The following post was first published on laudafinem.com;
This may be our last post from the laudafinem.com domain address, but readers should not be too distressed, it hasn’t come as a surprise, in fact we gave readers a hint in a recent post on Matthew John Blomfield, citing his latest attempt to shut down an investigation into his likely involvement in the Rawshark scam and a media campaign he waged against Tasman Pacific Foods Limited.
Godaddy, our web hosting provider, has very kindly agreed to oblige a New Zealand court and hand over the domain laudafinem.com and various other material; we hold unlawfully of course; not a good look for a provider that sells itself as a bastion of free speech.
We at Lauda Finem are now apparently at the coal-face of international law and the struggle for press freedom, for despite Cameron Slater, also a blogger, having been declared a journalist, Kiwi High Court Judge, Peter Woodhouse, seems to have opted to ignore that fact and taken the very dangerous step of unlawfully interfering with a legitimate media outlet, an off-shore whistle-blowing anti-corruption website at that.
Moreover, despite Blomfield failing to even comply with his obligation to file his substantive arguments in the Slater case, and no sign that he is even capable of doing so, he has now decided, after more than 4 years, that he’s going to take on another “defamation tort”, coincidentally, immediately following the publishing of an email proving his involvement in multi million dollar fraud; a fraud that sort of makes Cameron Slater’s opinion of Blomfield look somewhat “low fat”
Last week New Zealand High Court Justice Peter Woodhouse, following an exparte hearing, handed down an interim judgement, a judgement that not only falsely purports to have authority in foreign jurisdictions, but also breaches the safeguards afforded journalists (seems that the Kiwis are developing a bad name for it, see Hager v NZ Police).
A somewhat arrogant and very dangerous move for a New Zealand judge to have made, especially in the current climate where Woodhouse’s fellow judges are in the international spotlight, namely Judge Lowell Goddard for her dodgy dealings in the UK Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission and a bevy of other Kiwi jurists in the thoroughly corrupt Kim Dotcom case.Of course, it is more than likely not that Woodhouse will have been deceived, convinced that the facts are otherwise by the applicant, Matthew John Blomfield.
It would seem that Blomfield must have made allegations, sworn in affidavit form, that are contrary to the reality, Blomfield falsely claiming that LF is NZ based.
Unfortunately we are not able to know what Blomfield has or hasn’t said, for whilst were were served, via GoDaddy, that attempted service wasn’t in accordance with the rules; the court having failed to supply all of the documents required in law, as prescribed by Woodhouse in another interim judgement, said missing documents being, the affidavits supplied by the plaintiff/s setting out their allegations.
Of course that deliberate omission can be evidenced at some later date, GoDaddy and LF both having a digital record of what was included with the email service.
Suffice to say, not withstanding the unlawful service, LF is not subject to New Zealand Law or it’s jurisdiction and importantly nothing whatsoever that we have published could possibly be established as untrue.
In fact Justice Woodhouse must have been mindful of the fact that Blomfield has a history of misleading the courts; that there was a possibility Blomfield may have been lying in both his affidavits and submissions, material which the Court had been required to rely on in reaching its onerous and unlawful decision. This is clear from the fact that the judge has prevented Blomfield from obtaining directly the information he sought to personally access, details of the ownership of LF and various logs and IP addresses.
Kiwi Barrister Andrew Gilchrist, the man who Judge Woodhouse has allowed to go fossicking through LF’s cyber wardrobe; Good luck with that Andrew, mind the fucking snakes – We hope to see Andrew in a courtroom in our jurisdiction at some point in the future, where he can carefullyexplain to one of our judges why it was these fuckwit Kiwi clowns thought New Zealand had any jurisdiction over a foreign owned and hosted website
Instead the judge has ordered that the information Blomfield wanted to obtain himself be dealt with by a barrister of the High Court, one Andrew Gilchrist, and that Gilchrist alone have access and report back to the court on whether the action, brought by Blomfield, is even possible in the New Zealand courts.
Of course it isn’t possible, as Mr Gilchrist will soon enough establish, much to Mr Blomfield’s likely despair, his action fail and big fat ZERO result. This fact however in no way undoes the damage the New Zealand Court has inflicted, damages that will in time need to be addressed
In fact, if we were Mr Gilchrist we would recommend ensuring that Blomfield pay his proforma invoice for services rendered or alternately pay costs into his Chambers trust account.
More on that in a minute. But first readers can take a look at the decision, because readers know we like transparency, and of course we want New Zealander’s to be aware of Mr Blomfield’s modus operandi; (view pdf version here)
Now as we have said on innumerable occasions, Lauda Finem is not located in New Zealand, nor does any person involved in administering it or uploading to the site reside in New Zealand. We are a legitimate media outlet, principally involved in unearthing corruption and crime.
Now of course Blomfield is not the only person on the planet to have tried this on in order to shut down criticism or the publication of facts that evidence serious wrong doing, but that said he has shown himself to be a particularly prolific and malicious exponent of the tactic.
It’s a well documented fact that the “subjects” of whistle-blowers or unwelcome media attention are not shy when it comes to launching often malicious, purely obfuscatory, litigation in their endeavours to prevent the truth and their bad behaviour being exposed.
Blomfield’s latest little sham court action is just one more in a long list of actions that he has brought over the years, many of which he has failed to complete, therefore it is a concern that New Zealand’s courts continue to entertain his spurious litigation.
We do have additional concerns, in particular with the way in the New Zealand court has handled this matter, primarily in allowing itself to yet again be used as a vehicle for Blomfield’s ongoing efforts to avoid criminal prosecution and otherwise pervert justice.
