Court order discharged

The court order Spring versus George was discharged today by Judge Harrison.

CourtOrderDischarged

Obviously that’s great news.

I have removed the auto moderation except for first comments by new people.

The original order that caused a lot of consternation around the blogosphere and lawosphere.

CourtOrderSpringvGeorge

UPDATE: Lynn Prentice has covered this in detail at The Standard:

Judge scammed by a legal idiot and his pet pest

 

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

88 Comments

  1. kittycatkin

     /  8th December 2015

    FINALLY !!! I am still puzzled by the initialless judge, and wonder-well, never mind. It’s over.

    Reply
  2. So there is Justice in NZ. I still feel that if the sections 18 and 19 were in effect, the ruling was null and void of evidence. Pete were you aware of the hearing before the Email after 5 p.m. arrived? If so I believe you have grounds to seek legal remedies because the principles of Human Rights in New Zealand law have been offended. At least, in the absence of an apology from the Judge, at least there was an admission of his “misapprehension” whatever that means to us ordinary Kiwis. We are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse many times, so you should lodge a complaint to the Chief Justice so that he gets the message that we expect real justice for Kiwis from our Courts.

    Reply
    • The press release was the first notification I had, after 5 pm Friday. Followed soon after be an email of the press release and the order.

      Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  8th December 2015

    So we now know beyond question that Slater, Nottingham and Spring are birds of a feather, plotting and nesting together. And feeding Lauda Finem with abusive lies and threats as well as trolling anonymously on this blog to make trouble, certainly via Spring and almost certainly via Nottingham.

    As nasty a trio of Orks as Jackson ever imagined but luckily without the direction of an intelligent necromancer.

    Reply
  4. Doesn’t bode well for when the HDCA does come into force. BTW Tariq Aziz? Wasn’t he propaganda minister for Saddam? Seems appropriate somehow.

    Reply
  5. Goldie

     /  8th December 2015

    I am a little stunned actually. A judge’s order essentially sought to muzzle a person’s freedom of speech – and it turns out that he didn’t know the law he was actually ordering under. Incredible.
    I have just looked at the HDC Act, and even if s.19 was in force, his order didn’t comply with it.
    All very bizarre.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  8th December 2015

      As I said, quite strange indeed.

      Reply
    • Harrison acted properly, apart from not understanding what “full-time moderation” means.
      The problem is that judges are required when presented with an application for a injunctive order to rely on the legal argument and legal references provided by the applicant.

      The converse is that if the applicant lies or misleads the judge, then the applicant is wholly liable for any damages, and really has no defence. I urge Pete to talk to his lawyer and take a case against all the participants in the gormless episode. I suspect that the courts will probably help to expedite the process.

      Reply
      • Goldie

         /  8th December 2015

        Justice Harrison did not act properly at all. He stated that the order was made “on the misapprehension that sections 18 and 19 of the HDC Act are in force.” That the judge didn’t realise that is a cock up.
        But section 19 of the HDC Act states that in deciding whether or not to make an order, and the form of an order, the court must take into account a list of 11 criteria – which were apparently not done. And section 19 also states that in doing anything under this section, the court must act consistently with the rights and freedoms contained in the BORA – and given that the issue was political, the judge should have behaved with caution in issuing such an order.

        Justice Harrison screwed up.

        But I completely agree with your other remarks about this case lprent.

        Reply
        • Kevin

           /  8th December 2015

          The HDA also contains provisions for a technical adviser who presumably would have advised the court on not only what full time moderation means but also the impracticalities of implementing such a system.

          Reply
  6. Mike C

     /  8th December 2015

    The Harmful Digital Communications Act quite clearly needs to be reviewed.

    Because as its legislation reads right now … it will cause huge massive harm to innocent people that do not deserve it 😦

    Whoever it was that created and first signed off on the Harmful Digital Communications Act … also needs to be reviewed.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  8th December 2015

      Maybe, but it has a lot of protections that were simply ignored. Bizarre. Perhaps the judge was advised incompetently.

      Reply
      • Yep. In my opinion, probably by Dermot acting improperly in activities reserved for the lawyers and conveyancers. I’ll have more time to head to the district court tomorrow.

