The Nottingham private prosecutions

It will have been obvious to those following Your NZ in July-August 2015 that there was some legal stuff happening. But I was then gagged through suppression orders so had to be careful what I posted. Until now.

Yesterday morning NZ Herald reported Blogger dodges prison over court suppression breaches, harassment campaigns

A blogger described as “malicious and nasty” has narrowly avoided prison after breaching suppression orders in a prominent Auckland court case and leading a prolonged campaign of criminal harassment against five people, including a former MP.

Dermot Gregory Nottingham was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention and 100 hours’ community work today in the Auckland District Court, after what Judge Jonathan Down described as a blatant and contemptuous breach of court orders and an arrogant view of right and wrong.

A jury found Nottingham guilty of five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression orders following a trial, in which Nottingham represented himself, during April and May.

That case is closely linked to my legal misadventure, so much so that suppression on that was also applied to a private prosecution of myself and others.

I posted on this sentencing, trusting that the Herald would have carefully complied with suppression orders. Yesterday I sought and eventually got confirmation from the Auckland District Court that suppression had lapsed in that case, which meant that it will have also lapsed in my case.

Nottingham has a legal history that goes back a long way, including private prosecutions. That’s a different story.

This story is long and complicated – I will keep it as concise as possible – about my legal dealings with him have been going for three years, and are not over yet, with an application seeking leave to appeal currently before the Court of Appeal, with Nottingham promising to take it to the Supreme Court if he fails (again) with that.

While Nottingham is at the centre of all of this he has not acted alone. In my case others have been closely involved, including long time business associate and employer Robert Earle McKinney, brothers Phillip and I believe Antony (the Netherlands LF connection), Marc Spring and Cameron Slater.

In April 2015 NZ Herald published a report. A revised version of this is still online: Man accused of suppression breach

An Auckland man accused of breaching a high-profile name suppression has been granted name suppression himself.

The man appeared in Auckland District Court today facing two charges of contravening suppression orders. He is also charged with five counts of criminal harassment.

That article was republished by the Otago Daily Times, and as the original headline referred to it being a blogger it also attracted interest posts here on Your NZ and at The Standard.

Slater was an obvious candidate, as he had a history of suppression breaches resulting in convictions on multiple charges, but I could quickly rule him out. I did quite a bit of searching but ended up having no idea who this person was,

As with most stories it quickly faded into history. But it resurfaced in July when out of the blue I was served with court papers that were an application to lay charges against me for breaching suppression by a private prosecutor, Dermot Nottingham. This confirmed that Nottingham was the subject of the April article, the first time I knew it was him. At that stage I had heard of him but knew little about him.

Nottingham says he first went to the police but they declined to act, so he decided to conduct private prosecutions against myself, APN (Herald), Allied press (ODT) and Lynn Prentice.

Earle McKinney arranged for service of the papers. I willingly complied, having no idea what they were about. The application to lay charges claimed a conspiracy between police, court officials and the Herald.

It alleged that I had ‘entered into an online agreement with Lyn Prentice’, which was ridiculous – lprent had just re-banned me from the Standard (for a year) on 1 April 2015 after a previous one month ban in March.

About a week later Marc Spring served two charging documents – alternative charges of suppression breaches. This raised some suspicions, because about the time the first document was served Spring had suddenly started niggling at me, including suggesting I might be fucked over by Whale Oil like someone else had been, on Twitter in tandem with an LF account.

I did some investigating and found that Spring had been commenting on Your NZ since January 2015 using multiple pseudonyms. I had clashed with him when, as I later found out, he started attacking a Matthew Blomfield which was in breach of a Slater court agreement and a restraining order against Spring. That is a whole different (albeit related) story (also still before the courts, with a defamation hearing Blomfield v Slater due later this year).

The charges were odd – I was charged with publishing an article, the name of which matched a post at The Standard. Through the course of the proceedings I pointed out this was ridiculous and completely unfounded but that was ignored by the courts and by Nottingham.

