Questions about HDCA court order

Now the court order issued under the Harmful Digital Communications Act has been discharged – see Court order discharged  – there are serious questions to ask.

How did some of the most harmful digital communicators in New Zealand – Marc Spring and Dermot Nottingham (and also it appears Cameron Slater) – get to use the Harmful Digital Communications Act  to:

  • use an Act that is not yet in force?
  • apply an order (“appoint a full time moderator systems”) that is not allowed by the Act?

Further questions:

  • Why was the order made in Auckland when it should have been done in Dunedin?
  • Why was the order not served properly?
  • Why was the order posted just after 5 pm on Friday?
  • Did Dermot Nottingham write the defamatory ‘press release’?
  • Why did Marc Spring send threatening and demanding emails to me throughout the weekend from his place of work when I was forbidden to communicate with him or his work?
  • Why has Marc Spring not supplied court documentation as required and requested?
  • Was the court deliberately misled by the application for the order?

We hope to get answers to these and other questions soon.

Despite ridiculing himself with this debacle Marc Spring was quick to get on the attack again. Last night he sent me an email promising alternate legal action against myself, against Your NZ and against others who comment here. I have been advised that his chances of obtaining restraining orders are small. I have evidence that will make that awkward for him. Any attempts are likely to end up being more own goals.

Leave a comment

50 Comments

  1. Brown

     /  9th December 2015

    There are times when you win the battle and move on rather than start another battle. The court system is stuffed and simply an inefficient disaster where people act roles and play games. As someone standing outside this bickering I suggest you quit while you are ahead. There will be bigger battles to fight than this.

    Reply
    • If it were possible I would happily move on from this Brown. I would suggest you direct your comments at Spring and Nottingham, but if you attract their attention you could be their next target, that’s how petty and dangerous they are.

      Reply
      • I’m fairly ignorant of things legal. That’s why I call myself “This Model Citizen”.
        But is there anything about this Court Order warrants police investigation?
        Certainly it seems to constitute a contrived, pessimistic misuse of the legal system to muzzle free speech.
        A court judge appears to have gotten negatively caught up in it one way or another?
        I’ll give-a-little if there are sound avenues via which to continue investigating it.

        Reply
        • traveller

           /  9th December 2015

          I’m happy to have donated and will be happy to do so again to help bring the applicant/s to a regulated forum. While I’ll always prefer my resources go towards positive, life-enhancing campaigns, sitting back and shrugging off bully boys like these is not an option. As many people, including LPRENT, (very erudite on the history and legalese) point out – there are much bigger issues at stake than boy’s egos and pathetic blog wars.

          Reply
      • How about perusing for punishment and compensation this Spring character (and others if involved) in court, for causing you stress, disruption, loss of earnings, legal costs, time wastage, misrepresentation, misuse of court time, character assassination etc? Worth considering it I think.

        Reply
  2. Mike C

     /  9th December 2015

    Seeing all of this bogus Court Order shit unfold before our very eyes over the past five days has made me wonder how many times Marc Spring and Dermot Nottingham have managed to manipulate a Judge into signing an illegal Order before … and I wonder how many people that Nottingham and Spring have targeted have been duped into thinking the [deleted – PG] have been real and haven’t double checked with the Court to verify it’s authenticity.

    Reply
  3. My english teacher would be proud that all these years later I can reach into a bag and pull out, ‘Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of York.’

    He would probably chide me though for using it at the demise of spring and be most disapproving of asking him if Dork was a suburb of York or the Y was simply a typo.

    Reply
  4. Zedd

     /  9th December 2015

    @PG
    “yahoo’ the blog of the UNJAMMED !

    Reply
  5. Notrotsky

     /  9th December 2015

    Spring, in my opinion, sounds like a right nutter. Also, in my opinion, there is little to be gained from engaging or writing about the likes of such persons and the ongoing persons involved in the bitch fight between the Slater/Lauda Finem/Spring Faction vs the Blomfield/Prentice/Rachinger faction. From where I sit on the Interwebs they all come across as nasty litigious lying narcissists ….. in my honest opinion of course.

    Don’t discount the possibility your being played by one side or the other Pete.

    Reply
    • Ben Rachinger

       /  9th December 2015

      There’s no “Blomfield/Rachinger/Prentice” faction.

      None. I don’t speak to Blomfield via text often and haven’t in weeks. I’ve never had a private conversation or real life conversation with Prentice. Pretty sure Prentice will HATE that you align him with me.

      There IS a faction on the other ‘side’ but they’re neither effective nor scary. Individuals on this ‘side’ don’t need a faction. The truth never does.

      Mr George doesn’t support me or Blomfield. He supports honest and open discussion. Something that he’s getting intimidated for and, quite rightly, people are coming to his defence.