As aforesaid, we did see it coming. In our last post, dated the 3rd October 2016, nearing the end, we predicted:
Paydirt: Blomfield Files for Interim Injunction, but was it in the right jurisdiction?
As a matter of interest a group of team LF members monitor New Zealand’s court business on a daily basis. Following our last post we became aware that Matthew Blomfield had immediately filed an urgent application in the High Court seeking an interim injunction. The respondent was not named on the High Court daily fixture list, nor was the name of the judge; which generally means that insufficient notice has been given to the court, to allow them to publish the information.
We suspect that Blomfield may have started to shit himself and attempted to obtain an injunction against LF, or some other individual resident in New Zealand who he believes is LF, or connected to LF.
The likely goal? To prevent LF publishing additional evidence that will be damning and will link him and at least two NZH journalists to the now infamous Rawshark – Who knows?
Of course if he has attempted to file in a Kiwi court to prevent LF publishing then he is pushing shit up hill. As we have repeatedly stated, we are NOT located in New Zealand, nor are we subject to that country’s laws, nor the decisions of it’s Courts or Tribunals.
LF had long been aware that Blomfield, in his desperation to avoid detection and now possible prosecution, would again resort to crime in his efforts to succeed, and sure enough he has.
But it goes much further than just a few dodgy court applications, crimes, the audacious extent of which, we will disclose at a later time.
In our last post we also alluded to evidence that pointed to Blomfield having been behind the hacking of Slater’s computer, an elaborate scam designed to fool the New Zealand public and the country’s police service, but which in reality was little more than a criminal enterprise with the sole purpose of hijacking justice, by hanging Cameron Slater’s sources out to dry, in the court of public opinion.
More evidence pointing to Blomfield’s involvement in crime, including cyber-crime and burglary theft has come to light. In fact in one of his last discussions with Cameron Slater, Blomfield couldn’t contain his excitement and let something slip, comments which Slater thought to immediately advise the New Zealand police of.
So Blomfield has succeeded in achieving what? Well, in short he has achieved absolutely nothing. Sure he’s tried it on, but unlike Slater we will stand our ground, even when the New Zealand Courts think they get away with attempting to pull it from under us.
All the judge has done is manage to create international embarrassment for New Zealand’s half baked Courts, attempting to unlawfully interfere in the operation of a genuine outlet, he has created a situation where a New Zealand Barrister, with no lawful entitlement, has obtained temporary control of a foreign owned and operated website.
Uncharted territory indeed, behaviour that will not go unnoticed, nor unpunished, as LF will eventually seek reparations and damages for the theft of our intellectual property, privacy and domain name.
Blomfield even sought to have the New Zealand courts prevent LF from publishing anything more detailing his criminal exploits and attempts to subvert the rights of LF, his many historic creditors, the many statutory authorities he and his associates have defrauded over the years and of course Cameron Slater. It will come as no surprise that LF has no obligation to submit to the misguided and or corrupt dictates of the New Zealand Courts.
Of course in time all of this will be exposed in a great deal of detail, evidenced in a court, the only question being, in which country?
On that note, it might have been smart for Blomfield to have done a spot of research in the area of malicious prosecution, civil tort and the latest law. We certainly did and are well abreast of the options available to us in the future, with any litigation we chose to bring against any party, judges, lawyers courts, anyone involved in this farce;
Willers v Joyce and another  UKSC 43;  WLR (D) 401
Willers v Joyce and another
 UKSC 43;  WLR (D) 401
2016 March 7; July 20
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury PSC, Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson JJSC
Tort — Cause of action — Malicious prosecution — Action brought against company director in respect of breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties — Claim withdrawn before trial — Company director claiming damages for malicious prosecution of civil proceedings — Whether tort of malicious prosecution of civil proceedings existing in English law
As aforesaid, we are no yet certain what this means in regards to LF.com remaining online however, so as of Monday the 24 October www.laudafinem.com may no longer be available. In that event we would urge readers, our dedicated followers, to be patient and continuing to trying our new alternative web address until it has gone live;
This site is based in Iceland, were media laws protect journalists and whistle-blowers from scammers and fraudsters the likes Matthew John Blomfield and members of his organized criminal enterprise, who use the spurious and malicious litigation or various other evasive tactics in their attempts to silence the press.
In short team LF is determined to continue our commitment to readers and our work in exposing crime and corruption and will continue working tirelessly to achieve that goal.
The New Zealand Herald
Unlike Matthew Blomfield’s bullshit tort against Slater, don’t expect to see this story splashed across a gloating Kiwi MSM front page, or in the New Zealand Herald’s bullshit “Big Read” any-time soon; it seems that the NZ Herald’s editor in chief, Shayne Currie, may now have slightly smaller testicles when it comes to do with anything Blomfield or his “achievements”.
Likewise the New Zealand Heralds so-called journalists, those who aligned themselves with Blomfield, will likely soon be far to busy answering criminal investigators questions about their own involvement with a circa 10 million dollar fraud against Tasman Pacific Foods Limited, an Australian owned and operated company which Blomfield and those same journalists deliberately targeted and devalued using the huge resources of New Zealand mainstream media outlets.
Service of documents on the owners of Laudafinem.com was not effected in accordance with New Zealand’s High Court rules.
Blomfield, and or lawyers acting on his behalf, deliberately withheld all affidavits in support of the application, preventing LF from responding to and or making application for a strikeout, defense and or submissions, had we have chosen to do so.
To continue following Lauda Finem and the enthralling saga of Hell Pizza and Matthew Blomfield, in the even that we do suddenly disappear, don’t forget to join us at our new Icelandic mirror site
We would encourage all readers and supporters of LF and a free press to copy this post and ensure that it is circulated on the web and through social media as widely as possible, twitter, facebook whatever you use!
Comments are closed here.