        Reply
    • Kevin

       /  8th December 2015

      The problem with it is that truth is no longer a defence. So if I publicly expose someone as a sex offender on a blog then that person can take action under the HDA and have the post remove even if everything in the post is true.

      Reply
  7. As I said: all mouth and trousers, the lot of them.

    Reply
  8. Pickled Possum

     /  8th December 2015

    Yaaaa normal service is resumed and back to the swamp for all of those mean people.

    Reply
  9. Mike C

     /  8th December 2015

    @Steve Taylor

    But Marc Spring and Dermot Nottingham convinced a New Zealand Court Judge to make a ruling based on [Edit – we don’t know that – PG] evidence and law.

    I would say that Spring and Nottingham and their Co-Conspirators are extremely adept at what they do online and within the Court System … and they need to be watched very carefully 🙂

    Reply
    • @ Mike C:

      It was a without notice interim restraining order pending a Hearing – these things are as common as the proverbial muck, and pretty easy to obtain.

      Let’s not give credit where credit is not actually due 🙂

      Reply
      • The problem was that there wasn’t any other law apart from HDCA that a interim order could have been obtained so easily. I know I spent some hours looking very hard for it early this morning and couldn’t find any that would apply.

        Reply
  10. Timoti

     /  8th December 2015

    Congratulations Pete. Enjoy a good wine and sleep the sleep of someone innocent of transgressing The Harmful Digital Communications Act.

    Reply
  11. Mike C

     /  8th December 2015

    @George

    Have you received a copy of the affidavit evidence yet … that accompanied the Suppression Order application made by Marc Spring?

    Reply
  12. Pointing out (as some have queried) – four days after being ‘served’ with a ‘press release’ in comments here on Your NZ (a world first?) I have still not been given access to the court application and affidavit.

    And a comment on Kiwiblog by fernglas:

    The judge has purported to revoke the order in terms of one of the paragraphs in the order (I nearly said “thereof”) which seems odd if the order was without jurisdiction in the first place.

    It is a worry that a judge was persuaded to make an order under a statute that was not in force. If it was a lawyer who made the application, which was without notice, I would see it as professional misconduct.

    But if it was a lay applicant?

    A good bet it was a lay applicant. It appears to have been a lay press release writer.

    Reply
    • Jeeves

       /  8th December 2015

      IIRC.. that was a graeme edgeler comment

      Reply
    • John W

       /  8th December 2015

      The order was made by a deputy registrar. For people who don’t know, deputy registrars will usually be inundated with paperwork. They will get a stack of applications, in writing, nobody appears before them, they will read it and issue a court order.

      This is all low level stuff, applications need to cite the law, the statutory test and show how the test has been met.

      Registrars usually don’t have law degrees and issue things such as warrants to seize property (for non payment of fines or court judgements), and other low level stuff.

      As a result the filing fees are low.

      Reply
      • Not so. The original orders were made by the judge, not the registrar. You are confusing the pronouncement of the order in Court by the judge with the administrative function of affixing the Court’s seal.

        The original order states “Before Harrison DCJ”. That is the indicia that it was made by the judge.

        I’ll explain how orders are taken out. I’m an Australian lawyer but the process is similar throughout common law jurisdictions.

        At the hearing before the judge, the applicant will hand up a proposed order to the judge. If the judge is persuaded to make the orders, he or she will say something like “I make the order in terms of the draft which I have initialled and will be placed with the file”. Sometimes, amendments to the proposed draft are made in the course of the hearing, at the behest of the judge and/or the parties, which will me made to the draft by hand. In that case, the judge will refer to the “amended draft” when formally pronouncing the order.

        The file is then returned to the registry.

        The applicant will then provide a fresh copy (sometimes two copies) of the draft order (with any amendments made during the hearing) to the registry. The registrar or deputy registrar will compare the initialed draft on the file to the fresh copy lodged by the applicant and, if all is in order, affix the Court seal. The registrar will also initial the order to witness his or her affixation of the seal, and his or her name will be written underneath. The process is similar to the witnessing by directors of a company’s seal (no longer required in Australia).