As with much of Nottingham’s legal stuff it is difficult to know what is incompetence and what is deliberate confusion and chaos. I think it is usually a mangled mess of both.

Nottingham rang me soon after the charges were served, and we exchanged emails over a couple of days. He suggested I should plead guilty. Believing I was probably not guilty, I declined to commit, instead saying that I would seek legal advice. Over the next couple of weeks I found a lawyer to advise and represent me. This was my first experience with law and courts so I needed help. I (and my lawyer) had no idea what we were getting into.

A day or two after declining to confess I received an abrupt email from McKinney, saying he had been given instructions to scour the Internet, threatening further prosecutions, and demanded I respond by 4 pm that afternoon. I had no idea who McKinney was at that stage.

As it turned out McKinney was working closely with Nottingham. They always shared the same email address, Nottingham was purportedly an employee of McKinney, with both acting for Advantage Advocacy Ltd – now in liquidation.

McKinney eventually provided a witness statement in the prosecution. He also acted for Nottingham, including signing court submissions on his behalf. He is not a lawyer and I suspect this isn’t legally correct.

After another not very nice email from McKinney that was seemingly dealt with, but McKinney did a lot over the next few months to, I believe, lay further charges and when that failed, Nottingham tried to get a whole bunch of accusations included in his prosecution. The court never allowed this.

In July the LF website had already posted about me being in a ‘dirty dozen’ of journalists and bloggers and made other insinuations. In August more posts started to appear, targeting me, making outlandish claims and accusations, and these continued for about a year.

LF had in the post campaigned on some worthy causes. Occasionally. But I found out that mostly they found fragments of facts, grossly embellished them, jumped to ridiculous conclusions, and generally attacked and defamed many people. Their website was eventually shut down after court action against them. They popped up somewhere else but seem to have been stopped from posting there last year.

Many of the LF campaigns against people were closely aligned with Nottingham’s so-called justice campaigning. LF detailed a number of instances where they and Nottingham worked together.

And in the court case in which Nottingham has just been sentenced, according the the Herald report, he admits “supplying information to an overseas website”. It happens that that ‘overseas website’ contained almost entirely New Zealand related content, often closely related to Nottingham’s legal crusading.

It appears that LF was based overseas simply to try to avoid New Zealand law. That eventually blew up in Nottingham.

The private prosecution progressed slowly, with many delays and disruptions.

The first hearing was in September in Auckland where the charges were filed. My and Allied Press’ charges were transferred to Dunedin where they should have been laid in the first place – in the court closest to the defendants,

What followed was a hopeless legal mess.

When charges are laid within 15 working days the prosecutor is supposed to provide initial disclosure, that is supposed to clearly explain the charges and the case against you. It is normally brief, especially in simple cases as theoretically this one should have been, a few pages. That was due by mid August 2015.

After Nottingham failed to provide this lawyer’s requests were sent, the court directed compliance, and then set dates by which it had to be provided. By late November it still hadn’t been done – and at one stage Nottingham said he was deliberately withholding it pending ‘further investigations’.

Finally in early December documents arrived. A lot of them. A pile 9 cm thick. Largely a pile of nonsense. Much of it was screen shots of web pages and printouts of articles and posts. Most if not all of it would have been inadmissible. It was a monster of a mess, but it all had to be read in case there was something critical to the case in it. That gets expensive when you’re paying a lawyer. I did quite a bit of the reading and summarised.

One interesting thing I discovered – Cameron Slater was an informant for the prosecution.

McKinney’s witness statement was included, most if not all would have been inadmissible.

An expert witness was named, but nothing ever eventuated from them. They turned out to be the creditor that initiated the liquidation of Advantage Advocacy.

When lawyers made it clear that disclosure was manifestly inadequate the judge arranged a conference call in mid December to organise a way forward. Nottingham filed memoranda the morning immediately prior – very late filings became the norm – and tried to turn it into a move to imprison me by Christmas.

The judge rejected this, but due to the disruptions adjourned for another conference the following day. More late filings, another shambles. Nottingham blocked me from listening to his accusations and claims. As a result the judge ruled that conference calls were out of the question.

A date for the next hearing was set. Nottingham said he needed a holiday and wanted to wait until the following March. The judge obliged – throughout the protracted court proceedings I have been amazed and disappointed how much different judges have pandered to Nottingham, at the expense of the defendants.

in 2015 there was already talk amongst lawyers and the judge of a possible dismissal and costs.

At the March 2016 hearing Nottingham was pressed to name additional witnesses. He put forward Slater as an expert witness.

Slater never provided a witness statement as is required. He seemed to want to distance himself from the prosecution – I will give him the benefit of doubt on this, despite Nottingham’s practice in other cases of trying to introduce witnesses and evidence at trial, giving the defences no time to deal with them properly. Again I don’t know if this is incompetence or a tactic.

Then in April 2016 Nottingham had a serious motorcycle accident. He ended up in hospital for a few weeks. He sustained a head injury – not the first. He has also claimed to have had a serious motorcycle accident in I think 1998, also suffering from a head injury with ongoing effects.

Illness has been a prominent factor in a number of Nottingham’s legal proceedings, often resulting in delays and excuses for non-compliance with timetables and legal requirements.

The accident made a very messy prosecution worse, impossible.

Both I and Allied Press filed for dismissal of charges and a hearing was set for late June 2016.

I made a decision to dispense with counsel and represent myself. By now I had learnt a bit about how legal and court processes worked. I considered the case was hopeless, so I was better saving money and trying things on my own.

So I prepared for the dismissal on my own, and filed submissions, as did Allied Press, always on time. Nottingham didn’t. He couldn’t travel to Dunedin so engaged a lawyer to act for him.

The week before the dismissal hearing the APN/Prentice cases went to trial in Auckland. At that Nottingham failed on a fundamental aspect of a suppression breach case – he could not identify the publisher owners. It turned out he had charged the wrong herald company. Slater appeared as a witness and conceded that Prentice was not an identifiable owner of The Standard. So the case was dismissed.

Other allegations, of actually suppression breaches, never got tested at trial, although the trial judge said they were unlikely to have succeeded.

As in my and Allied’s case, Nottingham was claiming that if particular words could be selected out of an article and used in Google searches, and that led the searcher to a particular website, and words were taken from that and googled again and led them to another website, and then other words were used to search that site, and that led to articles that breached suppression, then the publisher of the original article was guilty of breaching suppression.

That on it’s own is nonsensical.

McKinney had tried to show how this could be done. But he already knew what he was looking for. In that case it’s easy to know what words to use in searches to find what you want, and which search results to sue to move on the next search step. Especially when the computer search history knows you already have an interest in the destination website.

The charges claimed about fifteen suppression breaches because that’s how many there were on the destination website. I don’t think there’s any way of proving an average member of then public would end up finding and reading one let alone all fifteen.

What is more preposterous is that Nottingham was claiming that information he supplied to a foreign website revealing the identity of people with New Zealand suppression was fine, but if he picked words out of other people’s articles that he could then use in Google to find his articles then that other person was guilty of a suppression breach.

I arrived at the dismissal hearing in late June, eleven months and the eight hearing after charges were laid, to find out from Nottingham’s lawyer minutes before the hearing was to begin that Nottingham wanted to withdraw the charges.

Leave was put to the judge, and after he clarified that due to time new charges couldn’t be laid the charges were dismissed.

Both Allied and I initiated proceedings to claim for costs.

It is well known that standard costs available in failed prosecutions are ridiculously small. But you can ask for indemnity (actual) costs at the judge’s discretion, if certain criteria are met.

A costs hearing date of September 2016 was suggested and a submission timetable was set. Both Allied and I submitted ion time as usual. Nottingham never served a submission in response.

District courts are under a lot of time pressure. It wasn’t until early March 2017 that we got a hearing set.

Prior to the hearing the court suggested that Nottingham had filed a submission. When we stated that we had not been served the court directed that it be served, and had to repeat the directive when it wasn’t forthcoming.

A few days before the hearing i ended up having to go to court and spend a morning reading their copy. They wouldn’t let me take it away or take a copy of it.

As was typical it was long. It comprised of an attempt to re-litigate his failed prosecution, claiming that we were obviously guilty and but for his accident we would have been convicted, so should be treated as convicted. A withdrawal of charges means that legally we are ‘not guilty’.

And most of it was an affidavit from Nottingham’s brother Phillip. addressed to the World Court, the United Nations and other international legal bodies claiming that it was unfair that Dermot was being prosecuted.

It was a waste of time me reading it, and the only consolation was that it must have been a much bigger waste of time for the Nottingham’s writing it and sending it around the world (if they did that).

Nottingham couldn’t attend the costs hearing. he tried to get yet another delay, but the court insisted that the hearing go ahead.

After the hearing started the court official interrupted the judge and handed him some papers. It was an even later than usual memorandum from Nottingham. Remarkably the judge adjourned the hearing, giving us half an hour to read and work out how to deal with the memorandum.

The hearing resumed, and the judge accepted our suggestion that the memorandum was more ranting nonsense irrelevant to the costs applications.

Then he was interrupted again – another memorandum was hot off the printer. This time the judge refused to accept it.

At the end of March 2016 we got a judgment awarding us costs. The problem was, it was unclear what costs we had been awarded, it didn’t make sense. We had little choice but to go to the High Court with an appeal.

The appeal took place in Dunedin in July 2017. Again Nottingham filed late, but before the hearing this time. he appeared by AV link from Auckland.

Again Nottingham claimed we should be considered guilty because it was obvious he was right and his case was not defendable.

The judge found otherwise and the appeal judgment was in our favour, in that it suggested that as bad faith was involved in the prosecution, and as needless cost had been imposed on both defendants due to the manner in which Nottingham had conducted the prosecution, that something approaching indemnity costs might be appropriate. he sent it back to the District Court judge to set a quantum of costs.

The DC judge decided that he had sufficient information and another hearing wouldn’t be necessary. And in a supplementary judgment in October 2017 he set a quantum of costs at 50% of indemnity costs.

This was a win, although I felt that the judge had not understood the complexities of the attempted prosecution and the hopelessness of the case, nor the vexatiousness of the prosecution. But I would have been happy to leave it at that rather than appeal again. Too much time, money and court resources had already been wasted.

But of course Nottingham appealed, so back to the High Court. He filed late again, despite that sort of abuse of process being a primary reason for having costs awarded against him.

This was a virtual repeat of the first appeal. Nottingham again tried to claim we should be considered guilty, and he claimed that the onus of proof should be on defendants (except \when he is a defendant I presume). And he asked that costs not just be quashed, but reversed and awarded to him.

That’s inane. I could only claim costs billed by my lawyer when I was represented. I could not claim for my own costs, or for lost time or anything. And as far as I know the same applies to Nottingham.

There is no way he could be awarded costs for what I paid my lawyer, which a reversal would presumably mean.

Nottingham lost the second appeal. Judges tend to want good reasons for overturning decisions of other judges. There wasn’t even a legal argument involved, it was a discretionary costs award.

But prior to the appeal Nottingham had already told me he would take it to the Court of Appeal and to the Supreme Court. He made it clear from early on that one of his aims was to inflict as much time and costs on us as he could, And unfortunately the courts kept letting him do exactly that.

So Nottingham went to the Court of Appeal seeking leave to appeal, as you have to do. He was late doing this so it’s out of time, and he also has to seek leave to do that.

This is pending, so as it is before the court I don’t want to say much about it. Submissions from both sides are required next month, with a hearing set down for 27 August – this is in Court of Appeal August fixture list (I am shown as Anor which is incorrect, I should be a separate case to Allied Press.

In the meantime the herald and Prentice have continued too, both having substantial costs awards. Nottingham’s conduct has been slammed – see NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 596 [29 March 2018] and NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 1004 [9 May 2018]. That is also going to the Court of Appeal.

The defendants in another failed private prosecution have also had large costs awards. A trial was set down for 3 days and it took three weeks, due to Nottingham’s ‘tactics’. Multiple appeals are also on the August fixture list.

A judgment creditor is filing for bankruptcy against Nottingham, who has accumulated about $250,000 in unpaid court costs. That’s ongoing and complicated, has been on the go since last year, and another story, but is partly covered in HONEY & Ors v NOTTINGHAM [2018] NZHC 575 [29 March 2018].

There’s a lot more detail of an around the attempted private prosecution, but that’s of little interest to most people.

This account is also probably too long winded and of little interest generally. So why write it?

If I had known what Nottingham was like in court proceedings three years ago when this began I would have approached it quite differently. at the time I looked and found very little. I think this is in part because he has scared off a lot of people from exposing what he does, because he is so litigious, and because he and his cronies can be very vindictive and abusive.

I suspect that even judges have pussy footed around him and let him away with far to much in part for fear of being featured on that notorious website where some judges haven’t been spared accusations, abuse and possible defamation.

Talking of defamation, there was one attempt that I think is still before the courts: see MALTESE CAT LIMITED v DOE [2017] NZHC 1634 [14 July 2017] and MALTESE CAT LIMITED v JOHN DOE AND/OR JANE DOE [2017] NZHC 1728 [25 July 2017], in which it is alleged that Nottingham used the attack website as part of a paid for campaign in a domestic dispute.

Why was I included in the private prosecutions? That’s probably a story of it’s own, but I can think of a number of possibilities:

  • Slater held a grudge against me because he has a very thin skin when held to account for crap that he does
  • Spring had a grudge against me for stopping him from using Your NZ in continuing attacks that could no longer be run on Whale Oil
  • LF had a grudge against me – they had reacted negatively when I confronted them on Twitter for making a baseless accuation
  • A post of Nottingham’s charge appeared on Your NZ and he connected that with a police/court/Herald conspiracy

I think that Nottingham et al saw me as an easy target. They tried to pressure and threaten me into pleading guilty to make it easier for them to succeed in the prosecutions of the Herald and Prentice.

And when I stood up to them and refused to buckle they did what they have done with others, they got very nasty, seeking vindictive retribution. This seems to be a common thing with them.

Slater had already found that the legal going can get tough, and seems to have distanced himself a bit, although he was still using Nottingham in legal proceedings a year ago – see BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2017] NZHC 1654 [18 July 2017]

With the conviction and sentencing, and also the bankruptcy proceedings, things finally look to be turning to custard for Nottingham, and it’s not over yet.

And I suspect that things haven’t turned out that well for his brothers or McKinney or Spring either, on top of the self trashing of any reputations they may have had.

Of course there’s a risk I may become a target of their wrath by posting this. But I think public interest – especially of anyone else who becomes a target – is important here.

 

 

22 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 28, 2018

    Well said, PG. Clearly this man is a vexatious litigant and should be ruled so by the courts.

    • Griff

       /  July 28, 2018

      I wonder if it is possible to take a private prosecution for being a vexatious litigant.
      You would then have a legal precedent in any further actions.

      • Gezza

         /  July 28, 2018

        Hardly seems worth it. The guy seems morally & financially bankrupt.

      • I don’t think so.

        I think the Attorney-General can declare a litigant vexatious and require them to get approval for any court action but I think that’s only for civil legal actions.

        The cluster of private prosecutions involved here all started years ago.

        I suspect the courts have become tougher with what they allow in as private prosecutions. Nottingham claimed to have filed more charges against me, and told my lawyer I was lying when i said I hadn’t been served, but nothing eventuated. I took from that that he tried to file charges but was rejected.

        He has kept threatening more charges over the years – it’s hard to know what is just threats and bluster, and what might have been stopped before it started by the courts.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  July 28, 2018

      His history makes it more incongruous that he did not get imprisoned rather than home detention.

      • A problem with this is a lot of what was going on was parallel to the case against him and wasn’t a criminal history (although it’s arguable that some of it warranted criminal charges).

        He did get done for contempt of court but that was thrown out on appeal – it was found that he was in contempt of court but the judge didn’t follow correct procedures.

        The appeal is here: NOTTINGHAM v SOLICITOR-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 1325 [15 June 2017]

        [24] Here, the allegation made was that Judge Collins had tampered with the recording of a Court hearing. That is tantamount to alleging that the Judge perverted the course of justice. That was an extremely serious allegation. It calls into question the integrity of the Judge.

        [26] In my view, the comments made by Mr Nottingham, were, in context,
        insulting.

        [27] Comments of the kind made, if not denounced, threaten public confidence in the administration of justice. Contrary to Mr Nottingham’s assertions, it is not a Bill of Rights issue. Contempt is a justified limitation on freedom of expression, because the purpose of contempt proceedings goes far beyond protecting the interests of individual Judges.

        [28] Accordingly, I find that Judge Collins was correct when he found that Mr Nottingham wilfully insulted him, in his capacity as a Judge, whilst he was sitting in Court. The various elements of contempt under s 212(1)(a) were made out.

        [35] Because this procedure was not followed, I allow the appeal, and set aside the
        finding that Mr Nottingham was in contempt of Court on 7 March 2017.

        • Am I right in reading that he went after you because you used the same name for a post (or whatever it was) as he had ?

          Surely that happens all the time. Who spends time seeing if someone else has used the same wording ?

      • All together now…..’Ding, dong, the witch is dead….’

    • Gezza

       /  July 28, 2018

      The beige badger bites back

  2. Ray

     /  July 28, 2018

    The nickname give by the police (and in its self subject to a Court appeal) “The beagle boys ” is descriptive but does not really capture the nastyness of Dermot and co.
    I am sorry you got caught up in all’s this Peter and even more sorry the Courts have allowed I this to get so far or even to have got off the ground.

    I hope the facts of your case are made widely known because it is only when the effects of sunlight are applied will you get any justice.

  3. artcroft

     /  July 28, 2018

    Thanks for letting us know what happened here Pete. I’m really dismayed at the way the courts have allowed themselves to be used by Nottingham and co. Well done to you for standing up to these bullies. Not everyone would have managed so well.

  4. Examples from NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 596 [29 March 2018]

    [17] After hearing from the parties, I declined to allow the late affidavit to be filed. First, there was no adequate explanation offered for the delay in filing the affidavit. Mr Nottingham simply said that he had had a number of other things to attend to. Secondly, and more importantly, the content of the affidavit was fundamentally flawed and much, if not all of it, was inadmissible. It was replete with irrelevant material, opinion evidence, and pontification by Mr McKinney as to what he thinks the law is, or perhaps more precisely, should be. In part, the affidavit comprised of prejorative comments about Judge Collins and how he ran the trial.

    [28] The proposed appeal against Judge Collins’ decision in respect of APN is pointless. Mr Nottingham concedes that APN was not the publisher of the relevant article. He was the prosecutor, acting in a private prosecution. Inter alia, Mr Nottingham had to satisfy the Court, beyond reasonable doubt, that APN published the offending article. There was simply no evidence of that, and it has since been confirmed in an affidavit filed on behalf of APN in opposition to the applications filed.
    Mr Nottingham has not responded to that affidavit. The simple fact is that Mr Nottingham charged the wrong company. He was therefore not able to establish at trial that APN had published the relevant article. Judge Collins was plainly correct to dismiss the charges against APN. None of the convoluted and repetitive questions which Mr Nottingham set out in his notice of application for leave to appeal can change that inevitable outcome.

    [29] Similarly, the proposed appeal against Judge Collins’ decision in relation to Mr Prentice is without merit and cannot succeed.

    [31] None of the other matters Mr Nottingham says he wants to raise can alter the fundamental inadequacies in the prosecution he undertook.

    [32] Mr Nottingham was given every opportunity to present his case. He was warned by Judge Collins of the onerous obligations he was assuming by bringing a private prosecution. He ignored that warning. In the event, Mr Nottingham’s case was a shambles. He now seeks to try again. That would be quite unfair to the respondents, and it is not in the interests of justice to allow Mr Nottingham to proceed
    with these fruitless appeals.

    These cases were very similar to the prosecution he tried against me. Actually for effectively the same thing.

  5. From: NOTTINGHAM & MCKINNEY v REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL & HONEY [2017] NZHC 3018 [7 December 2017]
    [15] The notice of appeal and accompanying documents identify nothing that is relevant to the question in issue. Instead, the appellants go on at length to personally attack the Tribunal, the Real Estate Agents Authority and others, including persons responsible for the appointment of the members of the Tribunal and the Authority. The notice of appeal is prolix and full of irrelevant, vexatious and scandalous material, which includes personal attacks and defamatory statements against the Tribunal and other persons, including some who have no connection to the appeal. The notice of appeal also seeks to traverse issues that have earlier been addressed at earlier stages of the litigation.

    [16] If there is a kernel of merit in the appeal it is so deeply buried that it is not apparent to me. It would be manifestly unfair for the respondent Mr Honey to have to respond to the appeal in its present form, which is plainly of the type for which r 5.35A(3) is intended. Accordingly, I am satisfied that in its present form the notice of appeal and accompanying documents created by the appellants are plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

  6. Missy

     /  July 28, 2018

    Pete, well done in persevering despite the toll it must have taken on you personally and financially.

    It shows a lot of moral courage to stand up to these types of bullies, and I respect that.

    I hope for you and your family’s sake it is over soon and you can get on with life not having to worry about it.

  7. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  July 28, 2018

    I had discovered the LF blog sometime around 2014 when I moved to Gisborne.

    By chance I discovered that the Nottinghams had a history in Gisborne. This is referenced in yesterday’s copy of the Gisborne Herald which carries the story “Malicious, nasty ” blogger narrowly avoids jail.
    The paragraph referring to the Nottinghams details that they embarked on a number of property developments here in the 1980s, including a nightclub and a retirement home.

    That is a very edited version of their activities here.

    I believe I posted a comment on YourNZ back in 2014/2015 warning you not to waste your time with this character.

    This account is also probably too long winded and of little interest generally.
    I disagree… It is of vital interest to anyone involved with or subjected to the bullying crap that goes on in our society.

    • Unfortunately I didn’t have any choice but to waste time on them, as they inflicted themselves on, me both here and through the courts.

    • Gezza

       /  July 28, 2018

      Last para. I agree. What an ocean of sewage poor Pete’s had to bloody swim in for the last four years, thanks to these dirtbags. I’ve been wanting to know what hell it was all about & it’s just bloody disgraceful.

      • Regis

         /  July 28, 2018

        I think the moral of the story chaps is to avoid ALL [commenters like this]

  8. FarmerPete

     /  July 28, 2018

    Dermott Nottingham rang me once over a different issue in which he was advocating for someone who had a dispute with people I knew. He basically threatened to have a large person of different ethnic origin than me visit my home and ‘persuade’ me to cooperate with his request for information. I told him I would be waiting with a baseball bat!

    • I wonder if the large person whose ethnic origin was different to yours actually existed. His name may be Harris.

      Seriously, that surely counts as threatening behaviour or whatever the thing is.