Nottingham fails again in Court of Appeal, judicial system faltering

Another failed Dermot Nottingham attempt to get leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal, this time against myself and Allied Press Limited.

This follows over three years of two related private prosecution proceedings. Last week Nottingham was also declined leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal versus Lynn Prentice and APN Limited – see Nottingham fails another attempted appeal.

All four parties were originally charged together in July 2015, but the cases against Allied Press and I were moved to Dunedin as they had been incorrectly filed in Auckland.

Prentice and APN went to trial in June 2016 and all charges were dismissed. They were eventually awarded costs. Nottingham unsuccessfully appealed the dismissal and costs in the High Court, and last week failed to get leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

The  week after those dismissals at trial Allied Press and I had a hearing seeking dismissal of charges prior to trial. Nottingham had not submitted opposing this. At the hearing Nottingham sought and obtained the Court’s leave to withdraw the charges.

We subsequently applied for costs and these were eventually awarded. In March this year Nottingham lost a High Court appeal against the costs, and has now failed to get leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal. After a hearing before three judges on 9 October 2018 their judgment has just come out.

[5] The private prosecution initiated by Mr Nottingham charged Allied Press Ltd and Mr George with breaching a suppression order by publishing articles on their respective websites in breach of s 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

[8] Mr Nottingham’s principal argument in support of his application for leave to appeal is that convictions of Allied Press Ltd and Mr George were inevitable if he had chosen to continue with the prosecution. He submits that Davidson J’s finding that the prosecution was defendable was “inconsistent with the indisputable facts”.

At the time the charges were withdrawn the case was in a hopeless state. The 1000+ page long 3 month+ late initial disclosure was inadequate, a promised expert witness statement was never produced, and Nottingham repeatedly failed to comply with law, court rules and timetables.

Both APN and I had entered not guilty please, legally we were ‘not guilty’ when the charges were withdrawn by the prosecutor, and we both believe we are not guilty in fact and could have defended the charges. Seven judges have agreed that the charges were defendable, but as the cases had never gone to trial could not rule out the possibility that Nottingham could have eventually proved something. he never has.

[9] Mr Nottingham says that the issues of costs against a prosecutor and what published information will breach a suppression order require clarification…

[10] These questions are all fact specific and relate only to this case.

[11] We are of the view that the questions posed are not issues of general principle or of general importance in the administration of the criminal law by the courts.

[12] Nor are we satisfied that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard. Discontinuation of proceedings will ordinarily have cost consequences. This was not a case where the prosecution would have clearly succeeded but for circumstances unrelated to the merits. We agree with the Judge that the prosecution was defendable. The issues would have included whether the publications contained any suppressed information and whether the requisite mental element was established for charges that are not of strict liability. Further, as the Judge mentioned, if the issue of “hidden computer search tools” had become relevant, then the legal and evidential issues would have been more complex. There were no clear answers to these issues on the untested evidence.

[13] We accordingly decline the application for leave to appeal.

The evidence had never been tested at trial, so despite Nottingham effectively trying to re-litigate the case at four subsequent hearings over costs we remain ‘not guilty’ (and, I believe, not guilty).

Note: there is suppression (Order prohibiting publication of evidence and submissions contained in
this judgment) related to a different prosecution (and conviction), so those details cannot be published at this stage, and the full judgment won’t be published pending the final outcome of the other case.

Prior to the last High Court appeal Nottingham indicated he intended taking the case to both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, so a further legal step is possible. I think this would be futile, and would use up more of the already overstretched court resources.

Nottingham currently has three cases pending before the Supreme Court following other failed appeals – see Case information 2018

Further attempts at appeal would incur further costs. Nottingham has admitted he has been insolvent for some time, has claimed to have debts of about $2 million (about quarter of a million in various court costs awarded against him), and he was adjudicated bankrupt in September – see HONEY v NOTTINGHAM [2018] NZHC 2382 [11 September 2018].

He seems to have had no intention of paying costs, and no ability to pay costs, yet he continues to force people to incur costs through the courts. In an email in 2015 he said that if various intended litigation took ten years ‘he was up for it”.

Nottingham has incurred all the costs but has not been acting alone.

Robert Earle McKinney has been closely involved with the proceedings against us. He arranged for the initial serving of documents (that was funny, I was photographed being served the documents on a Dunedin street). He shared the same email account as Nottingham, which was associated with his company Advantage Advocacy Limited (now in liquidation – see First Liquidators Report). Nottingham was said to be the sole employee of this company, and the company was registered at his address.

