Slater on the Standard hack

Suppression lapsed today at 4 pm on the case of Cameron Slater paying Ben Rachinger to hack The Standard.

Irony abounds, not the least of which being Slater’s attempt to get permanent suppression despite campaigning against suppression and having been convicted on 9 charges of breaching suppression (2010).

On top of this Slater appears to have breached his own suppression, as his media statement appeared on Lauda Finem overnight with a stated post time:

by Cameron Slater on May 9, 2016 at 9:52pm

This post was pulled after several hours. This indicates that Slater still has an association with LF, and unlike Bradley Ambrose who yesterday requested LF correct false information about him and was point blank refused Slater seems to have been able to get a whole post pulled.

Slater then posted this statement on Whale Oil at 4 pm when the suppression lapsed.

MEDIA STATEMENT FROM CAMERON SLATER ON BENJAMIN RACHINGER AND THE HACK OF THE STANDARD THAT NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED

Even the headline seems to make a mockery of the judge’s statement in his judgment, paragraph :

He has accepted his guilt and embarked on a programme to address that.

He has candidly acknowledged his mistakes that he has made and he wishes to put those behind him.

I do not doubt the genuineness of that position.

Slater seems to be ignoring all that as a court convenience.

He writes:

Today, with the lifting of the Police-requested and Court-ordered suppression…

The Police requested interim suppression to assist with a fair trial (that didn’t happen due to diversion),but when Slater sought permanent suppression “the position of the police is that it is neutral on suppression” .

Judgment [6]: Accordingly, before me is an application from Mr Slater yo a s 200 of ther Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for ongoing and permanent suppression…

I’m going to make a number of factual statements today in this release, and I am going to write a number of articles that will delve into some of the detail of what has developed.

So, probably ignoring his diversion obligations.

His statement  looks to have a number of ’embellishments’ as well.

As we know now, nothing that happened under the guise of what has now become known as Dirty Politics broke any laws.  People may not like the tactics, but there was nothing to charge anyone over.  Nothing.  Not just me.  Anyone.

To get diversion you have to admit guilt of the charge. the judge stated “He has accepted his guilt” – of the charge of “counselling and/or attempting to procure Mr Rachinger to access the computer system of The Standard website to obtain property or a benefit, namely computer files (ss 249(2)a and 311, Crimes Act 19621).

In other words, he has admitted breaking the law, he convinced the judge he genuinely accepted his guilt, but now implies no laws were broken (albeit misleadingly with Dirty Politics).

We all know about the game of Politics, but following a criminal attempt to subvert an election, to have certain elements in media use their employers’ and private resources to attempt to destroy me, my family, my friends and colleagues was a whole new low.

More “poor me the victim” per Dirty Politics.

Slater admitted guilt on trying criminally to destroy Andrew little and Labour and Lynn Prentice and The Standard.

It is with this back story that I was isolated, angry and deeply resentful at the hypocrisy of media who were on the one hand claiming all the rights, protections and expectations of being journalists for themselves and Mr Hager, but none of those applied to me only because I was and remain a commercial threat and am deeply disliked for being effective at what I do.

Trying to justify his actions as an understandable reaction to pressure.

Additionally, I was and remain intensely resentful of the usual commentators on the left and in the media that had made it their personal project to destroy me – professionally and personally.

So instead of being remorseful he is on the attack.

He goes on at length, then concludes:

Today, a new chapter starts.  A chapter where I start fighting back in public, rather than continue to suffer the uncontested lies perpetrated by my political opponents and aided and abetted by personally motivated, well resourced and complicit media.

My first article on what happened will be published on whaleoil.co.nz later today.

And there seems to be at least some orchestration of comments on his post.

It sounds like he has learnt nothing and once out of the court is trying to continue with more guns blazing.

 

Leave a comment

9 Comments

  1. Pantsdownbrown

     /  10th May 2016

    I’m no supporter of Slater’s (as people who are familiar with my posts know) but I actually believe he thought he was buying to see already hacked information rather than organizing a hack himself. A small difference but not a totally insignificant one. Ben showed him samples of the already hacked data which was used as a lure to catch him out paying money for further access.

    What about ‘Dirty Politics’?

    The difference between Hager and Slater is that Slater was going to have to pay for access to that hacked material whilst Hager was given his hacked data for free (if he is to be believed).

    Hager used his stolen data to write a one-sided book in an attempt to influence an election, Slater wanted the stolen Standard website data to prove dirty politics on the left.

    Hager wrote a book and made money for himself using his stolen data, Slater would have used his stolen data to create stories on his website and drive up his internet traffic.

    Is one really much worse than the other?

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  10th May 2016

      did the Police raid Slaters home?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  10th May 2016

        May just not have had the hazmat gear.

        Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  10th May 2016

        Slater gave the police all his communication and computer details & passwords, Hager (successfully) fought to keep his communication and computer details hidden from the police.

        Reply
        • “Slater gave the police all his communication and computer details & passwords”

          That’s what Slater claims. I wouldn’t rely on his word.

          Reply
  2. MaureenW

     /  10th May 2016

    No, I don’t think so, it’s just that some are playing the game better than others.

    Reply
  3. Kitty Catkin

     /  10th May 2016

    I have no time for CS, but have to give him credit for losing weight…he couldn’t have run like that a short time ago.

    Lynn Prentice (I always have trouble not expecting that to be a woman’s name with that spelling) does himself few favours with his appearance and presentation. He must have known that the interview was coming.

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  10th May 2016

      yes, Prentice looked like someone that been locked up for months, eating donuts whilst staring at a computer, that had been suddenly been let out of his darkened cage into the light to briefly see what the outside world really looked like………..

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  10th May 2016

      Honestly Kitty, you should be assessing the man on his comments, not his appearance and presentation. Except maybe for Naz and Jessica, and maybe Nicky H, I’m sure would never do that. Sometimes you can be just so shallow. >:D

      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 )

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