        That is why the deputy registrar’s signature and name appear at the bottom of the interim order. That doesn’t alter the fact that it is an order of a judge.

        And finally, I have to say that’s pretty embarrassing that the judge made an order without jurisdiction. It is true that judges rely on parties to guide them on the law, but they are still expected to have a high level of knowledge of the law independently of the parties’ submissions. A judge ought to be particularly cautious in novel cases such as one involving new legislation, especially on ex parte hearings.

        Reply
        • JohnW

           /  10th December 2015

          “The original order states “Before Harrison DCJ”. That is the indicia that it was made by the judge.”
          You are correct, I missed that point.

          You are correct on the other points as well.

          Reply
    • Pete Kane

       /  8th December 2015

      PG Fernglas is quoting Graeme Edgeler, is he not? It still has that ring of a Registrar (or assistant) putting something in front of the DCJ, with a sign here please. I’m being flippant, but only a bit. Don’t assume many solicitors would have a clue regarding this kind of legislation. Although as Edgeler (?) infers, it does have an ‘amertatish’ feel (which is hardly a surprise to any of the YNZ family).

      Reply
      • It sounds to me like a bit of sign here please via a none law qualified deputy registrar – so the responsibility is on the person who submits (or that’s what fernglas suggests).

        If so I hope the lawyer or lay applicant involved gets much better scrutiny in the future.

        Reply
        • Pete Kane

           /  8th December 2015

          It’s going to be interesting to see if Harrison has signed anything. You may recall Soper decrying their recent search warrant, re the gun, as being signed by a minor official (his meaning).

          Reply
      • Pete Kane

         /  8th December 2015

        Sorry my mistake, he appears to be replying to Graham. Still made a lot of sense.

        Reply
    • kittycatkin

       /  8th December 2015

      The wording was a bit amateurish, too. I am still dubious about all this being genuine.

      Reply
      • Pete Kane

         /  8th December 2015

        Hi Ms Kittycatkin. The grounds may not be genuine but the documentation surely is? There’s no way Slater would have commented on KB if he had an inkling it wasn’t. That would be legal/political suicide I would have thought. It seems a lot of Departments (including Justice) appear amateurish I’m afraid. Just look at who they seem to employ these days.

        Reply
        • I’ve been told that the applicant is required to fill out the document for the registrar to sign. So ‘amateurish’ is probably appropriate.

          Reply
          • Straya

             /  9th December 2015

            It’s an order made by a judge. No way in hell that a registrar has jurisdiction to, or would purport to, issue an interim injunction. See my detailed comment above as to why the registrar’s name and initials appear on the order.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  10th December 2015

              As I understand it. Court Orders are only emailed if the recipient requests this-which I can’t believe happened here. Otherwise they are posted, and I think by registered mail. Emails can be read by anyone who has access to that person’s account (stating the obvious) What would happen if one was emailed to someone who was locked out of their account by that monumental stuff-up by Microsoft whenhundreds of thousands of people found that they couldn’t get in to their hotmail ? My husband was one of those who was told (among other lies) that he would be able to get in using a code sent to me…but like everyone else who was told this, he found that the code was always one digit short. What would happen if someone CLAIMED this sort of thing as an excuse ? Or said that their computer had crashed or been stolen or….

  13. Missy

     /  8th December 2015

    Happy for you Pete. Hopefully you will get a copy of the affadavit and other papers that were used for the court order.

    Reply
  14. SteveRemmington

     /  8th December 2015

    I noted that it was mentioned on Kiwiblog that the affidavit was penned by Michael Giltrap. From the court docs this wasn’t the case and no affidavit was provided other than one from Mr Spring.

    Reply
  15. Cooler heads prevailed. Congrats.

    Reply
  16. So pleased. Everyone here before me has said what I feel, but suffice to say the law in this case was very much worse than an ass. The complainant il-advised and vexatious. Hard to believe injunctions for laws not even introduced are flung about on a Friday and by email. You Mr George have grounds for and emotional and fiscal redress.

    Reply
  17. Brown

     /  8th December 2015

    Years ago I had a job where I managed a lot of files where parties were engaged in litigation and remember at that time my boss moaned about the quality of judges, especially in the district court system, expressing a view that they were solicitors too crappy to make it in a legal practice. Looking at this change in ruling I wonder if he was right.

    Reply
  18. Bob

     /  8th December 2015

    The Streisand effect strikes again, wouldn’t have known much about all this if not for the court order. Ha ha well done all!!

    Reply
  19. So a blog can be shackled for 4 days by an interim order issued on the basis of legal arguments and references supplied by someone to a registrar no real questions asked.

    i love the equity and fairness of the law..

    Congrats Pete on being freed of this imposition.

    I suspect some people just isolated themselves even more…

    Reply
  20. Pete Kane

     /  8th December 2015

    The only silver lining Dave, is we have a worthy democratic fight ahead for the YNZ forum, to which we are all agreed. Team work maybe demanding but it’s also fun.

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  8th December 2015

      This is from 2013 and doesn’t even involve PG. How is it relevant?

      Reply
      • SteveRemmington

         /  8th December 2015

        Pete will work out its relevancy thank Kev.

        Reply
        • Robby

           /  8th December 2015

          Read it all Kevin, & look for familiar names, particularly in linked articles within it. Mr Giltrap should vet his staff more carefully….

          Reply
  21. Kevin

     /  8th December 2015

    This is not good news as the order was overturned simply on a technicality. There is nothing to say that the order would have been overturned if the relevant sections of the HCA were in force.

    Reply
    • Robby

       /  8th December 2015

      It’s not a technicality Kevin. ‘Someone’ showed up at court, and used false pretences to obtain a court order. It’s as simple as that. A bit like a journalist obtaining a firearm by mail order without a firearms licence. And look how that’s working out for her…..

      Reply
    • jamie

       /  9th December 2015

      Yes Kevin, in a sense. The “technicality” being that there is no such law.

      Reply
      • Jeeves

         /  9th December 2015

        And the other technicality being that if there was such a law, there is no provision within it to enforce a fulltime moderator system.

        Reply
        • Kevin

           /  10th December 2015

          From memory the HDA allows the judge to make such orders. The other thing is it provides for a “technical expert”. So that even if the relevant provisions were in place the judge should have consulted with a technical expert to decide whether or not a full time moderation system of the type requested was even feasible.

          Reply
  22. Alan Wilkinson

     /  8th December 2015

    A nice post here y LPrent: http://thestandard.org.nz/judge-scammed-by-a-legal-idiot-and-his-pet-pest/

    I do like the page title too!

    Reply
  23. Joe Bloggs

     /  9th December 2015

    Just catching up with this – fantastic news…what a poke in the eye for the nutter’s cabal that is Slater/Nottingham/Spring/and hangers-on.

    I take my hat off to Lyn Prentice too. It’s great to see that there are some people who are prepared to rise above personal differences in order to stand up for the integrity of free and fair speech on blogs… great expose of how dirty politics extends into dirty bloggers and co.

    Reply
  24. Shit, for a blog that “nobody reads”, you sure have freaked plenty of people out.

    Kick that ol’ anthill and watch those little bitches scurry about!

    I just read the latest LF, and Slater’s comments on Kiwiblog (some of which were wisely redacted by Farrar). If you were really on the wrong track, and nobody read you, there’s no way they would be reacting this way. They are spooked. Slater’s tone regarding the call from Halligan was not his usual style. Normally he is all alpha male and “NFWAB!” trying to channel George Patton – not this time – he’s scared. And while I’m fairly certain there’s no strong connection between Slater and LF, they’re hysterically spooked too. Some of the claims they have made about you and some of the commenters here are just ludicrous. If anybody cared, they’d be sued and bankrupted. They seem to have adopted the Scientology strategy of merciless bullying in the hope of wearing you down and warding you off.

    There is mental illness in play here, but it’s not necessarily coming from this side of the fence.