Cameron Slater was named as an informant to the prosecution, and was named as an expert witness (but never provided a witness statement). He appeared as a witness in the Prentice/APN trial. See NOTTINGHAM v APN NEWS & MEDIA LTD [2018] NZHC 596 [29 March 2018]:

  • calling a witness who had not been brief, 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;

Slater has been named by Nottingham as involved in ongoing attempts at litigation against me. He was also associated with the failed Court Order attempt by Marc Spring.

Marc Spring was also involved in serving court documents for Nottingham, and openly associated himself with @LaudaFinem in a campaign of harassment against me, at one stage suggesting I would be ‘fucked over’ as happens at Whale Oil. He has been involved in a number of ways in trying to trash and take down Your NZ. I believe he was also contributor to content (posts and comments under various pseudonyms) at the now taken down blog. – see from sentencing notes:

“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.”

There is a lot more on Spring’s involvement in various things but that is for another story. Others have also been involved in various ways.

Due to all of this I have learned a lot about how our judicial system works. I don’t think it has coped well with people who use it to attack and use it to try to cause hardship to others, and who repeatedly abuse processes and fail to comply with laws, rules and conventions that lawyers are bound to adhere to.  They have wasted a large amount of court time and resources.

I think that private prosecutions are an important part of our judicial system, as is the right to represent oneself and act as a lay litigant.

But I think that far less leniency for breaches of laws, rules and timetables would make things more fair for the targets of vexatious litigation.

There are apparently strict requirements for filing court submissions according to defined timetables. In theory this allows for orderly and fair processes.  But Nottingham has been allowed far too much leniency, and due to his frequency of litigation he should not get away with the excuse of lay litigant ignorance. Courts have pointed that out.

Nottingham repeatedly ignored requirements. A few examples (from many) from my proceedings.

“At the commencement of criminal proceedings, or as soon as practicable after that time, and in any event not later than the applicable date, the prosecutor must disclose the following information to the defendant.”

“In this section, applicable date means—

(a) the date that is 15 working days after the commencement of criminal proceedings

That means he should have provided disclosure by mid-August 2015. After he failed disclosure was requested by counsel and instructed by the Court. He still failed to disclose, and at one stage said he was deliberately delaying disclosure. He finally served a 9cm think pile of garbage (that has to be all read in case there is something important, not cheap when you are paying a lawyer to do it) in December 2015, three and a half months late.

When we applied for and submitted on costs Nottingham filed his submission late with the court but failed to serve it on us (the Applicants). When just prior to a scheduled hearing we found out he had submitted but not served the Court directed that he serve, but he failed to do that. I had to spend half a day in Court reading through hundreds of pages just in case there was something in it that was important.

Nottingham failed to appear at the costs hearing, but instead emailed a further submission during the hearing. remarkable the Court gave us copies and the Judge ordered a short adjournment so we could read it (a ridiculous situation to put us in). Then when the hearing resumed another submission arrived in court. At least the judge refused to accept that one.

For the Court of Appeal proceedings Nottingham:

  • filed his application seeking leave to appeal out of time
  • failed to file a submission as directed by a judge to give reasons for applying out of time
  • failed to file his submission as Applicant by the due date
  • after being told he had not filed by the court he set his own timetable
  • he finally filed his submission after both respondents had filed our submissions on time
  • two hours prior to the appeal hearing he filed another submission.

How did the Court deal with all of these transgressions? One of the three appeal judges said he two hour prior to hearing submission was ‘unhelpful’.

I made the point in oral submissions that all of these failures impose severe difficulties on the respondents, and also costs for those who have lawyers having to try and deal with the chaos. But that was not noted in the judgment.

I have been severely inconvenienced and disadvantaged through 3+ years of proceedings due to the actions and failures to comply of Nottingham. Lawyers would not get away with any of this (they wouldn’t attempt to get away with it).

While the various judges and courts have had difficulty dealing with a recidivist abuser of processes I believe hey have in effect aided and abetted these abuses by being so lenient with Nottingham time and time again.

If the courts want to reduce the pressure on time and resources they could help themselves by ensuring that litigants at least mostly comply with requirements.

