If Matthew John Blomfield is a lawyer how well does he do when supposedly protecting his clients interests? Will the next court case be Baker v Blomfield…..read on and find out!
If you want a laugh about how demented this guy is, look at his public profile where he misses the part about pretending to be a lawyer, and that he has virtually all of his clients alleging that he is a crook, fraudster, criminal, and stand-over man. This is from his linked – in profile;
Mr Blomfield, according to Mr Blomfield, is quite the negotiator, and his past is full of success. Again a “Summary” of his successes over the last 20 years;
But wait there’s more, and more, and more, of this bullshit to come. Lets take a gander at his “experience”. Below is his linked-in page profile again. He claims that he is a director of Blomfield investments and that he has been in that position for 1 year and 3 months. But then he relates all of his current experience to a firm called Bell Jr. What happened to the bullshit scam “Bishop Warden”
First rule of negotiation for a client is never say what need not be said. Say only what will engage the other side into making concessions that support your clients position. Never allege something that is not true and known by the other side to be not true. If you are to allege something along these lines never ever immediately contradict your prior false position. Start from a place of strength and end at that same place. Never make a call on behalf of your client that is clearly wrong, or could be wrong on the possibilities.
Whether Matthew Blomfield is a lawyer or not is not the point in these negotiations on behalf of his clients the Bakers. The point is that Matthew Blomfield has opened them up for a civil plaint far larger than was available at the commencement of the negotiations around Mr Roes employment and unlawful sacking for knowing too much about the sexual deviancy of Mr Blomfield and Mr Baker, who Mrs Baker had confirmed to Mr Roe that she had seen evidence of their sick and depraved behaviours on the Internet.
To cut to the chase Mr Roes employment only became an issue because his employer Olivia Baker and her husband had a relationship, where her husband was attempting to inveigle her into threesomes using the Internet. What Olivia Baker did not initially know was that her husband had numerous accounts on the internet, of which accounts were mostly seeking homosexual gratification, and seeking out Paedophile porn sites, and compatible playmates.
So what occurred that led a lovely wife, who was being pressurized into sexual threesomes, to throw in the towel? Well its quite simple really. Mrs Baker woke up one day realising she was worth more than what her life amounted to, and she wanted to confront her husband about his infidelities that she was aware had been occurring. To do that she required someone that cared about her to help her out. Enter her employee and friend Karl Roe.
In short Mr Roe was invited to assist his employer Mrs Baker and in the presence of Mrs Baker, Mr Roe entered the family computer and discovered the accounts which were hidden in open site as such accounts often are, to enable ease of use.
The information obtained disclosed to Mrs Baker that her husband had an underwear fetish when he dressed up in women’s underwear. Not clean underwear, but soiled underwear, which he had stolen from his wife, and his sister and mother in law. He would then advertise this fetish on adult sites looking for men with a similar fetish
Enter Mr Blomfield. Mr Baker and Mr Blomfield had a close an intimate relationship that Mrs Baker knew to be sexual, and thus a domestic relationship. So, anyone would have sympathy for Mrs Baker, including Mr Roe. In the recording of the meeting over Mr Roes employment the following is Mr Roe relating to Mr Blomfield that he is aware of the sexual relationship between Mr Blomfield and Mr Baker;
Karl: I’ve been sleeping with her for the past year as well, its not as one-side as it sounds.
Matt: Karl, appreciate it from our side. I talked about shooting the messenger…
Karl: I’d like you more if you weren’t Craigs Friend, you know what I mean?
Matt: That’s just unfortunate that my job is this and no ones gonna argue that I work in this space and I was asked to look after this particular issue…..
The issue is Bakers and Blomfield’s dirty little secrets coming out into the open as indeed they have.
Mrs Baker was not according to her husband, as attractive as many wives of local businessmen, and company clients, that Mr Baker had slept with, but the last straw was her husband finding the likes of Mr Blomfield more attractive than her. According to evidence that is available, this turned Mrs Bakers stomach to the point that she had to take sedatives in order to look at her husband. The message and text evidence would make Stalin ill.
After resisting his employers many advances, as Mr Roe was never short of female company, he finally agreed to enter into a relationship that was not open, excepting when Mrs Baker had to sleep with her husband so as not to make him suspicious.
