As Pete George uses his New Zealand based blog platform in a series of desperate misguided posts, obviously aimed at discrediting team Lauda Finem another question is beginning to emerge. Are bloggers from the Standard using YourNZ for benign purposes, brothers in arms, or have they deliberately set out to put Pete George in harms way?
Other than a few Twitter jibes following Pete Georges decision to allow his own blog to be splattered with anti Lauda Finem graffiti, team LF have had very little to do with the man. We had however concluded that Pete George had been contacted by Matthew Blomfield and feed misinformation, clearly with the intention of scaring George off, or having him run interference by default, a standard Blomfield M/O. Certainly it seems to have worked in that regard.
There are of course plenty of additional examples of Pete Georges two tier moderation policy as was pointed out by YourNZ reader “Demoritus753” Somewhat strangely however, despite the overwhelming evidence that remains posted on YourNZ, Pete George seemed to find his readers very accurate observation a little too close to home for comfort:
Normally LF would not bother posting a story on a Kiwi political blogger of Pete George’s calibre, as it would likely be a waste of time. Firstly, the man has proven himself to be extremely lazy, George also has a track record of getting things very wrong. More importantly however, that which he does publish is either misinformation or his spin, often on the back of the hard work of other Kiwi bloggers. In effect Pete George is a cyber leech, a user, a plagiarist taking often well researched, well written material with good argument, then writing what he seems to think is valid commentary, more often than not by grabbing the wrong end of the stick and conveniently avoiding any facts that would disprove his own analysis and conclusions.
Certainly that has been the case with his recent attempts at “critiquing” Lauda Finem’s investigation into Matthew John Blomfield. Pete George may well have difficulty understanding the content, the detail as presented on LF, but it seems more than obvious that th professionals who specialise in the areas of fraud and other forms of commercial criminal skullduggery have no such impediment.
In Pete George’s case however, he has made a bad habit of posing questions, falsely insinuating, for his readers consumption, that the answers were not already available, which they are of course, if only George had not been quite so lazy or incompetent with his research.
The latest piece penned by George is extraordinary. Pete George now wanting his readers to believe that there is some doubt as to who has been investigating and writing about the serial fraudster Matthew John Blomfield, Cameron Slater’s (Whale Oil) or Lauda Finem? Of course this type of half-witted strategy of obfuscation is only available to Pete George on his blog.
In the real world, the world of New Zealand’s Courts, prosecutors, that country’s law and order we suspect that Pete George will have his work cut out for him, pushing shit up hill in fact, if he tries similar tactics. What has become evident from Mr George’s online rants over the past few weeks, arguably actually starting with the Ben Rachinger affair, is that he has deliberately written and published, or allowed to be published, in the case of his comments section, material that has breached more than one NSO.
Rather than just come out and be honest by saying so, Mr George has dithered and beaten around the proverbial bush. The facts are, in as much as we have been able to ascertain from his own blog and our usual competent investigation and deduction, Pete George faces a private criminal prosecution for breaching at least three name suppression orders (NSO’s), two of which offences relate to the Stephen Dudley murder case, articles that LF published back in 2014. Pete George of course is not alone in having breached those particular NSO’s.
More importantly we here at LF did attempt to warn them off the behaviour in our own post, The Rachinger Identity – Espionage thriller or just another bad outbreak of Streisand effect?
