have listened carefully to the above recordings there seems to be little if any doubt that Blomfield did nothing to credibly present a challenge to the evidence Slater had obtained, nor did he convincingly attempt to change Slaters honestly held beliefs, nor was there anything even resembling honesty from Blomfield.
Slater on the other hand is completely up front, on at least one occasion unusually self effacing, with what he has done and intends for the future. Moreover it’s abundantly clear that Slater gives Blomfield every opportunity to explain his actions around the accusations Slater has made in his articles, Slater even offering a complete right of reply, but a very sheepish Blomfield, undoubtedly cognizant of the fact that the option would involve committing any response to public record, for obvious reasons failed to take up Slater’s generous offer, an offer never afforded by journalists such as David Fisher and the MSM Fisher is now seeking to protect.
Simply put Blomfield, based on the substantial evidence available to Slater at the time made the mistake of lying to Slater in the conversation, he clearly had no intention of committing his lies to public record, a record that would later also be available to those likely to conduct an official investigation into Blomfield’s frauds.
To the intelligent observer, there was obvious method and motive in Blomfield’s failure to immediately challenge what Slater had published, Blomfield knew that Slater had considerable evidence of his wrong doing, all serious criminal offending, but he at the time did not know how much. Blomfield had also surmised that if he, remained silent and played his cards right he could yet again lie, tell a different story, again con and bullshit his way out of what he undoubtedly knew would be an inevitable investigation and possible criminal prosecution – which in reality is exactly what he did.
That is however yesterdays news, the next series of “official” investigations might just prove to be a very different animal.
As aforesaid the timing of Fisher’s APNZ article was indeed interesting, the very same day that LF received multiple notifications that some of those “official” government agencies had received their pretty parcel of never before seen incriminating evidence, which LF had dispatched a week earlier, coincidence? We somehow doubt it!
The other strange thing that appears to be happening when it comes to Blomfield’s antics is that the MSM has, despite LF providing the evidence, completely ignored Blomfield’s own unsavoury connections to the New Zealand National Party. These connections are in fact not that different to Slater’s, those Nicky Hager purports to expose in his latest book “Dirty Politics”.
Whilst one investigative journalist and his outgoing editor though the information LF had provided worthy of publishing a story, the journalist’s new boss Jonathan Milne strangely didn’t. Of Course Jonathan Milne had, on the face of it, also very likely had a hand in publishing Bevan Hurley’s hatchett jobs on Hell Pizza and Tasman Pacific Foods whilst he was the deputy editor at APNZ’s Herald on Sunday.
The information LF provided the Fairfax journo included emails between Matthew Blomfield and National party stalwart, Auckland local body councillor, Desley Simpson the long time partner and wife of Peter Goodfellow, president of the New Zealand National Party.
In those emails Matthew Blomfield agree’s to pay Simpson for favours, admits previously paying undisclosed sums of money for past favours and asks Simpson to personally see to it that a building code compliance be “approved” in a hurry – obviously, reading between the lines of the heavily coded langauge that Blomfield uses, without too many, if any, questions being asked. Now in the real world outside little old bent New Zealand this is more commonly known as corrupt conduct or in the alternate, bribing a public official.
It matters not where the money Blomfield and or his business associates had paid “on account” with Desley Simpson wound up, the fact is that Blomfield using his relationship with Simpson had clearly made a habit of this corrupt behaviour and was unlawfully obtaining material benefits for himself and his business colleagues from the corrupting of a public official, a benefit that was derived from people associated with the National party at a very high level.
It should also be noted that Blomfield’s email was not sent to Desley Simpson’s council address (email@example.com), in the circumstances the appropriate email address (an email address that would be subject to audit or investigation in the normal course), rather it was sent behind the backs of Auckland Council and the local body officers responsible for the oversight and processing of such applications’, to an email address owned by Simpson’s private employer, the Foundation for Youth Development (FYD) (Desley@fyd.org.nz), an organisation that still employs Simpson as their Business Development Manager.
When LF first discovered the emails, earlier this year, we asked one of our sources to question Slater on the subject of factional National party problems, the suggestion being that he may have had enemies within the Party. At the time Blomfield had also referred his case, in the form of a complaint, to the Privacy Commissioner, who in turn had adopted the somewhat strange position of referring it on to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, Robert Kee, who despite Slater’s High Court Appeal still being on foot chose to prosecute having somewhat strangely formed the view that Slater was not a journalist – an opinion that was, as we all now know, on the wrong side of history.
These events and their timing were, to any reasonable observer, suspicious, arguably being a serious legal conflict of interest. In fact it appeared to us to be tantamount to contempt of court, the High Court to be precise, a superior jurisdiction; the jurisdiction that Slater in any event would likely use to appeal any HRC Tribunal decision.
Again, in fact fairly recently, David Fisher and the New Zealand Herald published a piece detailing an interview and the opinions of the so-called prosecutor, Simon Judd. Fisher, quoting Judd, opined:
“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”.
With all of this going on, as aforesaid, it seemed to us that there may have been a undeclared division within the National party, with one faction wanting to screw Slater and the other supporting him. It’s public knowledge, for example, that there is no love loss between Slater and National party president Peter Goodfellow. The very same Mr Goodfellow that just happens to be the husband of Blomfield’s National party and local government insider, Desley Simpson.
In fact the way in which the whole Raw Shark (Rorschach) matter was handled by the National Party hierarchy, including the Prime Minister John Key, is in itself very interesting with the aforementioned in mind
Slater, naturally enough given his associations, apparently then sought advice from Judith Collins and subsequently denied any political involvement in an email by-passing the intermediary we’d used and sent directly to LF (the only time Slater himself has contacted LF with respect to Blomfield), LF however is yet to be convinced that this scenario should be taken off the table, especially given Blomfield’s political connection to a National party faction that has in the past been aggrieved by Slater’s criticisms.
In short, LF had suspected that certain faceless men and women in the National Party may have been about to employ a cloak and dagger attack on Slater using, amongst other things, their friend the privacy commissioner.
There was also the issue of Blomfield’s various other National Party connections, one of which was through his business partner Graham Hare. Hare’s wife Ms Rose Wall just happens to be very closely linked to a certain National Party faction, with the “party” in July last year appointing Wall Deputy Commissioner for Health and Disabilities.
Ms Wall’s brother is, also according to Blomfield’s business partner Graham Hare, in tight with the National party. In fact it was Ms Wall’s brother who, again according to Graham Hare himself, seems to have supplied highly confidential Government (LF suspects Department of Conservation) information that Blomfield and Hare then utilised with the intention of profiting from the purchase of a hotel in Otematata, government inside information that gave Blomfield and Hare a huge advantage in their negotiations, confidential Government insider knowledge that lead them to believe that the property they were about to purchase was likely worth considerably more than what they had offered the vendor – a purchase that was later concluded just before Hare and Blomfield’s business relationship collapsed earlier this year.
Of course we only have Graham Hare’s word with respect to the above connections, but those conversations, like Slater’s discussions with Blomfield, were also digitally recorded.
It strikes us all here at team LF that the so-called investigative journalist David Fisher and his labour party stalwart Lynn Prentice were dealing with something other than fact when they started throwing mud around Slater’s connections within the National party. For them to be pointing the finger at Slater and in the same breath using Hager’s book “Dirty Politics” to support Blomfield, who has himself obviously engaged in corruptly buying off public officials is little more than hypocrisy of the worst order.
Of course that said in New Zealand there appears to be a distinct lack of comprehension of what actually constitutes corrupt conduct – New Zealand unlike Australia has nothing even close to resembling an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). So what does define corrupt conduct by elected officials? Just to be clear, lets first take a cursory glance at what we Australians tend to define as corrupt conduct;
What is corrupt conduct?
Corrupt conduct, as defined in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake. It has to involve or affect a NSW public official or public sector organisation.
While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:
a public official improperly uses, or tries to improperly use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others
a public official dishonestly exercises official functions, improperly exercises official functions in a partial manner, breaches public trust or misuses information or material acquired during the course of his or her official functions
a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust.
The NSW community expects public officials to perform their duties with honesty and in the best interests of the public. Corrupt conduct by a public official involves a breach of public trust that can lead to inequality, wasted resources or public money and reputational damage.
Some examples of corrupt conduct are:
a local councillor voting in favour of a development in which the councillor has an undisclosed financial interest
a member of the public bribing an official to pass a drivers licence test
a former public official selling confidential information gained while working in an official capacity.
For the ICAC to be able to pursue a matter (that is, for the matter to be within ICAC jurisdiction), the corruption must involve or affect a NSW public official or public authority.
If the ICAC is to consider investigating the matter, the conduct must also meet the conditions set out in section 9 of the ICAC Act. These conditions are that the conduct could constitute or involve:
a criminal offence, or
a disciplinary offence, or
constitute reasonable grounds for dismissing or otherwise terminating the services of a public official, or
in the case of a member of the NSW Parliament or local government councillor, a substantial breach of an applicable code of conduct.
Types of public sector conduct other than those defined in the ICAC Act, such as instances of poor administration or a personal grievance are best referred to another agency such as the NSW Ombudsman or the Anti-Discrimination Board. A matter is also outside the ICAC’s jurisdiction if it relates to complaints against private sector organisations, non-public officials or Federal Government bodies in a way which has no connection to the NSW public sector.
The full definition of corruption which applies to the ICAC is detailed in sections 7, 8 and 9 of the ICAC Act.
Desley Simpson, in one of the above emails (10th August 2009, 9:43am), somewhat strangely seemed more than a little surprised by what she termed “a deafening silence” from a recipient who had been copied in by Blomfield, one Paul Shale of Consortium Limited
It may not have occurred to either Simpson or Blomfield but obviously Mr Paul Shale, with a knowledge of corporate governance, must have clearly understood that what both Blomfield and Simpson were asking him to do, in paying Simpson to use her position as an elected public official to surreptitiously advance his company’s building code compliance application without the “unnecessary” delay of due process, best practice (or genuine merit), constituted serious corruption. In fact if it hadn’t occurred to all three, Blomfield, Simpson and Shale, we here at LF would be completely gob-smacked.
LF has also been made aware of yet another false complaint and legal proceeding wherein these latest articles will undoubtedly, as history repeats, be making their cameo court appearance in support of Blomfield’s spurious legal submissions – news to order courtesy of David Fisher, litigation to go courtesy of Matthew Blomfield – in fact the casual observer is given good cause to suspect that Blomfield may have been employed in the fast food industry in a previous incarnation, anyone for another slice of Pizza perhaps?
The attempts to link Blomfield’s case against Slater to the outrageous actions of New Zealand’s quasi Stasi, the countries out of control police force, and the their raid on the home investigative Journalist Nicky Hager is foolhardy at best. The fact that Slater’s information was stolen has been admitted to by the anonymous hacker who unlawfully seized control of Slaters blog, cloud storage and social network accounts, in LF’s view using a stolen or otherwise misappropriated password. On the other hand in the Blomfield case there has been absolutely no admission of theft or wrongdoing, nor has Blomfield even provided so much as a skerrick of evidence proving the Hard drive stolen or in fact that he owned the appliance in the first place.
These far from sincere politically motivated stories, all drawing comparisons that do not in reality exist do Nicky Hager’s cause absolutely no favours. In fact, in the long term they may serve to do little more than diminish Hager’s completely legitimate argument with the New Zealand police.
Unlike Blomfield’s case Hager’s is a very deserving cause. The inexcusable actions of the New Zealand police, and the court issuing the warrants, has created an exceptionally dangerous precedent that should send shudders through all media outlets. It is a cause that will only ever, however, be well served by sticking to fact and avoiding the spin and rhetoric that David Fisher, Lynn Prentice and belatedly Martin Brabury have thought wise to employ. All three have forgotten the old legal maxim; never pose or ask a question that you do not already have the answer to. Neither Fisher, Prentice or Bradbury have the answers, but they have to date been content in repeating the lies they’ve all been feed by their new patron, Matthew Blomfield.
The aforementioned emails between the National party’s Desley Simpson and Matthew Blomfield along with extensive additional material evidencing corruption were supplied to Fairfax New Zealand publication The Sunday Star times by LF earlier this year. As a result the editor at the time the information was supplied authorised an investigative story that was supposed to have been published between May and July.
That tell-all story was subsequently aborted at the 11th hour on the orders of the incoming editor, ex New Zealand Herald on Sunday employee Jonathan Milne. Milne then subsequently attempted to have the journalist rewrite the story as an attack piece against Slater, an attempt thwarted by the contract LF had thought to put in place between ourselves, the Journo involved and Fairfax New Zealand – a contract that only allowed for the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
We here at LF are now inclined to suggest that Cameron Slater subpoena both Jonathan Milne, and the journalist that LF and Blomfield’s many victims dealt with whilst he penned his expose, to give evidence in the Human Rights Commission case so that Jonathan Milne can carefully explain in great detail why it was that he inexplicably aborted a public interest story that would have exposed both Blomfield and an Auckland Regional Councillor, Desley Simpson, as corrupt.