However, like most persons that treat their infidelity as their birthright Mr Baker became suspicious of his wife’s sudden change from being a glum and downtrodden mum to being quite happy despite the abuse of alcohol that continued. Mrs Baker took down the adult account that her husband had put up on the Internet, and began having “girl nights out” that would enable her to have sex with Mr Roe.
Mr Baker accessed Mrs Bakers phone and found evidence of the intensity of the sexual encounters between his wife and Mr Roe. His jealousy went through the sexsophere given what he read about his wife doing to Mr Roe what she had never done to him, or ever wanted to do to him. He read about her disgust with him, and his homosexual flings with the likes of Mr Blomfield having panty parties at their respective homes.
Mr Baker also read about his wife’s knowledge that he was a paedophile who visited Russian websites that looked like cultural sites, if you did not know where to look. Who gave the information where to look is another matter that needs to be investigated and it is obvious that a good place to start would be with Mr Blomfield given that he is, according to his profile, an Internet Guru.
Below is a Court case in Kansas in the United States where a Judge denied a defendants application to squash a search warrant relating to his Yahoo emails and residential home in regards to his visitation of the same website that Mr Baker visited regularly trading pictures of children naked.
Mr Bakers penchant for children full stop, and men wearing panties continued with the supposed knowledge of Mr Blomfield, Mr Roe, and Mr and Mrs Baker. Mr Baker attempted to have Mr Roe sacked and his wife told Mr Baker to “bugger off”. The relationship did go quiet with Mrs Baker pretending to have ended the relationship, but it got to the point where both Mr Roe and Mrs Baker were in love.
Below is a true copy of an US Marshalls affidavit relating to the same Ru site that was the subject of the attentions of Mr Baker and others that knew him, and were involved in the same depraved behaviour;
The site that was visited by Mr Blomfield and Mr Baker was subject to the attention of the United States Court of Appeals, stark County, Ohio, Fifth Appellate District, in Starcher v State of Ohio Case No. 2015CA00058, wherein the 3 judge panel dismissed the appeal of the defendant Starcher and upheld his sentence of imprisonment for 12 years;
Enter Mr Blomfield again, but this time as a supposed lawyer. Mr Blomfield has denied ever telling anyone that he is a lawyer, but the allegation has been made by a large number of people, all of whom have been inveigled to commit crimes at Mr Blomfields advice, and then insistence, and when the shit hits the fan, he walks away with a large bundle of cash, for promising them that he had inside corrupt relationships with Judges, Police Officers, Lawyers, and Inland Revenue staff. Always the victim goes bankrupt, or is left without a dime.
The transcript of a conversation between Mr Blomfield, Mr Norling, Mr Roe [with Mr Roe having a very knowledgeable support person] sets out how one can see that Mr Blomfield is not only amateurish in business, but is actually pigshit thick.
In the following discourse Mr Blomfield hands his client over to the record as having sourced material from the Internet that causes real concern but that to distribute it to a wider audience such as the media or the Police would be a criminal offence. Mr Roe also informs Mr Blomfield quite clearly about the sexual nature of his relationship with Mrs Baker, and Mr Blomfield finishes with finding all of this “incredibly exciting and something all new and interesting to get into but we’re not gonna get into that.;
Karl: When you call Craig just let him know it was while he was at the pub with his mate and I was invited over.
Matt: That’s something we’ll pass on for you.
Matt: It is an ugly situation, no doubt about it but we’ve …
FV: It’s just getting more complicated as it goes on and I think the more it goes on there’ll be a lot more coming out.
Karl: I’ve been sleeping with her for the past year as well. It’s not as one-sided as it sounds.
Matt: Karl, appreciate it from our side. I talked about shooting the messenger …
Karl: I’d like you more if you weren’t Craig’s friend, you know what I mean?
Matt: That’s just unfortunate that my job is this and no one’s gonna argue that I work in this space and I was asked to look after this particular issue. I’ve based it on the facts now and your side of the story hasn’t been heard and I’ve been proven to be wrong plenty of times making these calls and based on what we’ve seen and the evidence that’s in place and the direction we’ve got, it does look terrible from our side. If it comes to pass there’s a whole other side of the story, as I said earlier, the owners of this business make this decision at their peril if it’s based on incorrect information.
FV: Just be aware, your side of the story and all of the text messages you have, there’s another whole side of that story to it. I’ve just learnt this because I’m just trying to [indistinct 29.35].