Indeed there are important issues at stake, none of which has anything whatsoever to do with “free speech” or “robust debate” as George would have his own readers believe. This case, in our view, more closely resembles the civil tort bought by justice campaigner Joe Karam against two other clowns, Kent and Purkiss, of a similar malicious disposition to George and Prentice, who in much the same vein also posted and allowed to be published to their website, interference, poison, unsubstantiated rumour, hearsay and vitriol (See: Karam v Purkis & Ord (CIV-2010-404-003038  NZHC 737), )
This similarity is perhaps what one of Pete Georges own readers had in mind when she had obviously been able to see straight through Pete Georges attempts at cyber exculpation, his flailing about, clutching at straws, whilst blaming everyone but himself for his own unconscionable unlawful online conduct:
If our deductions and educated assumptions are correct, and we are 99% confident that they are, then Pete George will not be standing in the dock alone. It seems to us that this case likely started with an article that appeared in the New Zealand Herald around five months ago. An article which was then picked up and published by the Otago Daily Times (ODT). In fact the ODT seemingly also failed to edit it’s version when the New Zealand Herald clearly had, for reasons that we can only begin to guess at.
It’s obvious that in the opinion of the “private prosecutor” both of those stories were a clear contempt of court, being the three or more NSO’s they breached. That would then mean that anyone who republished that same material whilst on New Zealand soil (by various means, including linking with urls), or allowed that material to be added to, or any speculation published around the identities covered by the NSO’s, would also have been complicit in the criminal offending.
Enter Lynn Prentice and his own recent admission, using Pete George’s blog of all the available platforms, that he too has been charged. Team LF suspects that the APN journalist, Rob Kidd, responsible for the original offending New Zealand Herald article will also have been charged with at least three breaches, in short for contempt of court. In Kidd’s case there is also a history that would also infer that a certain degree of malice was involved.
So, it seems that Pete George’s attack on Lauda Finem has it’s roots in the seriously misguided belief that LF are the ones prosecuting these two men, his accomplices. Unfortunately for Pete George nothing could be further from the truth in this case, as Pete George and the others will undoubtedly find out as their cases proceed towards trial.
All three men will also probably be recieving a very tough lesson in why it is that one should never ever believe anything that the New Zealand police have to say, particularly what might be stated by individual officers, or what they might decide to allege, or in fact their motivations for doing so.
What we also know, supported by the evidence and facts plastered throughout Lauda Finem, available to all who genuinely sought the answers, is that in the case of every one of the accused, with the exception perhaps of the Otago Daily Times, in the case now being prosecuted, there has been one aggravating factor in common. Yet again it’s Matthew Blomfield. We’ll of course be publishing more on this development as the criminal prosecution of Pete George and his co-defendants winds its way through New Zealand’s Courts.
Has Pete George habitually abused NSO’s?
LF find Pete George’s online games boring. That’s in large part why we confine any comment we do make to twitter, so if Pete George does publish any stories unflattering of team LF then readers are unlikely to see a response on this website, Laudafinem.com. Team members are far more likely to post any response, if one is even required, via LF’s twitter feed.
That then brings us to another discovery team LF made recently. That discovery was due in large part to Pete Georges published hypocrisy and smear. George and a number of his “minor league” followers have been critical of LFs work, which for our part has obviously included identifying Mike Sabin, the two murderers of Stephen Dudley, a bent journo and budding porno star and of course we’ve also identified the corrupt rugby coach police officer, Detective Slitherland, the man responsible for deliberately fucking any chance of justice that the Dudley family had by pulling a “Hutton 360”, evidence tampering in reverse, by removing the unassailable video evidence, captured on smart phones, that a murder had in fact been committed and then seemingly destroying it.
Pete George of course had his own opinions on the Mike Sabin affair, more head in the sand type stuff, where Pete George has yet again been proven wrong.
Of course Pete George and his mates at The Standard are all alleging illegality on LF’s part, but again that’s also a complete furphy, we have explained why on many occasions, but it has obviously continued to suit the political agendas of Pete George and the boys and girls at the Standard to completely ignore the unassailable evidence.
We will say it once more, for the last time! Lauda Finem is a foreign based blog, it is not and never has been based in New Zealand or any of it’s territories. Commonsense eventually prevailed with the likes of Alasdair Thompson coming to terms with that reality, in his own mind at least. But Thompson too had also been feed rumours, the origin of those same falsehoods? Matthew John Blomfield and his criminal collaborators of course, again the facts and documented evidence that support our well founded allegation are also contained within one or two articles amongst the thousands of LF articles available.
In researching Pete George we have managed to establish a number of very disturbing facts, most of which we will not be sharing with readers just yet. What we will however share is the fact that Pete George has made a very bad habit of using malicious falsehood, obfuscation and in particular “coded langauge” in his blog posts when targeting people he does not like and or when attempting to avoid prosecution himself.
So as to illustrate George’s proclivity for the “criminal” we will be using but one example today. As aforesaid it is not our intention to waste any more time than is necessary on Mr George, at least until he and his media buddies have been prosecuted for their recent crimes.
Earlier this year LF published the identity of Graeme Thorne, the New Zealand politician and ex all Black who had been charged with sexual offending and who had later been granted an NSO against the wishes of his victim. LF was not alone in doing so, fellow Australian Derryn Hinch also published three articles dealing with the Thorne case and Thorne’s meeting with the leader of the New Zealand parliamentary opposition, the kiwi labour party’s David Cunliffe
Now of course Hinch and Team LF were able to do so quite legally. The reason is again simple, being foreign media neither of us are subject to New Zealand law. Common sense right? Afterall in the case New Zealand Police v Cameron John Slater Judge David Harvey spelt out what we would have thought had been more than the obvious to most, an obvious set of realities that the likes of Pete George and Lynn Prentice just don’t seem either willing or able to bring themselves to believe.
In fact they both seem hell-bent on clinging desperately to falsehoods, perhaps only because it suits their particular political agenda’s and of course the defence of their own stupidity, nevertheless it serves absolutely no purpose, Judge David Harvey opined;
 From a criminal law jurisdiction point of view the approach of s. 7 of the Crimes Act 1961 is also instructive. The starting point is s. 6 of the Crimes Act which states that nothing done or omitted outside of New Zealand can be tried as offence in New Zealand and is based upon the common law principle that statutes are not to be construed as giving extra territorial jurisdiction unless there are clear words to that effect. Crime therefore is local in nature. Jurisdiction over crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed.
Source: New Zealand Police v Cameron John Slater (CRN 004028329 – 9833) 
Now there is currently only one statute that has what judge Harvey referred to as “words to the effect” and that statute involves the sexual abuse and trafficking of minors across international boarders. Hopefully that will now put an end to the needles waste of space that Pete George, Lynn Prentice and their half-wit supporters have dedicated to what is essentially a non-starter.
Everything LF publishes we do so quite legally, no different to any other foreign news source. Moreover LF is NOT a party to any legal proceeding in New Zealand whatsoever, nor is any member of team LF, again all members live outside New Zealand, always have, always will. Nor will we be the subject of defamation proceedings in the future as absolutely everything published on LF is the TRUTH, as distasteful as that may be to those who have featured on LF
At around the same time as LF published the story on Thorne, another New Zealand politician (again retired) ex National party MP Mr Tua Henare entered into a twitter debate in defence of another Kiwi sporting personality who had been, quite wrongly, named as the sexual offender instead of Graeme Thorne. Mr Henare, obviously incensed at the obvious injustice, felt compelled to set the record straight and named Graeme Thorne.
New Zealand’s parasitic mainstream media were alerted to Tau Henare’s NSO breach on Twitter and blabbed, so Mr Henare, almost immediately, received a visit from New Zealand’s thick blue line and was then subsequently charged. Pleading guilty, Henare was convicted and fined $1200 hundred dollars.
Lauda Finem at the time defended Tau Henare, as his motivation was clear enough, there was no malice involved, he had only intended to defend the good name of another, a completely innocent man who had fallen victim to Thorne’s NSO. Others too were also prosecuted by police for breaching Thorne’s NSO, including a Cromwell man who is now in fact serving time in prison as a result.
Now at around the same time Pete George also ran an article on the Thorne case and the meeting with Cunliffe. Whats more Pete George and his nasty little publishing efforts were for some strange reason overlooked by the New Zealand police. We here at LF believe that Pete George was every bit as guilty of breaching Thorne’s NSO as was either Tau Henare or Cromwell man Chris Wardill.
In fact, given the particular set of circumstances, we believe Pete George’s publishing effort much worse, as it was, very much by design, a breach ‘crafted’ to break the law and avoid detection and prosecution.
Evidence of Pete Georges criminal intent was still available until very recently, only two days ago, so we warned him;
Unfortunately for Pete George LF had already done the leg work, we where just waiting for him to incriminate himself even further, to provide a little more evidence of whats known as “mens rea” or “guilty mind”
So what had Pete George Posted? It is simple enough. Pete George had used whats often referred to in legal circles as “coding” or “coded language” to breach Thorne’s NSO. George had also provided an image, enabling his readers to visually link and associate with various other unlawful material that had been posted on Facebook and that which the Australian based Derryn Hinch had already published.
Now whether or not Pete George now decides to remove the offending articles, these original posts are and will still be available for sometime as cached copies and of course if like LF you had obtained screen grabs before George has the opportunity to attempt to cover his tracks:
Cunliffe and a gift of wine
25th July 2014
David Cunliffe should be wary of bottles of wine by now, but he has received one as a gift, from an ex National MP and ex All Black, Grahame Thorne.
And there’s proof that this one is for real as this was posted on Facebook.
This was apparently a recent meeting. It”s obviously out in the open, very public, so there was no secret about it. On a day Cunliffe has specifically said he was working. That was then.
What was this meeting about? Old friends or acquaintances catching up? Why the gift?
It’s a curious name for wine, it’s from a local vineyard which Thorne obviously has an association with.
Dogs do Roam: A Dogs Tale
In Nineteen sixty something the first generation of the Thorne family made the trek south to Central Otago for the summer. During this traditional Kiwi holiday Norman Stuart Thorne has his first encounter with the “fruit bowl of the south”.
Norm would struggle through neighboring paddocks with a large basket of freshly picked fruit in each hand with the neighbors two springer spaniel dogs bouncing through the tussocks in his wake. He would arrive back to the bach (holiday home) as the sun was setting.
As the sun rose the following morning Norm would still be in his workshop putting the finishing touches on his first batch of Central Otago fruit wine.
Thus began the tradition of returning the following summer to find his wine ready to drink after the fermenting process.
As the story goes Norm S Thorne returned to Central the following year and upon arrival headed straight to his workshop. Turning the key to the shed in eager anticipation, he could smell the sweet Vino seeping out the cracks in the wood, the creaking door opened slowly when all of sudden the neighbors dogs raced through the gap knocking over his barrels spilling wine all over the floor. Turning to his wife Norm chuckled “well Dogs do Roam”…and thus “Dogs do Roam” was born.
The Dogs – Norm S Thornes first escapades in Central not only started a love affair with the area but also began a life long adoration of Springer Spaniels. A love passed down to his son Grahame and in turn to Grahames children. On DDR vineyard live three Springers and their mate Milo the Chocolate Lab!
An interesting tale.
Source: Pete George (25th July 2014)
The article was the commented on by an anonymous reader using the moniker “Durbury” and then followed up with another by “bill of Rights”, which is very obviously a warning to both Pete George and “Durbury” that what they were setting out to achieve was unlawful, hence the use of the moniker “Bill of Rights” and the reference to “snakes”:
Now the chronology of this breach is all important, as is Pete George’s use of the Facebook image and another article that had very little if anything to do with the story in the mainstream media or on Facebook, where Cromwell man Chris Wardill had named Thorne in breach of the NSO.
George’s utilisation of the unrelated article and his “clever” associated “coded” langauge “Dogs do roam” were undoubtedly designed to lead his readers to conclude that Thorne was indeed the sexual offender, identified by mainstream media only as a “prominent New Zealander”.
YourNZ reader “Durbury” was also right on the money with his comment posted first up, underneath Pete Georges ‘crafted’ handiwork. So was it a prediction on the part of “Durbery”, or more a case of gloating?
Either way only a matter of hours later Derryn Hinch did in fact publish his next article on Thorne and Cunliffe, again naming him as the sex offender:
Of course this one article, in itself, might be seen as merely circumstantial evidence where Pete George is concerned, but for a couple of things.
When it is combined with the timing of the publishing of Hinch’s article in Australia and another of Georges later articles and the comments on those second and third articles, there is plenty of evidence, not only of Pete George’s own criminal intentions, or the fact that he had been successful in what he had set out to achieve with earlier posts. There is also prima facie evidence that Pete George had likely been informed of the Hinch articles in advance of their publishing. George then very stupidly putting one of Hinch’s Kiwi sources at risk of discovery and, dare we say it, prosecution by the New Zealand authorities.
Cone of silence on Central Otago meeting
4th August 2014
A cone of silence remains over a meeting in Queenstown last month between Labour leader David Cunliffe and high profile Central Otago man, ex All Black and ex National MP Grahame Thorne.
This was a controversial meeting leading into an election campaign, with rumours swirling about the motives for the meeting including possible links to donations.
It was also odd to see Cunliffe having a photo in public accepting a bottle of wine from Thorne considering recent controversy with Labour and wine auctions for fundraising. Is that what the gift of wine was for – more fundraising?
That this issue isn’t being examined by media is perplexing. There appears to be an indecent cone of silence with deliberate suppression of information of public and political interest.
See Cunliffe and a gift of wine.
Source: Pete George (4th August 2014)
Why was Cunliffe/Thorne meeting not reported?
18th November 2014
Leading into the election campaign in late July Labour leader David Cunliffe met publicly with ex-All Black and ex-National MP Grahame Thorne and was presented with a bottle of wine by Thorne.
This happened in public in Queenstown, and Thorne posted about this in Facebook along with a photo.
However this meeting was not reported by mainstream media at all, despite Cunliffe associated with bottles of wine being prominent in news coverage at the same time – see Cunliffe talks about the Labour list and that bottle of wine.
That was about a different bottle of wine.
But following that issue this meeting raised eyebrows in social media because of the wine connection. And, for example, why would Cunliffe and Labour’s Otago candidate Liz Craig be meeting with an ex-National MP who is now promoting red?
Was Thorne endorsing Cunliffe? Media don’t appear to have asked this question.
By the look of the photo Cunliffe was quite open about it. Thorne was open about it, self publicising in social media.
So why did establishment media suppress this news?
Nearly four months later Stuff does mention a meeting.
…then Labour leader David Cunliffe was castigated for briefly meeting with him.
Who castigated Cunliffe? I don’t recall Stuff reporting it, but they are obviously aware of the meeting taking place.
That sort of meeting with the leader of the opposition just before an election would normally be widely reported. Why wasn’t it?
Source: Pete George (18th November 2014)
Somewhat extraordinarily George then allowed comments on this last article, comments that we would suggest could now result in Mr Pete George’s rapid undoing;
The most interesting and damning of the comments is of course the very first. Posted again by someone who wants to remain anonymous using only the lingistically “coded” moniker “Dogs do Roam”, complete with the obligatory three 🙂 🙂 :-), to identify themselves, which of course was little more than a self congratulatory reference to the success of Pete Georges “coded language” in his first post on the 25th July 2014. Anyone with half a brain would very likely be given to conclude that person/s behind the monikers “Durbury” and “Dogs do Roam” are in some way connected, perhaps the same person.
Now this is where serious flaws in Pete George’s personality and character become very apparent. A smart person who had set out to name Graeme Thorne for genuinely altruistic reasons would not have allowed the comment to remain posted, they would have seen to it that it was immediately removed.