      Thanks NoTrotsky.

      🙂

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  9th December 2015

        Well said, Ben. That is my interpretation as well.

        Reply
      • Kevin

         /  9th December 2015

        I don’t believe there is any alignment between you and Prentice. But given the opportunity I believe Prentice would align with you in a heartbeat.

        Reply
    • Kevin

       /  9th December 2015

      The best strategy is to pretend the other side doesn’t exist.

      Reply
  6. kittycatkin

     /  9th December 2015

    Has anyone spoken to Judge Harrison or seen if Tariq Aziz is who he claims to be ? For all I know, it could be a common name, or it could be an attempt at being clever, like signing it Heinrich Himmler or Josef Stalin.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  9th December 2015

      @Kitty

      I agree with you Kitty 🙂

      All aspects of that “Court Order” taken out by Spring and Nottingham should be very closely scrutinized.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  9th December 2015

        A few years ago someone sent a fake Council notice out in my town and made a nuisance of themselves; it looked quite authentic. Everyone believed it and acted upon it. I believed it-it was on Council paper and worded in credible language. Unlike these two, it had no typos. The tysop make me suspicious here.

        Reply
        • jamie

           /  9th December 2015

          The tysop? 😀

          But yes, I totally agree. I find it difficult to believe that a registrar would allow that to pass through the system unchecked, especially as one of the typos is pertinent to the identification of a party named in the order (The Giltrap.)

          Reply
  7. Robby

     /  9th December 2015

    Hi Pete, not being a lawyer myself, but having represented myself in court on more than one occasion, here is my opinion FWIW (this is not legal advice, as I don’t pretend to be something I’m not, unlike certain other individuals…)
    “How did some of the most harmful digital communicators in New Zealand – Marc Spring and Dermot Nottingham (and also it appears Cameron Slater) – get to use the Harmful Digital Communications Act to:
    use an Act that is not yet in force?
    apply an order (“appoint a full time moderator systems”) that is not allowed by the Act?”
    The court, and it’s officers take documents presented to them in good faith. They expect that the individual presenting the form is aware of the consequences of misleading the court, and won’t do so. If they were to scrutinise every document put before them with a suspicious eye, the legal system would be 100x slower than it already is.

    “Further questions:
    Why was the order made in Auckland when it should have been done in Dunedin?”
    Because it was convenient to the Plaintiff.
    “Why was the order not served properly?”
    Wasn’t it? You accepted service by email, which was a mistake.
    “Why was the order posted just after 5 pm on Friday?”
    To prevent you from contacting the court to verify/challenge the order until Monday.
    “Did Dermot Nottingham write the defamatory ‘press release’?”
    It would certainly appear so, although it may have been written by someone else using his computer.
    “Why did Marc Spring send threatening and demanding emails to me throughout the weekend from his place of work when I was forbidden to communicate with him or his work?”
    In my opinion, he was attempting ‘entrapment’, in the mistaken belief the court order was actually valid
    “Why has Marc Spring not supplied court documentation as required and requested?”
    It is not my place to speculate on that. You should ask him yourself, seeing as how you are allowed to contact him again 😉
    “Was the court deliberately misled by the application for the order?”
    The fact that the order was cancelled by the court less than one working day after it was issued , would indicate that it was.

    I’m not normally one to say “I told you so”, but you may recall a comment I made on Saturday saying this was a load of horse shit….

    Reply
  8. kittycatkin

     /  9th December 2015

    I was surprised at such a thing being emailed. My own email address is very unoriginal (my old man did both of our emails down at the library before we had our own computer) mine is initials-name-number. There must be a lot of people with my name and initials, so it’s a highish number-and if the digits were transposed accidentally, the email would still go through. I’d expect a Court Order to be delivered or sent as a registered letter for safety.

    Reply
    • Robby

       /  9th December 2015

      As far as I am aware Kitty, a court order can be served via email, but ONLY if the recipient accepts it, by either notifying the court/plaintiff in advance of their email address as an ‘address for service’, or acknowledging the legal document by replying, or acting on the instructions it contains. Pete should have ignored it, the fact it was ‘served’ just after 5pm on a Friday should have made it pretty obvious it was BS. But I don’t blame Pete for erring on the side of caution…

      Reply
      • The claimed service was actually the ‘press release’ which was posted here before the email was sent.

        In keeping with the new age of communication, and the content of the order, [Name withheld] intends serving Mr George by posting the order on Mr Georges website, which will be, for the last time in its history, as of today unmoderated.

        So the serving was nonsense.

        And the last point is also nonsense, this website has always been moderated, it jusat hasn’t been censored in a way they want to impose.

        Reply
        • Robby

           /  9th December 2015

          “So the serving was nonsense. ”
          Indeed it was Pete, accepting service by email is voluntary. You should have ignored it, in hindsight.