Matt: This is what’ I’ve said to you. The person sitting next to you will know more about what’s gone on than anyone.
FV: And the people that you’re dealing with that somebody’s not letting known the other side. Hey, guys, anyway, at the end of the day Karl has decided he needs to consult a lawyer and, obviously, get his side of things in place and what happens.
Matt: We’ve just had a conversation with Craig and we’ve filled him in on our conversation so I’ll lay out to you guys what I’ve been told and what my directions are now and then, of course, Karl’s free to go and consult a lawyer and talk to whoever he wants to talk to about it. There was three points that I was asked to make. I’m under no illusions as to portions of the other side of the story, we’ll call it. I’ve seen the information that was pulled from Craig’s personal hotmail address, I’ve seen the entire pile of paper that was given to Olivia so I know what information you had in your possession and what was given to Olivia and I know that for obvious reasons, Karl, …
FV: Were you getting involved in all this [indistinct 30.521]?
Matt: Not by choice. Obviously, I read it through squinted eyes going, “Okay.” I say that so Karl can appreciate I do understand that there’s a lot going on here. But, of real concern and if you cut to the chase, that information does belong to Craig whether it’s good, bad or indifferent information, it does belong to Craig and it’s private information and I think in that particular case it is very private because there’s obviously some real concerns. This is passing on that obviously they’ve put the matter with the police and caution you, I won’t say for your own benefit but just to do my job to caution you that if something happens to that information and it’s distributed to a wider audience or if it became a tactic – and I’m gonna say it as it is – to dump information that you’ve obtained in an unlawful means out to a wider public, that would be aggravating any offence that’s been alleged that you’ve committed.
FV: You are aware that this was actually investigated by Olivia way back last year with Steven aware and, obviously, I was not aware of anything that was happening here, and Olivia said the matter was sorted and finished?
Matt: That’s fine. I don’t know about it.
FV: So she actually put that all to bed with that information. It’s going to come out big time, like obviously …
Matt: The simple fact is, the law says you can’t take something that’s not yours and in the case of data, data is seen as property. You can’t take property that you’ve taken from someone unlawfully and then distribute it to a wider audience because that’s receiving stolen goods and then sending them on to a whole lot and it will aggravate an accessing computer system.
FV: He actually hasn’t done that.
Matt: If he hasn’t accessed the computer system and obtained data that wasn’t his and has it in his possession then what I’m saying here can be ignored. If he has and he holds that data and he chooses to distribute it then he will be increasing his potential liability around any potential criminal charges. That’s my opinion on it, I could be totally wrong because you may not have done anything in that letter cos at the moment you haven’t told me what you’ve done or whether you have or haven’t done it.
FV: You’re just accusing or implying that he’s done it?
Matt: No, I’m telling you what I’ve been told and based on what I’ve been told, cos at the moment I’ve got one side saying nothing and one side saying it happened and I have to balance. If we were in a court of law, it would be a logical thing if you’ve got one side saying it happened and one side saying nothing, the courts would go with the person who’s saying something.
FV: No, that’s why he needs an opportunity to say something but he needs a lawyer and there’s a love triangle going on so I’m not sure what mess we’re gonna get into here.
Matt: Yeah, me, too. That could be incredibly exciting and something all new and interesting to get into but we’re not gonna get into that.
Matthew John Blomfield was simply trying to cover his arse (not that he did in the privacy of his own home), over the Internet “trading” that he and his boyfriend did, and which he had seen evidence of. What he wanted to do was to scare the shit out of Mr Roe, and to some extent he succeeded, but only till Mr Roe got some sound advice.
The following discourse is clearly criminal offending by Mr Blomfield, Mr Norling, and the Bakers in that Mr Blomfield and Mr Norling lie about there having a been a specific complaint to the Police on the alleged theft of the material “that was of real concern”.
If that had been the case, they would have had to hand over to the police the material that was of a “real concern” which would have left Mr Baker arrested. However, Mr Baker and Mrs Baker, at the request of Mr Blomfield have destroyed the computers with the help of Mr Michael Blackman from Circle IT. Why is this not a conspiracy to defeat the course of justice and destroying crucial evidence.