This has been a huge learning curve for me, being my first experience in litigation and the courts. I found out what I was required to do, and did everything as required, on time. I have been severely disadvantaged by the numerous breaches by Nottingham, unchecked by the courts.

What have I got for this? Some costs awarded, with the likelihood that none of that will be paid. And I have got off cheaply compared to others.

The law is largely not an ass, and court staff and judges generally do good jobs under pressure, but the judicial system could be improved with some simple insistences that basic processes are complied with.

Blomfield versus

According to the Daily List Matthew Blomfield is back in the Auckland High Court today, this time against ‘Lauda Finem’.

Last week Blomfield was in court in a defamation action against Cameron Slater. This trial was set down for ‘up to four weeks’ but seems to have finished as it has now dropped off the daily list (since yesterday). Presumably this is now waiting for a judgment. That could take a while. Slater is waiting for the judgment of cross claims versus Colin Craig 18 months after the trial, but that is a much more complex proceeding that may be waiting on rulings in Jordan Williams v Craig, which was in the Supreme Court recently on a point of appeal,

The notice for CIV2016-044-121:


It is hard to find any information about this. The only hit on ‘Lauda Finem’ on court Decisions Online is MALTESE CAT LIMITED v DOE [2017] NZHC 1634 [14 July 2017] which shows defendants as:


Second Defendant

[2] The claim contends that all three were victimised by defamatory publications on the website, (the offending website).

[7] The plaintiffs want these four webpages to be declared defamatory. They have good reason to believe that if the declaration is made by this Court then GoDaddy and DBP will no longer host the pages. At the present time they have been taken down. A declaration is sought under s 24 of the Defamation Act 1992. By the terms of that Act they have to seek defamation against a person and hence the proceedings were commenced against John and Jane Doe. The plaintiffs, however, believe the offending material was put together by Mr Dermot Nottingham.

[17] I am also concerned that Mr Nottingham has neither denied he is responsible for the subject defamatory publications on the website, nor expressly pleaded that they are true.

In a second judgment – MALTESE CAT LIMITED v JOHN DOE AND/OR JANE DOE [2017] NZHC 1728 [25 July 2017] – Nottingham defended the action  due to what he claimed was time limitation but the judge ruled that it was not time barred and could proceed. There are no other judgments, but there was a Court of Appeal hearing in August for which there is no published judgment yet.

Nottingham was recently convicted of two breaches of non-publication orders, and five charges of criminal harassment, which I would presume would have some bearing on this latest action. From sentencing notes:

[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 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.

See “Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem…or he is so intimately related to it…”

Some information that seems linked directly to the current action was posted on – that website was shut down by court order as a result. A post in October 2016:

Godaddy, our web hosting provider, has very kindly agreed to oblige a New Zealand court and hand over the domain and various other material; we hold unlawfully of course; not a good look for a provider that sells itself as a bastion of free speech.

We at Lauda Finem are now apparently at the coal-face of international law and the struggle for press freedom, for despite Cameron Slater, also a blogger, having been declared a journalist, Kiwi High Court Judge, Peter Woodhouse, seems to have opted to ignore that fact and taken the very dangerous step of unlawfully interfering with a legitimate media outlet, an off-shore whistle-blowing anti-corruption website at that.

“The struggle for press freedom” is a laugh. This is more of a struggle to hold to account rogue website operators who try to be clever to get around New Zealand laws.

Moreover, despite Blomfield failing to even comply with his obligation to file his substantive arguments in the Slater case, and no sign that he is even capable of doing so, he has now decided, after more than 4 years, that he’s going to take on another “defamation tort”.

As is common with these numpties, the reverse of what they claim is closer to the truth. “Failing to even comply with his obligation to file his substantive arguments” applies more to Slater’s attempts to delay and avoid going to trial, and that may have backfired on him. Blomfield succeeded in getting it to trial so must have complied.

A follow up post:

Following on from our last post covering the Blomfield saga and his latest attempt to pervert justice LF have now been advised that the New Zealand Court decision enabling Kiwi lawyers to seize the LF site, in addition to the obvious lack of jurisdiction, may also breach EU laws on privacy, data protection, whistle blower, and journalist protections.

Did Judge Peter Woodhouse realize he lacked jurisdiction? Did Blomfield mislead him? Perhaps Woodhouse would care to explain his failures and the likely breaches of EU law?