    Reply
    • Robby

       /  9th December 2015

      Yup, I still struggle to believe that Mr Slater is on their side, given the hit job they did on him & his alleged mistress. As much as I dislike Cam, nobody deserves that sort of personal attack .As Lynn said, he banned Pete because he was annoying, but he is honest. So it’s great he has his own blog now….So instead of all this malicious legal BS, hows about you all beat each other to near death with your words. It costs a lot less to do it here, than in court. ‘Allegedly’, and ‘In my opinion’ are your friends. Just fucking do it dammit! Lets sort this shit out, and leave the courts out of it…..

      Reply
      • Robby

         /  10th December 2015

        I’ll start the debate, by saying you are all decent people, with conflicting honest opinions…..

        Reply
    • I am absolutely certain of the connection between LF and Slater, Blair. It is more recent than the attack on Slater from LF in 2014, but these troglodytes trade friendships quickly.

      Cameron and Marc Spring go back a long way. Spring has been tightly involved in the case that Blomfield is taking against Slater. I won’t go into an in-depth explanation of that, other than it is well spelt-out in the interim judgments thus far the extent of Spring’s involvement in the hit against Blomfield. Spring is also a business partner of Stephen Cook, who writes most of the hit job pieces for Slater.

      LF is Dermot Nottingham for all intents and purposes. The Europe-based Antony is a fictional ruse because they misunderstand what a legal jurisdiction is, and are under the alarming delusion that they can publish anything they wish as Antony is based offshore, irrespective of the intended audience. Dermot writes the long, rambling, feverishly abusive and stalking pseudo-legalistic BS pieces at LF. He also wrote the press release for the application for injunction for Marc Spring against Pete George last week.

      Earlier there seemed to be a common view that Slater had outsourced the nastier parts of his hits-for-hire operation to LF. There was certainly a common theme to their coordinated double-pronged hits: WO would produce a story written by Cook that was reasonably actionable, and then LF would do a follow-up piece that was beyond any sense of proportion. Yet scratch not too far and you realise that all of the intended targets in these joint hit operations are people with whom Dermot, Spring, Cook, or Slater have personal grievances–with the notable exceptions of the hit jobs that have been carried out against Lusk and Carrick Graham targets, which are performed separately on Whaleoil.

      I am now convinced that the common view above is not entirely accurate. Whale does not outsource the nastier hits to LF. As Whale has been increasingly consumed by his legal problems, his circle of friends has diminished and the only ones who are continuing to stroke his fragile ego are the demented LF crowd, who are also instrumental in his legal defence. But Slater is also deeply isolated from many of the people who supported him financially and provided him with blog content. Pete Belt keeps the blog ticking over with all those spurious daily posts that are needed to drive google hits and advertising income. Juana chips in with a brand of toxic Islamophobia that is designed to generate ongoing google traffic. But very little of the content now comes from Cameron himself: instead much of it comes from Cook and Spring.

      So the analysis that Cameron has outsourced to LF the nastier parts of hit-jobs isn’t correct in my view. It’s a subtly different situation: that LF have done a back-door takeover of the Whaleoil site itself.

      [This is the opinion of the commenter who has identified himself. Your NZ does not endorse this comment, it provides a forum where people can post their opinions. A right of reply is available as usual. Any attempts by anonymous commenters to disrupt discussion or compromise this site may be excluded. PG]

      Reply
      • Robby

         /  10th December 2015

        Thanks Hamish for giving an honest opinion (according to you), and putting your name to it.

        Reply
        • Robby

           /  10th December 2015

          There are some pretty serious allegations in your post Hamish, and I hope that the folk on the receiving end of them realise they have the right to reply here…..

          Reply
          • Indeed they do, Robby, but the reality is that they do not want any exposure of the true nature of their conduct, because of the extent to which it imperils Cameron’s legal position on the one hand, and Cameron’s long-held commercial intentions on the other.

            To put that second point in context: Cameron for a decade has talked about setting up a blogging empire. That requires serious money from serious people. There have been serious people with serious money around Cameron for a number of years, but I can’t think of any of them who would want to be even slightly associated with the sort of low-lifes that Slater hangs about with now. The very prospect of getting commercially involved in a project like Freed, with the likes of Cook, Spring, and Dermot hanging on, would fill those potential funders with total revulsion. Cameron is deeply aware of this conflict which is why he doesn’t want it discussed.