          Reply
    • jamie

       /  9th December 2015

      “…and if the digits were transposed accidentally, the email would still go through.”

      What do you mean by that?

      Reply
  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  9th December 2015

    “Why did Marc Spring send threatening and demanding emails to me throughout the weekend from his place of work when I was forbidden to communicate with him or his work?”

    That is certainly a question I would be asking his employer.

    Reply
    • Missy

       /  9th December 2015

      Alan, my suggestion would be, if the emails were threatening enough, not to ask his employer but to lay a complaint with the police and let them ask his employer.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  9th December 2015

        I see no harm in asking the employer anyway. Who knows what if anything the police will do whereas the employer should either take action to enforce whatever policy his staff use of computers is controlled under or should become complicit in the harassment the company is condoning.

        Reply
        • Robby

           /  9th December 2015

          I suspect that the abuse of company computers is not the most pressing issue on the mind of a certain Auckland car yard owner today Alan……;)

          Reply
          • MaureenW

             /  9th December 2015

            Agree, if the guy is a half-decent salesman, all will be overlooked. Money before values, if you get my drift.

            Reply
            • Robby

               /  9th December 2015

              LOL Maureen, you are obviously not familiar with the historical nottingham-giltrap issue

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  9th December 2015

              Is animosity still live though, Robby? Slater is claiming he has known the current CEO Michael Giltrap since he was at high school. He also claimed Giltrap was cited in the affidavit as supporting Spring against PG. Given that Spring’s relationship with Nottingham is hardly secret …

            • Robby

               /  9th December 2015

              It’s no secret here, but I’m picking Mr Giltrap is far too busy running his business to bother with political blogs. I don’t know him personally, but I suspect that if he connected the dots, he would be asking serious questions about why a certain person wanted to work for him.

            • Robby

               /  9th December 2015

              I recall LF referring to Te Reo Putake as a “nigger in the woodpile”… “Hey pot, it’s kettle here……”

        • Missy

           /  10th December 2015

          I am thinking more of preventing any possible accusations of harassment of them by Pete. It may be better if the requests came via a third party. That was all.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  10th December 2015

            No. Be straight up and honest. It’s always an invincible strategy. There is no need to tell the employer what to do. It is entirely appropriate and responsible to tell the employer exactly what his employee has done in work time using his employer’s facilities.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  13th December 2015

              I agree. Simply saying that x, y and z were sent from a work computer at whatever time it was is perfectly reasonable. The employer can then do what they think is right. They may not mind at all that someone is using work time and work computers for this purpose-but I somehow think that they would !

  10. kittycatkin

     /  10th December 2015

    I would think that few employers would welcome employees doing this on work computers in work time.

    Reply
  11. Re court papers

    I should have been provided with papers from the start, it was a responsibility of Spring. I had my rights infringed without any justification. He didn’t meet his obligations.

    On Monday and again on Tuesday it was requested papers be provided. Assurances were made but never delivered on.

    So we went to the court and requested to view the papers. Initially they turned us down. After insisting and quoting some rules the judge agreed we could view the papers.

    Two people viewed them for me, one of them a lawyer. They could only view, making copies was not permitted by the judge. That seems odd to me.

    I can’t say much about it because I have only had one person’s impression relayed to me by phone and I can’t quote from anything.

    It sounds to have been much as expected. A lot of bull and bluster with little substance. Some of the screen shots were of comments they had made themselves, as expected.

    One key aspect I asked about was what Michael Giltrap had said and it was nothing like as described by Marc Spring in his press release or the embellisher Cameron Slater on Kiwiblog. Both made false and defamatory statements that weren’t backed up by claims of substance in the papers. At least one of them made things up (lied) – the other either lied as well or repeated lies.

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  10th December 2015

      @George

      Was the Judges behaviour in keeping with the Law … and why haven’t you heard back from the second person who viewed the documents yet?

      Reply
  12. Guest

     /  10th December 2015

    @PG
    You should be more clear about who you are claiming made false and defamatory statements…

    Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  10th December 2015

      Why? I can read the last paragraph, why can’t you?

      Reply
      • Guest

         /  10th December 2015

        @MW
        Ah! You must be one of LF’s ‘seven’…

        Reply
        • MaureenW

           /  10th December 2015

          Why is that Guest? Because I can read a paragraph? Personally, I find the whole “blog wars” thing rather trying and petty.

          Reply
          • Guest

             /  10th December 2015

            @MW
            You sound familiar…well done for being able to read a paragraph! Do you feel triumphant?? PG understood my point and acted accordingly. You only drew attention to yourself.

            Reply
    • I’ve edited to be more specific, and I had omitted one offender I had meant to include.

      Reply

Leave a 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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: