Two sides to Slater’s bankruptcy

Whale Oil has posted today that Cameron Slater is filing for bankruptcy due to legal debts and lack of income. This hasn’t been confirmed – it isn’t on the Insolvency Register yet – but it comes as no surprise given the legal setbacks Slater has had in multiple defamation cases over the last few months.

Whale Oil are claiming that Slater is a victim of vexatious litigation, but court documents and one of those who sued him for defamation, Matthew Blomfield, say otherwise.

Slater suffered a stroke in late October, which is tough on him and his family, but it is not certain whether Whale Oil’s claims of the amount of incapacitation are accurate, or if they are playing to courts trying to find a way out of the legal holes Slater has dug himself into.

Whale Oil: An update on Cam’s health

Ongoing medical tests following Cam’s stroke have shown that he remains severely incapacitated and consequently is unable to work. His rehabilitation continues to make slow progress; but it is all-consuming and extremely tiring.

The medical advice is that, for Cam to recover, he needs to completely remove all forms of stress from his life, to lower his blood pressure and to concentrate on rehabilitation. He has faced a difficult choice about the future. The prospect of on-going ill health and potential further strokes means the advice of his medical team, lawyer, accountant, family members and those who, due to his incapacity, would have been appointed his guardians ad litem, is for him to completely withdraw from any activity other than rehabilitation.

Given his situation some people are justifiably sceptical about claims he must be removed from all stress. For a start it’s impossible. Everyone has stresses in their lives, especially when they suffer from medical events like strokes.

Many people have had to deal with stress inflicted by the actions of Slater and associates of his. They didn’t get a stress free card to play when it suited them.

This has led Cam to make the very difficult decision to declare bankruptcy, since he is unable to generate enough passive revenue to fund the three extremely expensive and in his opinion, vexatious, defamation actions against him.

So he is not that incapacitated to prevent him making a decision like that.

Perhaps he is in a dire financial situation – most probably he is as a result of legal costs he has chosen to rack up. He has always had choices to try come to arrangements over the defamation cases, but he has kept claiming to have done nothing wrong, despite multiple courts saying otherwise.

We will keep you updated on Cam’s progress via the Whaleoil website but, for now, he needs a long break to facilitate his return to good health.

There is a lot Whale Oil is not telling it’s readers about the legal situations.

Ironically given this post also at Whale Oil today – Crybabies of the week – the post plays sympathy and victim cards strongly, when the predicament he is in is due to some real victims of his past actions decided to hold him to account in court.

NZ Herald: Cameron Slater’s stroke – what defamation victim Matt Blomfield says the evidence shows about the blogger’s health

The businessman who successfully battled Whale Oil’s Cameron Slater over defamation claims the blogger’s claim ill-health drove him to bankruptcy is contrary to evidence and should be treated with suspicion.

Matt Blomfield told the Herald he was basing his view on evidence which had emerged during the final stages of the seven-year defamation battle.

He said he was making the details public over concern Slater was attempting to gain sympathy from the public and seek donations from readers, as he has done over the course of the prolonged court case.

Blomfield successfully sued Slater and the company which owns his blog, Social Media Consultants, over a series of blog posts in 2012 accusing him of illegal and immoral behaviour.

The High Court at Auckland ruled in Blomfield’s favour late last year, saying Slater had failed to mount a credible defence.

Blomfield claimed the court action against Slater had shown there was no truth behind the posts in which he featured.

He said he believed the stories about Slater’s ill-health were based on “true background events” but the substance was “fiction”.

Blomfield said the High Court ruling was followed by Slater filing with the Court of Appeal then seeking to delay the subsequent hearing on the basis of ill-health.

He said Slater was then obliged by the court to provide evidence supporting his claims around his health and “that evidence simply didn’t support his application”.

“He has told the public he had two strokes, but the evidence showed he had only had one. He keeps repeating the fact that the stroke was caused by stress and that he must now avoid stress.

“However, the medical evidence is that his particular stroke has nothing to do with stress and he is in no more danger of another stroke due to stress than any other person.

“He claimed to have cognitive and language impairment because of his stroke, but the evidence showed he had none.

“He claimed to be too incapacitated to communicate with his lawyers, but he was simultaneously engaging in political discussions in the comments section of the Whale Oil website.”

Blomfield said the Court of Appeal gave Slater until February 22 to provide evidence supporting his claims of ill-health.

“He filed no response at all. Instead, he applied for bankruptcy. He is now saying his proceedings need to be halted for that reason.

“He is doing everything he can to avoid the consequences of his own nefarious actions.”

Blomfield said “this will not work” and a full Court of Appeal hearing next month would rule based on the evidence.

So Slater hasn’t extracted himself from the legal hole he’s in yet.

If he does actually file for bankruptcy liability for costs – which must be tends of thousands of dollars at least – will still rest with Social Media Consultants Limited, Slater was removed as a director and shareholder at the start of this month. This leaves his wife Juana Atkins as sole shareholder and director, so that’s not exactly a way of resolving all the legal costs, leaving her carrying the can.

And Blomfield isn’t the only legal problem – today’s High Court Daily List included:

It’s a mess for Slater, and almost entirely of his own making.

If he really wanted to reduce his stress he could front up and come clean about his role as a paid for hit blogger, and start apologising to the many people he has willingly piled heaps of shit on, but he may choose to remain a gutless bully right to the bitter end of his blogging career.

Nottingham bankruptcy judgment online

Further to Dermot Nottingham adjudicated bankrupt – for anyone who is interested, the full judgment is now available online:

I’m named a few times but just as one of a number of creditors owed about quarter of a million dollars in court awarded costs, and who opposed a badly flawed proposal to avoid bankruptcy.

Some key sections:

[28] In my judgment, Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka have established that Mr Whitley was wrong to have accepted the claims of the general creditors and allowed them to vote. I propose to allow the appeal and overturn his decision.

Mr Nottingham’s application for approval of his proposal

[29] The effect of overturning Mr Whitley’s decision to accept the claims of all creditors who voted in favour of the proposal entirely undermines the vote in favour of the proposal at the meeting. It means that 100 per cent of those creditors eligible to vote voted against the proposal. In those circumstances, there is no question of approving the proposal.

[30] I propose to decline Mr Nottingham’s application.

And:

[41] There is nothing in any of the arguments which Mr Nottingham advanced in opposition to the application of Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka which persuades me that I should exercise my discretion by declining to make an order adjudicating him bankrupt.

[42] On the contrary, as Mr Grove submitted, there is, in this case, a significant public interest in making such an order.

[43] Mr Nottingham has a demonstrated history of commencing private prosecutions against individuals in which he has thus far been entirely unsuccessful.

[44] Unquestionably these apparently groundless prosecutions have wreaked havoc with the lives of those wrongly accused of criminal activity. In my view, if Mr Nottingham’s bankruptcy puts an end to this practice on his part, then that is a public good.

[45] Furthermore, as Mr Grove also submits, whilst there may be some room for doubt as to whether all of those persons who claim to be creditors of Mr Nottingham and who filed the claims in the context of his proposal that I have overturned are all bone fide creditors, if they are, it would seem that Mr Nottingham’s creditors have paid to him something in the order of $2 million (in cash or value) over recent years and yet he claims to be penniless. In my view, there is a public interest in Mr Nottingham being bankrupted so that the Official Assignee can investigate his affairs to establish whether all of these claims are legitimate and if so what has happened to the $2 million which Mr Nottingham has received but claims no longer to have available to him

 

Nottingham has not been acting alone

Dermot Nottingham has not acted alone in his actions taken against many people, including harassment and defamation via laudafinem.com and in a number of legal proceedings, some of which have been described as abuses of process, vexatious and more by various judges.

In April Nottingham was found guilty at a jury trial of five charges of criminal harassment and two charges of breach of non-publication orders (suppression). He was sentenced in July to the maximum one year of home detention and ordered not to use the Internet. The Crown had sought a prison sentence and may appeal (Nottingham already indicated he would appeal).

See Blogger dodges prison over court suppression breaches, harassment campaigns and “Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem…or he is so intimately related to it…”

Last week Nottingham was adjudicated bankrupt, largely due to unpaid court costs of about a quarter of a million dollars as a result of five failed private prosecutions.

See Dermot Nottingham adjudicated bankrupt

Nottingham has given post traumatic stress disorder and mental health as reasons for some of his behaviour, but that doesn’t explain everything. And he has not acted alone.

While stating he had debts of about $2 million Nottingham tried to avoid bankruptcy by putting a proposal to creditors. A majority of alleged creditors with claimed debts of over $1.5 million voted in favour of the proposal, but as none of them provided proof of their claims these were rejected by the judge, who said:

“In my view, there is a public interest in Mr Nottingham being bankrupted so that the Official Assignee can investigate and establish whether all of these claims are legitimate…”.

Those claims were mostly if not entirely made by family and associates of Nottingham, including:

  • Phillip Nottingham$480,728 – cash advances, unpaid rent, guarantees, work completed – not paid, goods and services supplied
  • Phillip Nottingham with power of attorney for his mother for $450,000  – advances, guarantees
  • Earle McKinney for $248,650 – cash advances, guarantees, unpaid services (two others giving the same address also made claims)
  • Marc Spring for $28,765 – cash advances, multiple motor vehicle expenses, Breiting mens (sic) watch
  • Cam Slater $10,450

I have no information of what Slater’s claim was for, but for the others the above descriptions are all that was given. There was no substantiating evidence for about 18 creditors. Some claims, and part of some claims, may be legitimate, but that will be checked out by the OA.

Nottingham’s sentencing notes allude to others being involved:

[22] Now, I make some findings of fact. Consistent with the verdicts of the jury I have concluded that between 2010 and 2015 Dermot Nottingham published or had published numerous articles on the blog site laudafinem.com. Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem (in other words, the leading mind of that blog) or he is so intimately related to it that it is proper to conclude that he provided information and draft articles to that blog site knowing and intending that they would be published.

[23] During that five year period the defendant undertook numerous campaigns of harassment against a number of individuals, the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial. I concluded that his conduct by publishing said articles, through other intimidating and harassing conduct – including threatening, watching, photographing, following – was either carried out directly by Dermot Nottingham or at his direction and that he knew his conduct was likely to cause the individuals to fear for their safety or the safety of family members.

In the private prosecution of myself and Allied Press (charges withdrawn after eleven months) and similarly with the private prosecutions of APN Ltd and Lynn Prentice (charges dismissed at trial) there were a number of people involved with assisting Nottingham, including:

Earle McKinney arranged service of court documents, shared the same email address as Nottingham linked to McKinney’s business Advantage Advocacy Ltd (registered address was Nottingham’s residential address, now in liquidation) of which Nottingham was an employee, threatened further charges via that email, signed court documents on Nottingham’s behalf, has appeared with Nottingham at court hearings.

McKinney has been virtually joined at the hip with Nottingham in the private prosecutions, including acting as a ‘McKenzie friend’.

[24] Importantly, for present purposes, the affidavit was in any event inadmissible. As I noted in my judgment, it was replete with irrelevant material, opinion evidence and pontification by a Mr McKinney, who appeared as Mr Nottingham’s McKenzie friend, as to what he – Mr McKinney – thought the law is, or perhaps more precisely,
should be. The affidavit contained a number of pejorative comments about Judge Collins and how he ran the trial.

NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 1004 [9 May 2018]

Cameron Slater was named as an informant with all four prosecutions. He was named as an ‘expert witness’ but never provided a witness statement in my and Allied Press prosecutions. He was a witness in the APN/Prentice trial:

Mr Cullen submits that the prosecutor’s failings can be summarised in this way:

  • calling a witness who had not been brief (sic), Mr Slater. The detail and nature of this evidence had not been provided to the defence prior to the presentation of the witness to the Court;

NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 596 [29 March 2018]

Phillip Nottingham submitted a lengthy affidavit in support of his brother Dermot for the costs hearings in 2016.  I spent half a day reading the only copy at court when I discovered it was there (this was never served despite follow up court orders to do so).

Marc Spring served charging documents. He openly tagged teamed with @laudafinem on Twitter, starting just prior to charges being served, in what amounted to months of harassment via Twitter. I believe he was also a contributor to laudafinem.com via posts and comments. Under numerous pseudonyms he breached court orders and tried to severely disrupt the operation of Your NZ.

In December Spring served a court order on me that attempted to force me to edit him out of Your NZ (where he was named, not where he used pseudonyms, and attempted to force full time moderation with no comments automatically posting. This turned out to be a legal farce, as it used the Harmful Digital Communications Act but didn’t follow correct procedures, and it was a year before the Act came into force, so was discharged when the judge was informed of this – see Court order discharged.

This was discussed on Kiwiblog, with Slater becoming involved indicating he was also linked. He said:

“Your fascination with me and your allowing of despicable and defamatory comments about me and my friends is coming to an end”.

(Emphasis added)

It was covered again later at Kiwiblog in  Judge got it wrong on HDCA – there are some interesting comments.

“If that was done in the knowledge that the grounds did not exist, it seems a clear attempt to pervert the course of justice. If not, it says something about the legal skills of the applicant.”

“Seems the lawyer who sought the order needs to be hauled up before a disciplinary committee. The lawyer is as much to blame as the judge for the foul-up, indeed significantly more so.”

“Negligent is a more than charitable description. It is at best appalling incompetence and at worst an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Assuming, of course, that a lawyer was involved. If not, then the judge really dropped the ball.”

Associated with this a press release was published showing Dermot Nottingham as the document author, which threatened prison. Following the failure of the court order Nottingham tried to get this action included in his prosecution and demanded I be imprisoned by Christmas (2015) but that was rejected by the judge.

In May 2016 Slater put out a press release over the Rachinger/Standard hack – this was posted a day before suppression lapsed on laudafinem.com – either he or someone with access to his press release in advance must have passed it on to ‘Lauda Finem’. Slater may have breached his own suppression. See Slater on the Standard hack.

In my case (also Allied Press, APN and Prentice) Nottingham may have also breached his own suppression over a period of months, if he had anything to do with the posts attacking me and revealing details of his private prosecution. Someone with knowledge of his prosecutions was writing posts for Lauda Finem.

Dermot Nottingham, Phillip Nottingham and McKinney have been engaged in a protracted dispute involving three people and the Real Estate Authority that started in think in 2011 and is still unresolved. A summary (to early 2017) here: NOTTINGHAM, NOTTINGHAM AND MCKINNEY v THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2017] NZCA 1 [27 February 2017]

Another protracted proceeding, going for over six years and scheduled for trial, is the defamation case Blomfield v Slater. Nottingham and Spring have also been associated with that.

[1] The appellant, Mr Slater, operates a blog on the internet which he calls Whale Oil. The respondent, Mr Blomfield, has sued him in the Manukau District Court claiming he has been defamed by material published on the website.

[14] However, the Judge considered there was no evidence that Mr Blomfield had endeavoured to bully and intimidate Mr Spring, or others who had already been disclosed as sources of information given to Mr Slater. The email exchange between Mr Blomfield and Mr Spring indicated that Mr Spring appeared “to be sending Mr Blomfield aggressive and abusive texts”, with Mr Blomfield taking a “relatively defensive position”.

[33] In his submissions, the main emphasis Mr Slater gave this second affidavit related to the fact that Mr Blomfield had telephoned Mr Mattu on Monday 5 October 2015. Mr Mattu recognised the caller’s number as that of Mr Blomfield and decided not to take the call. Instead, he telephoned Mr Slater to seek his advice. Mr Slater was unavailable, but an associate, Mr Nottingham, advised him to take the next call from Mr Blomfield and to record it. It was then arranged that instead Mr Mattu would telephone Mr Blomfield while Mr Nottingham remained on the line and both would record what was said. That then ensued, the discussion lasting for some 26 minutes. A little over an hour later, Mr Mattu again telephoned Mr Blomfield while Mr Nottingham was on the line.

SLATER V BLOMFIELD [2015] NZCA 562 [19 November 2015]

Counsel: C J Slater, in person, Defendant
(D Nottingham as McKenzie Friend for Mr Slater)

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2017] NZHC 1654 [18 July 2017]

Court notes show that a hard drive belonging to Blomfield, containing business and personal data, was supplied to Slater, and he used contents of that to put up posts on Whale Oil attacking Blomfield. When Blomfield took Slater to court alleging defamation, Slater made an agreement with the court not to post further attacks on Blomfield.

The hard drive ended up in the hands of ‘Lauda Finem’, who then posted many attacks on Blomfield. Eventually (late 2016) according to Lauda Finem, Blomfield shut down their website with a court order.

Marc Spring also started posting attacks on Blomfield at Your NZ using a variety of pseudonyms (for example he would post an attack, then under another name support that comment to try to legitimise it). I was informed that this may be in breach of a restraining order:

Mr Blomfield’s application for a restraining order against Mr Spring was successful in the Auckland District Court. In delivering judgment, Judge Dawson noted that the relationship between the two was “toxic”. The Judge proceeded to find that text messages sent to Mr Blomfield by Mr Spring constituted harassment under the Harassment Act 1997. A restraining order was accordingly made against Mr Spring and remains in force until 9 April 2016.

So I prevented Spring from posting further comments on Blomfield. Spring then started accusing me of acting under Blomfield’s instruction (I wasn’t).

Over a year later Nottingham made written submissions (during a costs hearing that he didn’t attend) accusing me of some sort of collusion with Blomfield. The judge rejected this submission as irrelevant.

Leading up to a costs appeal hearing Nottingham emailed me on 27 June 2017 (using the Advantage Advocacy Ltd email account):

I confirm that you still face contempt applications in police v dn.  You will be required to attend at Auckland or by video link if the court allowed.

I have copied in messrs slater and so they can apply to comment on your defamatory statements.

It may be that they consider a fresh application under the hdca 2015

Kind regards

dn

Another email on 28 June 2017 (also to Spring and Slater):

Dear Messrs Spring, and Slater

I am available with others tomorrow to discuss the issues relating to Mr Georges campaign of criminal harassment.

Please find annexed the highly defamatory and contemptuous documentation filed by [the perp] Peter George.

I agree with both of you that a further application under the Harmful Digital Communications Act might be appropriate, but this time for a complete close down, and I further accept that proceedings under section 24 of the Defamation Act 1992, would also be appropriate for you both.

I have invited professionals that can advise you Mr Spring, in particular given Mr Georges inimical contact with your ex employer, who I understand is prepared to give evidence.  They have advised that the entire proceedings would be held in Auckland.

Such an application would need to be made on notice to Mr George.  George will likely represent himself which would be an issue, and I suggest that an application for Amicus to assist Mr George might be necessary.

Mr George has lied in his recent subs to the Court, and this will be proved to the Criminal Standard by your evidence to the High Court at Dunedin.

I look forward to your presence tomorrow.  At your instructions, Mr Slater, I have ordered in catering for 14, and an international video link in relation to one of your supporters.

Kindest regards

Dermot Nottingham

I wonder if the international ‘supporter’ is @laudafinem from the Netherlands (ex Australia, ex New Zealand), another brother. or it could be just more bluster.

Claims in that are laughable and ridiculous, but typical of numerous threats of further litigation and ‘investigations’. My wife has also been threatened, my brother implicated, and my lawyer was threatened with being reported for misconduct if he didn’t get me to plead guilty.

Dermot Nottingham is generally regarded as the main offender, hence his prosecution. As described by the sentencing judge:

“Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem (in other words, the leading mind of that blog) or he is so intimately related to it that it is proper to conclude that he provided information and draft articles to that blog site knowing and intending that they would be published.”

“The leading mind” implies some sort of higher intelligence, which is debatable, but it could be true given the line up of associates.

But it is clear that there is a line up of associates alongside Nottingham, aiding and abetting and engaging in similar bullying, harassment and defamation. A common practice of Nottingham, Spring and Slater is to accuse others of what they themselves are guilty of doing – to the extent that sometimes their accusations sound almost like confessions, or revealing intent.

With the convictions and bankruptcy things have finally unravelled for Nottingham, and there could be more repercussions for him. Some of his associates may also find themselves under more scrutiny (Slater ‘already’ faces trial next month).

In my opinion this group of people have run despicable campaigns against many people, including possible defamation of judges, and allegations of judges and court officials being corrupt (for example allegations of court transcript tampering, and collusion with police and media as happened in the application to file charges against myself).

They may finally be held to account.

I am publishing this so that others who may have been or may be subject to their attention can know some of what they have done. I knew virtually nothing about them (apart from Slater) before they started their campaign of harassment against me. If I knew what sort of people I was dealing with I would have approached things differently – in particular I would have pushed much harder for the courts to not let them abuse processes and ignore laws, court rules and court directions often with impunity for years.

My stuff is still dragging through the courts over three years after the prosecution charges were filed. others have been battling them and the court system for much longer – six years, eight years.

There are signs that courts are finally getting tougher. Good.

I know of a number of others who say they have been subjected to egregious treatment by these people.

As the judge said on adjudicating bankruptcy:

During the five year period the defendant undertook numerous campaigns of harassment against a number of individuals, the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial. I concluded that his conduct by publishing said articles, through other intimidating and harassing conduct – including threatening, watching, photographing, following – was either carried out by Dermot Nottingham or at his direction and that he knew his conduct was likely to cause the individuals to fear for their safety or the safety of family members.

Unquestionably these apparently groundless prosecutions have wreaked havoc with the lives of those wrongly accused of criminal activity. In my view, if Mr Nottingham’s bankruptcy puts an end to this practice on his part, then that is a public good.

I agree that putting an end to ‘this practice’ is in the public good. And I believe that making the public aware of what Nottingham and his associates have done is also in the public good.

 

Dermot Nottingham adjudicated bankrupt

I believe there is significant public interest providing this information.

Yesterday (11 September 2018) in the Auckland High Court Dermot Gregory Nottingham was adjudicated bankrupt, with claimed debts of about $2 million “yet he claims to be penniless”. That amount includes about a quarter of a million dollars in court costs owed to a number of ex-defendants in unsuccessful public prosecutions,

It has taken about a year to get to this point. Some background in this judgment: HONEY & Ors v NOTTINGHAM [2018] NZHC 575 [29 March 2018]

In July Nottingham tried to avoid bankruptcy by putting a proposal to creditors. If more than 50% of creditors with more than 75% of the debt vote in favour of a proposal it can be considered for acceptance by a court as an alternative to bankruptcy.

The proposal passed a vote:

[13] As I understand it, insofar as the critical question of whether to accept or reject the proposal is concerned, Mr Nottingham’s judgment creditors, Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka, HT & E, Mr Prentice, Allied Press and Mr George, voted against the proposal and all other creditors voted for it. The number and value of the votes in favour of the proposal dwarfed those of the judgment creditors. Accordingly, a resolution to accept the proposal was passed.

But this was appealed because many of the alleged creditors provided no evidence. Regulation 12 stipulates that creditor claim forms must “have attached to it evidence of the debt and any other evidence supporting the claim.”

[23] On the evidence I am satisfied that none of the creditors whose claims are the subject of this appeal lodged claims with [proposed trustee] Mr Whitley which came remotely close to complying with Regulation 12.

These include claims of over $1.2 million from associates of Nottingham – Phillip Nottingham, Earle McKinney, Marc Spring and Cameron Slater – who have been involved in various litigations with Dermot Nottingham (including the attempted prosecution of me) .

[28] In my judgment, Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka have established that Mr Whitley was wrong to have accepted the claims of the general creditors and allowed them to vote. I propose to allow the appeal and overturn his decision.

Mr Nottingham’s application for approval of his proposal

[29] The effect of overturning Mr Whitley’s decision to accept the claims of all creditors who voted in favour of the proposal entirely undermines the vote in favour of the proposal at the meeting. It means that 100 per cent of those creditors eligible to vote voted against the proposal. In those circumstances, there is no question of approving the proposal.

The judge then moved on to the bankruptcy application, which as well as the original application had another argument.

[39] There is a further consideration namely that Mr Nottingham has, since Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka commenced their proceedings for an order that he be adjudicated bankrupt, put a proposal to his creditors in which he asserts that he has no assets and debts in the order of $2 million. As Associate Judge Christiansen said in
Re Wesley Liddle the presentation of a proposal by an insolvent to his or her creditors evidencing significant indebtedness may itself be an independent act of bankruptcy in terms of s 22 of the Insolvency Act where it carries the implication that he does not intend to meet his financial obligations.

[40] Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka have now filed and served an amended application dated 6 August 2018 referring to this second possible act of bankruptcy on Mr Nottingham’s part.

[41] There is nothing in any of the arguments which Mr Nottingham advanced in opposition to the application of Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka which persuades me that I should exercise my discretion by declining to make an order adjudicating him bankrupt.

[42] On the contrary, as Mr Grove submitted, there is, in this case, a significant public interest in making such an order.

[43] Mr Nottingham has a demonstrated history of commencing private prosecutions against individuals in which he has thus far been entirely unsuccessful.

He was unsuccessful in such a private prosecution against me. After eleven months of trying he withdrew the charges in June 2016. Costs were subsequently awarded against him, and that is the debt I claim as one of the creditors.

[44] Unquestionably these apparently groundless prosecutions have wreaked havoc with the lives of those wrongly accused of criminal activity. In my view, if Mr Nottingham’s bankruptcy puts an end to this practice on his part, then that is a public good.

[45] Furthermore, as Mr Grove also submits, whilst there may be some room for doubt as to whether all of those persons who claim to be creditors of Mr Nottingham and who filed the claims in the context of his proposal that I have overturned are all bone fide creditors, if they are, it would seem that Mr Nottingham’s creditors have paid to him something in the order of $2 million (in cash or value) over recent years and yet he claims to be penniless. In my view, there is a public interest in Mr Nottingham being bankrupted so that the Official Assignee can investigate his affairs to establish whether all of these claims are legitimate and if so what has happened to the $2 million which Mr Nottingham has received but claims no longer to have available to him.

[46] For those reasons, I propose to make an order adjudicating Mr Nottingham bankrupt on the application of Mr and Mrs Honey and Mr Taka.

Given his history of litigation and appeals and threats to appeal this is unlikely to be the end of the matter, but as of 3:30 pm 11 September 2018 Nottingham is adjudicated bankrupt.

Further to “these apparently groundless prosecutions have wreaked havoc with the lives of those wrongly accused of criminal activity”, Nottingham was convicted and sentenced on five charges of criminal harassment (and two or breaching suppression). from the sentencing notes:

During the five year period the defendant undertook numerous campaigns of harassment against a number of individuals, the most egregious and persistent of which were represented by the five complainants in the trial. I concluded that his conduct by publishing said articles, through other intimidating and harassing conduct – including threatening, watching, photographing, following – was either carried out by Dermot Nottingham or at his direction and that he knew his conduct was likely to cause the individuals to fear for their safety or the safety of family members.

Nottingham has not acted alone.

It must also be said in the context of the evidence in this case that the degrees of attack, abuse, harassment and it’s relentless nature appears to be far worse in Dermot Nottingham’s case than in the examples he relies on to claim unfair or biased treatment.

He was sentenced to 12 months home detention – see Blogger dodges prison over court suppression breaches, harassment campaigns. That and the bankruptcy are unlikely to be the end of the matters.

In my case Nottingham’s first appeal against costs (High Court) was unsuccessful. He is now seeking leave from the Court of Appeal with a hearing set for next month. It is now over three years since this saga started (in July 2015). Another appeal is pending in another matter (with some common links) in the Court of Appeal this month.

Another stunt? Slater served bankruptcy papers

In what looks like another stunt on the night Cameron Slater was knocked senseless by Jessie Ryder bankruptcy papers were served on Slater just before the fight.

The Whale Oil blogger was served with bankruptcy papers just before taking part in a corporate boxing match last night.

It’s part of an ongoing legal feud with businessman Matt Blomfield, who’s suing him for defamation.

http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/national/whale-harpooned-then-served-papers/

This has already been done or attempted by Blomfield. I posted about this two months ago in Standard sucked into Blomfield versus Slater dirt.

An image of the bankruptcy notice shows it is Matt Blomfield versus Cameron Slater. It was originally posted with both addresses but they have been redacted. There is ongoing court proceedings between the two. I don’t know if this is a reasonable course of action by Blomfield or a stunt or an attempt at harassment. I won’t take sides between Blomfield and Slater except perhaps the opposite side to both of them. It’s not unusual for them to be going hammer and tongs and both have records of playing dirty. What is unusual is that Prentice has allowed the Standard to play such a part. It’s not the first time, in a previous slanging match The Standard posted a statement from Blomfield. It would appear that this time Blomfield has gone to Prentice to set up this publicity. And Prentice has obliged boots and all.

I’m not sure why it’s taken two months to serve the papers. The timing seems like a publicity stunt to me, ironically at the same time Slater is doing a publicity stunt of his own.

Slater’s wife Juana posted a comment in response (in January):

I realise your blind hatred of Cam prevents you from looking too closely at the hand that feeds you the info ( Matt ) but sorry to burst your bubble but he has neglected to tell you some pertinent facts. 1. The court costs are in a Trust account and will be released when the Appeal process is complete IF Matt wins. If he doesn’t Matt will owe Cam court costs. 2. Cam has the money but has no legal obligation to pay the money until the appeal has been completed and Matt knows this. 3. Matt is trying to serve papers as part of his ongoing campaign of harassment.Something I know you all enjoy as you are his mate but nevertheless harassment is what it is.

Regardless of the merits of Blomfield’s action last night Slater is going to have a sore head this morning now the distraction of preparing for the boxing bout is over,

Standard sucked into Blomfield versus Slater dirt

Lyn Prentice posted on The Standard today:

Yesterday I got contacted about Cameron Slater’s current address. Apparently the arsehole of the kiwi blogosphere hasn’t been paying his court ordered judgements against him that have been incurred in recent years. The person who contacted me wanted to serve a notice to bankrupt him.

An image of the bankruptcy notice shows it is Matt Blomfield versus Cameron Slater. It was originally posted with both addresses but they have been redacted. There is ongoing court proceedings between the two. I don’t know if this is a reasonable course of action by Blomfield or a stunt or an attempt at harassment. I won’t take sides between Blomfield and Slater except perhaps the opposite side to both of them. It’s not unusual for them to be going hammer and tongs and both have records of playing dirty. What is unusual is that Prentice has allowed the Standard to play such a part. It’s not the first time, in a previous slanging match The Standard posted a statement from Blomfield. It would appear that this time Blomfield has gone to Prentice to set up this publicity. And Prentice has obliged boots and all. Commenters have suggested it may not be the wisest thing to do (my view too) but it’s been done.

Apparently this has to do with the long running Blomfield defamation case. It has to do with court ordered judgements unrelated to his Slater’s current rather forlorn appeals as he continues to waste the time of the courts. Both in the court of appeal on the defamation and the privacy court about accessing dubiously obtained (probably stolen) private information to write the Blomfield posts.

I’d be surprised if Prentice doesn’t know exactly what it’s about. He keeps saying he wouldn’t risk putting The Standard in legal jeopardy, His blog, his choice to get in the middle of Blomfield versus Slater. Prentice also gets stuck into a continuation of Prentice versus Slater.

Is the blogosphere going to shift from being a space where people can express their honestly held opinions within the legal constraints of society, or is it a place where the malicious can hire a liar to defame others? It is pretty obvious which side I am on in this debate. It is important that this debate is held within the legal systems rather than the kind of lynch mob justice you appear to favour.

That’s rather ironic considering the lynch mob mentality he actively nurtures and at times leads at The Standard.

But unlike you I look at what was in the claims that Slater was making about Blomfield and are subject to this defamation action. That is what Slater will eventually have to defend and to date he appears to be doing a piss-poor job on that. Trying to pull in claims and areas extrinsic to that are as unlikely to sway me as they would a court. We don’t allow deliberate campaigns of smearing on this site. That is why you have limits on what you can do. I don’t want to waste my time in court in the way that Cameron obviously likes doing.

The bolded bit is brazen bull. Prentice supports and encorouages smear campaigns on The Standard. Slater’s wife Juana posted a comment:

I realise your blind hatred of Cam prevents you from looking too closely at the hand that feeds you the info ( Matt ) but sorry to burst your bubble but he has neglected to tell you some pertinent facts. 1. The court costs are in a Trust account and will be released when the Appeal process is complete IF Matt wins. If he doesn’t Matt will owe Cam court costs. 2. Cam has the money but has no legal obligation to pay the money until the appeal has been completed and Matt knows this. 3. Matt is trying to serve papers as part of his ongoing campaign of harassment.Something I know you all enjoy as you are his mate but nevertheless harassment is what it is.

Prentice replied:

Hi Juana, I already answered Marty about the “hate” bit. But I will repeat it for your benefit. I think your guy is a irresponsible arsehole who brings the rest of the blogging communities into disrepute. I intensely dislike being tarred with the same label as him because there are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag. Perhaps you should consider that before trying to smear me. I don’t “hate” him (never met him for that matter). I dislike his actions and how they reflect on me. I wish he would desist from doing posts like those he did about Blomfield and many others. I’m prepared to exert some effort to help that to happen

I agree that Slater “brings the rest of the blogging communities into disrepute” more than anyone else in New Zealand. But it’s very ironic to see Prentice worried about being tarred by bad behaviour, of those bloggers with significant influence I’d rate him  second to Slater on the arsehole scale – he brags about being an arsehole (as Slater does). He’s a distant second but he surely he’s not blind to how much his own blog being tarred by bad behaviour.

Everyone who isn’t interested in the likes of arsehole scumbags like Cameron Slater attacking them in public and getting paid for it should also be interested in it. Since that kind of arsehole behaviour happens to be what I am interested in not spreading across our local blogs, I keep reporting on aspects of this long running case.

I doubt anyone at The Standard gets paid for attacking people in public but it’s common and supported by Prentice. He leads by example. I wouldn’t call them arsehole scumbags but there’s a few regulars who’s primary role at the Standard appears as arsehole scumbag behaviour. And being a willing party to Blomfield’s bankruptcy action doesn’t look very flash either. Prentice seems to have decided to lower himself to closer to Slater’s level. Marty commented:

I realise the enemy of our enemy is The Standard’s friend, but I’d be terribly careful snuggling up to Blomfield. His portrayal as a random drive by shooting victim of Slater is going to end up in tears. The man is, at best, no better than blubberboy. As for publishing his home address on the Internet… wtf? I don’t know anything about money, but going for bankruptcy when there isn’t a clear indication that the person is indeed bankrupt and is instead stalling on paying a debt, isn’t that just being a total prick for the sake of being a prick? Anyway. Don’t let your hatred for Slater blind you to this man. He’s a P.O.S. himself, and you’re being used.

And:

I know it will be against the rules to discuss it here, so I won’t, but Blomfield’s true nature and true involvement in things outside the law have so far been carefully suppressed by everyone who knows better, because it doesn’t suit the Slater-must-be-silenced campaign. ALL I am saying is for lprent and The Standard not to to be seen as part of Blomfield’s fan club. There will be a time when that’s going to have some unwanted blowback. The last thing I want is for The Standard to join Bradbury as a source of justified ridicule.

Blomfield versus Slater seems par for a dirty course. A Prentice versus Slater escalation is risking a lot for The Standard. I’d be surprised if turns out to be worth the short term feeling of gotcha. Marty again:

Well, I didn’t want to be helpful to Blomfield, as he’s at least as despicable as Slater, and they deserve each other, but how hard is it to find Slater’s current address? Seriously? Which makes me go back to my previous point – you are allowing yourself / the blog to be used by this guy, and two wrongs don’t make a right. If you think that “bankruptcy” will silence Slater, I need to confess I don’t understand your thought process. You are allowing yourself and the blog to be used for someone’s personal harassment, and you are using your long term goal of ridding the world of Cameron Slater as your justification. Come on lprent, take a deep breath, walk away. We have more important things to achieve rather than help Blomfield out with his personal vendettas.

Whale Oil is at risk of crashing and burning. Doing dirty too long and pissing on too many people was bound to backlash. It would be a shame to see The Standard go the same way. Two major blogs down would be a significant loss to the blogosphere.