Further the issue of dissemination of proof of criminal offending in the age of the Internet is often the only way that such offending is investigated. Especially when the likes of Mr Blomfield allege that he has Judges and cops in his pocket. To spice things up Mr Blomfield also invents allegations about stalking, suicide and guns. This is classic bullshit by Blomfield to avert the attention from him, and his criminal associates.
Matt: Cut to the chase, you’ve obtained a whole lot of highly personal information and the reports back from Olivia and Craig is that that information that you’ve said to them on several occasions, to Olivia in particular, that if this goes wrong, you’re going to distribute that information to all of her extended family, her family and all of the clients which would be hugely damaging. So, the short answer is, and this is being covered off with the police, you’ve been blackmailing them for over a year. This is an allegation and the police will confirm whether it is blackmail or not but you’ve been doing this for over a year so they’ve been absolutely petrified as to how to deal with Karl. You take the example of Olivia. I feel huge sympathy for her. She’s going, “I think I need to be nice to him because he might do something crazy,” and then she’ll back away. I’ve seen the text messages, I’ve seen this firsthand so I’m not basing this on anything other than the stuff I’ve seen firsthand and I’m going, “Are you for real?” And this poor woman is torn between …
FV: What information is there? It’s obviously [indistinct 21.45].
Matt: You’re more than welcome to file a personal grievance against the company and make a claim for wrongful dismissal and do all those things if the decision’s made to dismiss Karl but I’m just saying at a personal level, what I’ve seen, it’s crazy stalker behaviour and it’s quite astonishing. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen and I would be nervous about firing the guy too. I ’m nervous about meeting him, to be perfectly fair.
FV: From what I’ve heard, and this is only jigsaw puzzle pieces of what you’ve said, you’ve got this information which is devastating. I don’t know how much … from what I saw you were logging into Facebook. Okay, obviously that’s not. We’ve got guns involved, we’ve got everything involved.
Brent: To answer your question though, this is context to why it’s an issue today and not a year ago.
FV: But you’re not talking about a month ago.
Brent: What he has to answer today is the information in that letter. If he doesn’t want to answer the allegations, that’s his choice and we can …
Matt: [indistinct 22.52].
FV: He needs an opportunity to actually speak with a lawyer and take this letter and analyse what’s happening today. What you choose to do, I can’t stop you doing whatever you’re going to do.
Brent: Okay. Maybe we’ll just take a two-minute break and have a chat to the owners.
Matt: We’ll have a chat outside about what we’re going to do. Can I ask you one more time cos today is an opportunity for you to respond and I understand it’s short notice and I’ve tried my hardest to explain why it’s short notice. If there’s anyone in this room who can explain the context of what’s going on, he’s sitting next to you and it may be that he says, “It’s all out and out lies,” it may be that he says, “Yes, it’s all true and it’s much worse than that.” But the person who can answer that for you right now is sitting right next to you and we’ll be right over the other side so we don’t have to be party to this conversation. I think that you two should have a really serious discussion about the background of this letter and take some time to really consider what you wanna do at this point. I’m not gonna take it much further than that but assuming everything is true and there are threats of bringing guns into work …
FV: So where are the police? If he had a threat of a gun, I would be calling the police straight up. Do you know what I mean? I would have the police here straight away. If I was threatened with a gun, mate, there’s no way in hell I wouldn’t be [indistinct 24.19].
Matt: I’ll answer that question right now. We’re the messengers. I don’t think this guy’s gonna fire up and shoot us. If he was gonna shoot something, he wouldn’t be shooting us, he could think of much better targets – I’m just theoretically pointing this out to you. The police are aware that this meeting’s going on and they’ve said that they’ve got people here who will turn up on site if it fires up so that’s the answer to your question.
FV: So you actually believe …
Matt: I don’t know this person, I know nothing about him so I don’t believe anything one way or the other but I have to take my clients at face value.
FV: So you have actually got police on standby?
Matt: They have told us they will come here straight away if there’s any issues.
FV: Really? It’s just like, oh my God.
Matt: Like I said, you need to talk to your client.
FV: My main thing is that employment contract. The serious misconduct has got a procedure – it has to be followed as per the employment contract. That’s where I’m coming from.
Matt: I know, it’s crazy, eh? It’s outrageous but if it’s true then it’s much worse than anything in the letter and the letter’s basis for an instant dismissal.