With this in mind LF is now intending to email every Kiwi elected politician for their information and opinion, we’ll of course be following that up with a complete file copy, delivered by post, evidence that the legal hi-jinks of Mr Blomfield are merely designed to thwart LF’s reporting of the truth.

Remember LF has been following this story for many years, we’ve been posting, providing damning evidence for years, but not a peep from Blomfield until LF published damning evidence…

This appears to be related to the Slater defamation action. LF somehow managed to obtain the huge amount of data that Slater used in his posts attacking and accusing Blomfield. One the defamation action got under way Slater made an undertaking to the court not to post any more about Blomfield, but LF continued to post on it.

Remember readers, this so-called court judgement is a scam, service was not effected in accordance with New Zealand’s own laws. And as aforesaid it also likely breaches EU laws and treaties protecting residents whistle-blowers and journalists privacy.

Two years later it has now gone to trial.

Disclosure of interest: While I am not involved in the case before the court today and don’t have details of what it is actually trying to do, I have an interest in all of this because I was dragged into this whole Blomfield versus Slater and Lauda Finem messy business. They tried to use Your NZ to attack Blomfield in breach of court orders, and when I stopped that they started attacking me.

This involved an ongoing campaign of disruption here, litigation and attempted litigation (involving Nottingham, Slater plus  Marc Spring and Earle McKinney) and numerous threats of more litigation. I was also the target in a number of Lauda Finem posts and comments that made false accusations and threats, were defamatory, and were similar to harassment others have been subjected to.

Others here were also targeted by LF.  So the outcome of whatever is being attempted in court today will be of interest.


“Either Dermot Nottingham is Lauda Finem…or he is so intimately related to it…”

“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.”

“He makes the concession…that he has never denied that he has supplied information to the website…”

Following a jury trial in the District Court in Auckland in April and May 2018  Dermot Nottingham was convicted of two breaches of non-publication orders, and five charges of criminal harassment. He was sentenced to a term of a maximum one year home detention. See NZH Blogger dodges prison over court suppression breaches, harassment campaigns

The offending largely involved a website that has a notorious reputation for posting many breaches of suppression as well as numerous attacks on many people, including judges, lawyers, police officers, pooliticians, journalists, business people (and businesses), and individuals – including me and two individuals who participated here.

I think that there is public interest in Nottingham’s connection with be made known, as many people have been subjected to attacks and defamation.

Open justice is an important part of our country.

From a court document that is a public document (not yet available online):

[13] The detective sergeant’s efforts to establish links between Mr Nottingham and the Lauda Finem website led to an expansion of the investigation once he discovered a number of Lauda Finem articles which indicated several campaigns of harassment against individuals identified in those articles.

Conduct included:

  • Repetitively publishing articles on Lauda Finem containing fictitious, offensive and defamatory material.
  • Repetitively publishing articles on Lauda Finem about associates and family members containing fictitious, offensive and defamatory material about those persons.
  • Obtaining private photographs of the complainants and family and publishing those on Lauda Finem.
  • Photographing or causing to be photographed for publication on Lauda Finem.
  • Recording communications for publication on Lauda Finem m conjunction with offensive and defamatory material.

[18] It was clear to me that, for some of the complainants, life over an extended period of time had been made very uncomfortable and distressing, in some cases affecting the daily lives of some complainants whose reputations in their community had been so badly maligned as to cause them to withdraw within themselves.

[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 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.

[24] It was plain to me from the evidence that a number of these courses of conduct started with Mr Nottingham crossing the path of the individual complainant, either in his own capacity or on behalf of another individual, acting as their advocate. Initially, it is possible in some instances that Mr Nottingham reasonably believed he had legitimate concerns or complaints. However, rather than pursuing those complaints by lawful and reasonable means, he adopted a combative approach, I have to say reminiscent of his approach generally to the authorities and even to this Court, where he sought to achieve his goals or obtain justice by resorting to personal attack. Mr Nottingham seems to believe that, when it comes to informal media through blog sites and social media, “anything goes”.

[25] It is important to recognise and note at this stage that mainstream media are subject to codes of conduct which avoid the type of abusive and threatening articles being published in mainstream media, but bloggers and other persons who carry out their personal attacks through the medium of the Internet seem to feel that they are not bound by similar moral codes of conduct. Mr Nottingham seeks to justify and make
lawful his conduct towards others by reference to the conduct of other bloggers who habitually take an aggressive and attacking approach in purporting to uncover corruption and injustice. Further, Dermot Nottingham seeks to argue that the prosecution of him discloses bias and unfairness on the part of the police, the Crown and the Court, because others are doing similar things and getting away with it.

[26] I proceed on the basis that two wrongs do not make a right. Individuals can never escape the consequences of their unlawful conduct simply by pointing to someone else who is similarly acting unlawfully. It must also be said in the context of the evidence in this case that the degree of attack, abuse, harassment and its relentless nature appears to be far worse in Dermot Nottingham’s case than in the examples he relies upon to claim unfair and biased treatment.

[28] …The Crown submits that the key purpose of sentencing in this case should be to hold the offender accountable for the harm done to the victims, to denounce his conduct and to deter him and others from offending in a similar manner. I accept that those purposes apply in this case.

[29] The Crown further proposes that there are a number of aggravating features to the criminal harassment charges, namely the extent of the harm. The allegations against the complainants included that that they were alcoholics, used drugs, were promiscuous or were corrupt professionals and public officials. The Crown characterised the language used by Mr Nottingham as malicious, misogynistic and entirely abhorrent. Without the need for me to repeat any of those specific offensive allegations, I concur with the summary of Mr Nottingham’s conduct. I also accept that those aggravating features are present.

[31] The third aggravating feature as proposed by the Crown is that the offender, Dermot Nottingham, clearly researched his targets extensively and published intimate and personal details, including making reference to friends and family, photographs of homes and cars and their licence plates. The level of research and preparation for a number of these articles demonstrates, the Crown says, a high degree of premeditation.

[32] Finally, the Crown submits that another aggravating feature, being the number and seriousness of the offences, is present, relating not only to the number of complainants, but also the persistence and time over which that harassment was carried out or continued. I accept that all three of those aggravating features are present in this case and to a high degree.

[38] I turn now to Mr Nottingham’s position, or his submissions on sentencing. In his written submissions, Dermot Nottingham, as I have previously indicated, relies on the proposition that the Lauda Finem website treated the complainant no differently to anyone else it reports on; for instance, like Mr Slater does on his website. He makes the concession at paragraph 32 of his submissions that he has never denied that he has supplied information to the website, although he maintains his denial that he is the leading mind of that website or has any significant control over its operators

[40] On the subject of cumulative sentences, Mr Nottingham simply states that is not appropriate. Further, he submits that imprisonment is not appropriate and he seeks to focus on the behaviours of the complainants, presumably to suggest that his conduct towards them was, at some level, justifiable.

[42] Not only does such a statement reinforce the contempt with which
Mr Nottingham holds the decisions of the Court and the non-publication orders, but establishes beyond doubt that Mr Nottingham harbours no sense of remorse in relation to any of this offending.

[52]  Mr Nottingham does not qualify for any consideration of reduction of sentence for guilty pleas, or indeed for remorse. He has doggedly defended the allegations and required the complainants to give evidence. Although this does not add to the sentence I impose, it highlights why Mr Nottingham is not entitled to any discount for remorse or acceptance.

[53] In his written submissions, Mr Nottingham makes it plain that he disagrees with the findings of the jury and challenges many of the rulings of the Court. As is characteristic of his approach to legal proceedings, I anticipate that Mr Nottingham will pursue all avenues of review and appeal and is unlikely ever to accept that what he did was not only unlawful, but reprehensible.

[59] Mr Nottingham, the message to you and to others by way of deterrence is that “anything goes” is wrong. The right to free speech or freedom of expression is not a paramount right. It must be balanced against the competing rights of others in the community to be free from harassment, to be protected from harm by others who malign, abuse, threaten and undermine their peace and safety. Your activities were not harmless. Nor were they justified by your sense of injustice or unfairness. They were destructive of good order and good human relations. They were misconceived and wholly disproportionate to the harm or injustice that you believed you and others had suffered.

Given his extensive record Nottingham is likely to appeal everything he can. The Crown may also appeal the sentence – they sought a substantial prison sentence.

There are also some important lessons for bloggers in the judge’s comments.

“He makes the concession…that he has never denied that he has supplied information to the website…”

I dispute that, but that’s for another story.

I will note however that on the Lauda Finem website it was often denied that ‘Team LF’ included people in New Zealand, even though it was obvious they used a large amount of New Zealand sourced material, their posts were almost exclusively New Zealand subjects, and their campaigns had things in common with campaigns on other websites.

Nottingham has not been acting alone in all of this (the court suggested a prominent role), but associates are for another story.

The website started up in July 2010, and was shut down by a New Zealand court order in late 2016. Another site was set up but ceased activity in March 2017.

NOTE: This case was subject to suppression (non-publication orders) – and the private prosecutions of myself and three others were also bound by this. I have been advised by the court that this suppression lapsed on the sentencing of Nottingham.

However the case involves other cases that are still subject to non-publication orders (suppressed), so details on them must not be published.

Due to on-going suppression orders comments here will be strictly moderated. Do not try to identify anyone who is not named in the quotes from the court document here in any way.

@Laudafinem splutters again

I don’t usually bother about what @Laudafinem is doing, they block me which suits because I’m not interested in what they are trying to do.

But someone alerted me to them having a dirty splutter at me last week so I checked,  and saw that they must follow things closely here. Someone had mentioned them in a comment in relation to the Stephen Dudley case, and they reacted.


Very funny, but probably unintentional.

They did make some valid points about the Dudley case, but as is typical they went way over the top with baseless allegations and conspiracy theories, and couldn’t do anything about it.

The LF website may have been sometimes right but their reputation is mostly for being malicious, defamatory nut job conspiracy theorists and gutless anonymous cowards.

In another tweet the named four people, saying “one by one they’ve all fallen to LF’s sword – as will the others​ you’ve backed “.

LF are like waving a paper sword in the rain – they can’t front (or won’t) front up in a New Zealand jurisdiction because of the legal jeopardy their actions have put themselves into. All they can do is rant anonymously from somewhere on the other side of the world. I presume this is why they seem to have been 100% wrong about overturn the legal shut down of their website – they can’t front up without putting themselves at risk.

They also tweeted:


My ‘kiwi cabal’ is one of their conspiracy theories. They have accused me of working for and  the GCSB, the police, business people, bloggers, media and journalists when all i do is independently run a blog.

Truth and LF are only occasional acquaintances. And they react badly when I expose the truth about them – they tend to get more ludicrous with their claims and accusations.

I believe that @laudafinem may be operated by an Antony Nottingham from the Netherlands – I haven’t seen that denied by them.

They often contradict their own claims – they say they have no New Zealand connections, but have often bragged about informants and associations.

@MarcSpring still openly associates with them on Twitter, is still the registrant of, and posts and comments on their website often sounded very similar to his style – I got to know and recognise his MO when he commented here under various pseudonyms.

Spring’s aim was to shut this site down because he didn’t like being exposed, or because he is just malicious.

He had help from Dermot Nottingham and Cameron Slater was also involved, but I presume now that Slater is getting good legal advice he has distanced himself from these legal idiots. Spring filed a court against me and this site in 2015 but failed to follow basic procedures set down by the Harmful Digital Communications Act, used law that didn’t come into effect until a year later, and was thrown out as soon as this was advised to the Court.

See Court order discharged – that was one that LF got 100% wrong – in fact they have been closer to 100% wrong about a lot of things from what I’ve seen.

(Dermot) Nottingham also tried a private prosecution against me – see Notice: Private Prosecution – another 100% failure.

LF have tried to dig dirt on me but failed, hence they resorted to making things up. Which makes it likely a lot of other things they have claimed are made up. And they have dug themselves into a legal hole – if they ever find a way out of that there are likely to be quite a few lawyers ready to act.

So they are left ranting in a small dark corner where very few notice, and then splutter when exposed.

They failed to comprehend that ‘justice campaigners’ actually need to understand how justice works, and what is just. They may have had some good intentions sometimes, but they are just idiots, albeit malicious ones.

They are usually best ignored but sometimes I think it’s worth confronting their bull and their bullying.

They could take note their own message – “tell the truth or eventually someone will tell it for you” – but may not get it. They are more likely to just splutter again. Fools in futility.

Lauda Finem down

It looks like the Lauda Finem website has been taken down:


Lauda Finem has confirmed:

Lauda Finem have been advised our domain name has been transferred to a New Zealand Barrister & thus jurisdiction.

This is great, about time serious action was taken against them.

They had indicated in a couple of posts they were subject to a High Court order, and stupidly appear to have breached that order before going down. Publicly attacking the judge is not the smartest of responses.