            The reason why Pete’s blog has been systematically attacked by that group of people over the last several weeks is that increasingly as Cameron’s blogging operation spirals from death knell to death knell, and his legal position becomes increasingly desperate, more and more people who were previously associated with the Whaleoil blog are coming out of the woodwork, and are doing so on this forum.

            [This is the opinion of the commenter who has identified himself. Your NZ does not endorse this comment, it provides a forum where people can post their opinions. A right of reply is available as usual. Any attempts by anonymous commenters to disrupt discussion or compromise this site may be excluded. PG]

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  10th December 2015

              I think you need to clarify the principles behind that right of reply you cited, Pete. As written it appears to say that anyone named in an accusation is prevented from that point on from commenting under a pseudonym but I doubt that was your intention.

            • Thanks Alan. I’ve changed it – does that sound better? I want to be fair to anyone but am not going to allow attacks to resume on this site.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  10th December 2015

              Yes, I thought that was what you were probably thinking.

            • Mefrostate

               /  10th December 2015

              Thanks for detailing all this, Hamish. Based on the bits and pieces of information that have become available, my opinion entirely aligns with yours.

              I wish there was some way to make all Whale Oil readers aware of these relationships and the insidious factors which drive the content they are reading. In my view nothing posted on that blog has any credibility any more because it is either:

              a) Belt’s claptrap
              b) Paid hits
              c) Personal vendettas
              d) Islamophobia
              e) Reposted news articles with one man’s heavily biased opinion added, and no right of reply in the comments.

            • Jeeves

               /  10th December 2015

              Some lawyer somewhere is reading this and thinking …’class action’

      • Jeeves

         /  10th December 2015

        This is becoming like a parallel doppelganger with Mark Lyons. The fall from grace is ignominious. Ignominious I say!.

        Reply
      • Mike C

         /  10th December 2015

        @HamishP

        “LF have done a back door takeover of the WhaleOil”

        Rumour was … [please don’t insinuate thuings like that – PG]. LOL 🙂

        Reply
    • Jeeves

       /  10th December 2015

      @ Blair: I’m gobsmackingly in full agreement with you.

      Reply
    • Slater may well be a victim of manipulation in this but he knows what is happening and allows it to continue. And there are proven associations – LF admit some of them in posts.

      Reply
    • Mike C

       /  10th December 2015

      @BlairMulholland

      I could not find anything in your above comment that I disagreed with … aside from you saying there is probably no connection between Whale and Lauda Finem.

      Reply
      • Jeeves

         /  10th December 2015

        Have you any evidence of this at all that you are willing to share with us??

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  10th December 2015

          There was sufficient evidence in Slater’s comments on Kiwiblog.

          Reply
          • Jeeves

             /  10th December 2015

            I did mean to screenshot his comments, and now DPF has redacted them…
            But iirc- I really don’t recall that any ‘evidence’ was there.

            My issue is this:

            1) Slater is a vile feral cockroach. Filth.
            I despise the man and what he and his little cabal of ferals tried to do to our democratic process and many other offensive acts.

            2) LF are clearly no better. But on an entirely more puerile plane.

            3) The comments I’ve read on LF about Slater and his concubine are so repellent (I’ve never laughed so hard) that I cannot believe in this nexus.

            4) To date, I’ve not read a skerrick of hard or circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Lots of innuendo, and plenty of assumptions and even plenty of peripheral circumstance, but no actual evidence (and I don’t mean proof).

            I must be missing something……

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  10th December 2015

              Yep, you are missing this. Slater cited material in the affidavit that could only have come direct from the conspirators since even PG had not yet seen it.

            • Jeeves

               /  10th December 2015

              Or from Michael Giltrap…..

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  10th December 2015

              Only if M Giltrap was party to drawing up the affidavit which seems unlikely – particularly since the allegation being made was false.

            • Jeeves

               /  10th December 2015

              @ Alan- yep I get you, probable link there alright.

  25. Alan Wilkinson

     /  10th December 2015

    The comment by Straya is very informative re how this debacle played out. It is worth reposting as a headline post.

    Reply
  1. Judge got it wrong on HDCA | Kiwiblog

Leave a Reply to Mike C Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s