Pete George however clearly could not bring himself to remove it. Not only because it served to remind his readers of his handiwork on the 25th July, where he had ever so cleverly used “coded” language to identify Thorne, but because also as a reminder, for all of the other readers, of just how clever Pete George had been, a talented smart arse, thus clearly an attempt to solicit admiration. Pete George is undoubtedly a complete fucking narcissist, with some pretty passive aggressive tendencies, no different to any other failed wannabe pollie.
Team LF believe that Pete George should in fact now be charged with breaching the Graeme Thorne NSO, after all both Tau Henare and Chris Wardill have been charged and convicted, Wardill now in fact serving a prison term, therefore Pete George can not simply be allowed to walk away scott free, to evade prosecution others have been treated too, just because George used “coded” language. After all, the overwhelming evidence is that the article George posted on 25th July 2014 undoubtedly achieved it’s desired goal, subsequent comments publishe by George actually prove that.
New Zealand’s premier IT “specialist” Judge David Harvey dealt with this very scenario back in 2010, when he handed down his judgement in New Zealand Police v Cameron Slater (CRN 004028329 – 9833; 2010) In fact “coding” or language, English or not, whether coded in any way whatsoever, were all factors in the Slater case which Harvey was required to make decisions on. Harvey did however also touch on many other hypothetical issues, foreseeing the likelihood that they too may become a problem in the future.
 Mr. Slater faces a total of 10 charges. Some of the charges involve the use of coded information. The charges contained in informations CRN 09004028329-30 and 09004028343-44 involve the use of a pictogram which, when interpreted phonetically reveals the suppressed name. The charge contained in information 100040283301 identifies the suppressed name using binary code. Particulars is a very wide word. In some respects it may have the interpretation of details. Within the context of s.140 it may mean pieces of information which, when taken together, identify a person. There may be sufficient pieces of information to identify a person by way of a process of elimination. The fact that the information is in code matters little and to say that encoding information in binary does not constitute particulars is a distinction without a difference. Similarly with the pictogram. The information can be decoded in the same way that an aggregation of information may lead to the identification of a person by way of a process of elimination another form of interpreting a particular code or solving a puzzle.
It is Judge Harvey’s conclusions in this area that should have put every blogger living in New Zealand on notice that there were certain often used tactics that they would no longer be able to get away with.
Amongst those prohibited tactics was the use of “coded language” (in any of its many available forms), be it code or image, that would likely to result in the breaching of an NSO, deliberate or otherwise. Now of course, given the very clear directions in Harvey’s judgement, with any subsequent deliberate attempt, one could now perhaps argue, that with anyone caught ignoring Harvey’s “spelt out’ warnings the offending should now be viewed as aggravated, thus resulting in their criminal offending being more egregious. There is of course pleant of evidence that both George and Prentice where well aware of the Slater case and the judgement of Judge Harvey
It should now be much more apparent why Pete George holds a huge grudge, hence his continued and vociferous attacks on Lauda Finem and at least one of the victims of Matthew Blomfield’s frauds.
The fact is that at the end of the day mainstream Kiwi journalist Rob Kidd, the New Zealand Herald, the Otago Daily Times, Greg Presland, Lynn Prentice and Peter George all breached an NSO and at least in the case of both Rob Kidd and Lynn Prentice they very likely did so maliciously, with criminal intent and entirely based on a premise that was in itself wholly false, an allegation supplied to them by none other than Matthew Blomfield and various other associated criminal collaborators.
As one of the Standards own readers pointed out when commenting on the article that Prentice published in the Standard, the very same article that had a url link to Rob Kidd’s New Zealand Herald effort and clearly also breached the NSO, Prentice has since removed the opening paragraph, his and the other comments, which had clearly breached the NSO, but “Lord Donkey’s” comment below, and others clearly pointed to the existence of the unlawful comments and the prevailing reality that the New Zealand Herald report provided almost complete transparency and thus the unlawful disclosure of that protected identity:
Indeed many Standard readers thought pretty much the same of Greg Preslands effort, oh and his bragging about how quickly he could identify everything, albeit said from behind anonymous nom de guerre of “Mickey Savage”;
Indeed what fact or evidence did Lynn Prentice and Greg Presland’s possess to base their false allegations on? The simple answer is no evidence whatsoever. LF bases it’s assessment on our own knowledge of the history, which has been written about extensively, the additional evidence that we have so far collected, evidence that Peter George, Lynn Prentice and fellow “Standardestas”, the likes of their resident but anonymous contributor, nigger in the wood pile, “tereoputake”, are being very careful to avoid in their continued cyber stalking rants and attacks levelled at Slater, LF and Matthew Blomfield’s fraud victims and in fact the individual holding the NSO.
The fact that those rants are most certainly deliberate and malicious. Cyber stalking is in fact evidenced by comments nigger in the wood pile “tereoputake” posted on YourNZ. One in particular which was second cab of the rank and which remained available online for some hours was quickly picked up by at least two large internet forums and subsequently disseminated en mass.
One of those forums being New Zealand’s premier cyber stalking platform www.accforum.org. The person who posted it being one Franciscus van Helmond, brother of infamous cyber-stalking extortionist and child pornographer Henk van Helmond, Henk and Fran are big fans of Matthew Blomfield and friend’s behind the scenes wheeling dealing, simply because it also happens to suit their own perverse criminal agenda.
LF have copies of every comment posted on YourNZ prior to Pete George making any alterations and they will be available to any “prosecutor”, including police, should they be required.
But again, at the end of the day, it matters not what LF thinks, nor indeed what the defendants or their online supporters rant on about. It matters only that the “prosecutor” has an extremely sound case, a case that may well see most, if not all, of the accused convicted and fined, or worse in the case of natural persons, jailed.
Frankly, the evidence is overwhelming, published in fact by Pete George and Prentice themselves. It has already passed first muster with a District Court Judge agreeing that a prima facie case exists. That same evidence will undoubtedly speak for itself on the day.
Pete George is meanwhile completely at liberty, and frankly welcome, to keep choking the chickens in his own backyard. If he wants to continue publishing complete and utter crap so be it, but doing so will garner no traction whatsoever in preventing his being prosecuted for the alleged criminal offending, or for that matter, in preventing LF’s ongoing investigation into serial fraudster Matthew John Blomfield. By continuing to deliberately promulgate the false allegation that LF or any of its members are somehow responsible for the prosecutions will do little to improve the situation legally, being a lie its far more likely to become an aggravating factor, in real and legal terms.
Unfortunately Pete George and Lynn Prentice just keep forgetting that we here at LF get it right, even if a few idiots on the other side of the planet can’t see it, but again does that really matter in the overall scheme of things…….somehow we doubt it.
We’ll leave readers to ponder a few excerpts from Judge David Harvey’s written decision in New Zealand Police v Cameron John Slater, and just how Harvey’s insightful and adroit findings might soon be applied to both Lynn Prentice and Pete George’s recent behaviour, oh and the behaviour of their clearly devoted bastard cyber trolls and acolytes.
… most administrators or supervisors of blog sites or those occupying the position of Mr Slater must hold some responsibility for the comments that are posted. Mr Slater in his DVD interview indicated that he exercised such supervisory power over his blog site. He would allow comments or postings of material with which he agreed. This indicates that he is able to delete or remove material or posts from the blog site. This would put Mr Slater in the position of a person of responsibility similar to that of the moderator in the case of Stratton Oakmont Inc v Prodigy Services Co.