FV: So obviously if it goes further, and I’ll talk to Karl anyway regarding all this, then whatever information that you’ve sussed or Karl has supposedly issued from somewhere and guns and the whole lot …
Matt: It’s all been given to the police. The police are dealing with it and they’ll be doing their own investigation and I don’t think we’ll be party to that. I’m just giving that information to you as context to why we’re fast-tracking the process here.
FV: Do you have a contact at the police so that we can actually contact them cos I don’t think it’s actually fair to say that all this has been given to the police and that they’re investigating.
Matt: We’ve got a reference number for you, a file number.
FV: Yep, that’d be good.
Brent: One six zero three one four slash one five oh eight.
FV: And the complaint was made at the Albany police station?
Matt: North Shore.
FV: North Shore police station up at …
Brent: Constellation Drive.
FV: Oh, in the Constellation one there? I’m thinking of the [indistinct 26.38] so 160314/1508.
Now we can tell you that in the fraudulent application for a restraining order against Mr Roe, Mr Blomfield never mentioned the guns, and neither did Mrs Baker. Again, no mention of threats of suicide etc in the application. As for Mr Blomfields mentioning his fear of Mr Roe, what a load of nonsense as he was to follow Mr Roe on numerous occasions and then send criminal associates after Mr Roe a day or so out from the hearing which led to Mr Roe not attending the call over. More on those matters in coming posts.
But if Mr Roe was a threat with guns and guns had been mentioned to the Police why did the Police not do anything about it. Well the answer is very simple.
Mr Blomfield is lying in order to have made the allegations about guns in order that Mr Roe not go to the cop shop to find out, and if he did it would affect his credibility in any event. The fact that Mr Blomfield alleged that the cops were on standby over the possibility of a “gun event” is completely ludicrous, as the Police would attempt to intervene, and if that were a possibility Mr Roe, a licensed gun owner would have been stripped of his guns on the alleged suicide threat and the threat to use his guns at work. All lies, lies, lies, lies, and more lies. But these same lies are used by Blomfield against all innocent victims that have wanted him and his associates outed for serious criminal offending.
Now this brings our final point to focus. If Mr Blomfield did not know Mr Roe, and had been shown texts about death threats, suicide and bringing guns to work, he surely would not have attended the meeting due to the previous encounter with a gun toting “killer bee” gang member;
Next story is about a New Zealand District Court judge that has been responsible for secreting the evidence against Mr Baker about paedophilia, and has gone to the extent of threatening Mr Roe with consequences. He did this when Mr Roe was not before him because he had been threatened by associates of Mr Blomfield. Trouble is that the only person that is for the High Jump on those orders is the Judge. Fortunately for Mr Roe, LF obtained the material prior to the judge committing to his criminal course, and asserting that he had jurisdiction to make such orders at the time that he did when he was aware of the evidence establishing paedophilia by at least two businessmen, and perjury and suborning of perjury by the applicant, and her lawyer and advisor.
It does make you wonder if the judges of New Zealand are as corrupt as the Judges of Cook County Illinois. The problem for this judge is that he is going to have to face a top level inquiry over his “strange” behaviour given the evidence of perjury and a conspiracy to defeat the course of justice before him, but additionally that the judge was aware that Mr Roe had already informed the Court that he had disseminated the information to several media sources in order to protect his position if he was killed by associates of Mr Blomfield.
As for New Zealand Judges being corrupt…..well of course there are corrupt judges….estimated to be as high as 50% of the current judiciary in the District Courts.
The last matter that we feel that we need to deal with is Mr Bakers “bit on the side” that Mr Blomfield would not have known about. The moniker used by this large dominating gay male on adult sites was “silverback”. Interestingly this term is on Urban Dictionary;
This is an identikit picture of the man that met with “silverback” and had sex in the back of Silverbacks VW Trannyporter;
The above image may be why a District Court Judge is threatening a victim of physical and psychological assault with serious consequences if he sends the evidence that the judge secreted to the media.
The name of the Judge and his particularly sick way he likes to promote the safety from prosecution of sexual and criminally deviant perpetrators by secreting their offending by Court order and then persecuting their victims if they dared give that evidence to the media is for the next article. It will be a ”nut cracker”.
We could give you a “hint”?….wink …wink…say no more. By our order his name and everything likely to identify him [whoops] will be kept suppressed until….
When will the courts decide not to follow Blomfields lies….maybe when the corrupt judges are exposed?