 Following from that is the New Zealand based blogger who may embed a link to the off-shore blogsite which contains the suppressed name. One should be cautious in such circumstances that one does not become involved in publishing by way of hypertext link. In the case of Universal City Studios v Reimerdes and Corley34 a Court made an order that the defendant’s website was prohibited from directly providing files which contained the DeCSS code which enabled the circumvention of copy protection algorithms on DVDs. When the defendants posted links on their websites to other sites that provided DeCSS either by way of direct download via the link or by means of an extra few websites, the Court held that utilising this device was a distinction without a difference to offering a direct download. I have no doubt this point or something like it will fall to be decided in this country in some future case.
Note: The author of DeCSS itself was acquitted in a Norwegian court so no online citation available.
“Following from that is the [hypothetical situation of a] New Zealand based blogger who may embed a link to the off-shore blogsite which contains the suppressed name. One should be cautious in such circumstances that one does not become involved in “publishing” by way of hypertext link… I have no doubt this point or something like it will fall to be decided in this country in some future case”.
There is little doubt that both Prentice and George fit exactly the same mold as Kiwi blog Whale Oils Cameron Slater in 2010, including where all three are domiciled. In fact even when it comes to the inherent ability to moderate and censor material on their own blogs, and they do; Prentice being quite the nasty bastard, vicious in censoring anyone with a differing opinion, let alone posting unlawful material.
Pete George on the other hand would very much like his readers to believe that he doesn’t “censor” or “moderate”. That his blog is somehow a paragon of virtue and clarity in Kiwi politics, an icon when it comes to “free speech” and “robust debate”.
Of course nothing could be further from the truth, Pete George is every bit the politically driven, self-serving, malicious, small-minded, nasty, little hypocrite, that Prentice is, whether he like’s to admit it is another matter entirely.
It would pay Pete George to remember the old adage, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If he’s going to continue with his stone throwing and mud-slinging then he really should move out of that glass house of his and into something a little more suited, France is very nice this time of year, or get himself a decent trebuchet, a model that’s much larger than the one Lauda Finem has at it’s disposal.
Now how about a little light music for the boys and girls at New Zealand’s premier Labour party shyte sheet, The Standard, & lets not forget comrade tereoputake, The Standards resident cultural Transvestite and Outlaw.
(Note: Additions will be made to this list over the coming week as we locate digital versions of available readings and reference material)
Man accused of suppression breach (NZ Herald, edited version, Rob Kidd)
Lauda Finem versus Otago Daily Times (YourNZ, Pete George)
A Story in Common (YourNZ, Pete George)
Lauda Finem – from the absurd to the ridiculous (YourNZ, Pete George)
Hypocrisy and stupidity (YourNZ. Pete George)
Demoritus753 (YourNZ, Pete George)
Does Slater run Lauda Finem? (Pete George, 7th May 2015)
An assault revisited (Pete George, 14th June 2015)
New Zealand Police v Cameron Slater (CRN 004028329 – 9833)
Karam v Purkis (CIV-2010-404-003038  NZHC 737), 
Private Prosecutions. (Pete George, 5th August 2015)
Is “blog land” in the cactus? (Pete George, 6th August 2015)
Hypocrisy and stupidity (Pete George, 18th August 2015)
tereoputake, Comment 50166 (Standard contributor, Twitter; @tereoputake, 6th August 2015)
tereoputake, Comment 51038 (Standard contributor, Twitter; @tereoputake, 18th August 2015)
tereoputake, Comment 51038 [unredacted] (Standard contributor, Twitter; @tereoputake, 18th August 2015)
tereoputake, Comment 51040 (Standard contributor, Twitter; @tereoputake, 18th August 2015)
Blogger on breaching name suppression charges gets name suppression (Edited version – Greg Presland, The Standard, 10th April 2015)
Name Suppression Orders and Web 2.0 Media: the New Zealand Experience (Barrett, J., ‘Name Suppression Orders and Web 2.0 Media: the New Zealand Experience’, European Journal for Law and Technology, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2012)
Whale Oil case: lessons for bloggers (Law and Technology, Guy Burgess 2010)