Despite their claims about being ‘justice campaigners’ and international whistle blowers and having no connection to New Zealand their posts were just about exclusively targeting New Zealand issues and New Zealand people (literally hundreds) and what they posted on happened to coincide with the interests of a small number of people in New Zealand.

They frequently contradicted their own claims.

They blatantly breached suppression orders, they made numerous false accusations, some of them quite extreme, and they abused and smeared many people.

Despite targeting a number of judges, police officers and lawyers it seems to have taken the initiative and determination of one private citizen to deal to them.

They (LF) have claimed it is some sort of an attack on free speech but they were amongst the of the dirtiest abusers of free speech I have encountered. They have exercised none of the responsibilities that a responsible site would have.

This is unlikely to be the end of the matter. They have said they will try to set up an alternative site but that would appear to be in breach of the court order.

At this stage I don’t want anyone named here so please don’t.

Vendettas and death notices

Cameron Slater has claimed he has had death threats as a result of the news onslaught yesterday.

I hope Judge McIlraith is watching the comments, the death threats have started. He didn’t think this was such a problem.



While it could be perceived as a threat of violence it doesn’t go as far as being a death threat, but is nasty it is unfortunately not uncommon talk online.

Something that was apparent yesterday was Slater’s continued association with Lauda Finem.

Two days ago LF posted an attack on  Ben Rachinger and others, and blatantly included information subject to court ordered suppression, and some of that suppression is still in force. There are not many possible sources for the judgment they published in full (actually it was a first version of the judgment that was corrected).

Then remarkably early yesterday LF published a media statement from Slater that also breached suppression. That seems certain to have been sourced from Slater.

After several hours it was taken down, in itself remarkable as the previous day LF refused to amend a false claim they made about Bradley Ambrose. This suggests preferential treatment for Slater at LF.

Then this exchange appeared on Twitter:


Spring coughing over vendettas alongside tweets involving Slater and LF is more than a little ironic.

Talking of vendettas this comment appeared on LF about the same time as the Slater statement appeared (overnight Monday):


Redacted comments breach the law and make false claims.

I don’t think that was Slater, but that’s the sort of people and website he associates and utilises. And that’s a more serious implication of a death threat than what he complained about.

I condemn any threats, implied or otherwise, of violence or death, including against Slater.

I wonder if Slater would likewise openly condemn the threat aimed at me, and ask his friends to take down this threat like his statement was taken down.

Whale Oil bail out

Whale Oil is again asking for donations to bail Cameron Slater out of more legal costs.

This could be avoided by dealing with some basic legal responsibilities but Slater chooses to continue to dig himself into legal holes, then asks for help to pay his way out of the inevitable costs.

Cam needs your money

by Whaleoil Staff on February 21, 2016 at 9:00am

There, that’s blunt enough.

Can’t tell you why.

If you go to other blogs, you probably know why.  If you read some of the media, you may know why.

But we can’t tell you why on THIS blog.

Such are the strange machinations of the law.

Cam has been on the receiving end of a court decision – which we can not discuss, so don’t – and with fines and costs he’s once again looking at a $10k bill to clear.

We decided that this wasn’t your problem, and of course, normally one has to explain in detail why one is asking for help.

So we decided to just tough it out.

Somehow, we always manage.

That’s until last night when one of our commenters, unsolicited I might add, asked if Cam might need some money to pay off some surprise bills.

I more or less explained the same thing – that we can’t talk about it as talking about it simply would incur even more costs, so we decided to keep our heads down and eat some crow.  Swallow a rat.  And chase it with some bile.

But people insisted that this would be something they want to help out with, even though we can’t say what it is about, they either knew through OTHER MEDIA (yep!) or simply find the call for funds enough – no publicly stated reason needed.   Such is their valuable trust.

Anyway, at the request of Whaleoil supporters, please consider helping Cam Slater out, in a personal capacity. This has nothing to do with the blog.

If you want to know why, that’s the whole stupid point, we can’t tell you without risking more bills.

But if you know, or you trust us, and want to take the pressure off Cam, then this is the account that will gladly take your personal gift to him.

That probably relates to Blogger Cameron Slater fined for ‘reckless’ article amendments about businessman.

So what would personal gifts of money to Slater be supporting? According to this posted at The Daily Blog :




Note: Bradbury spouts nonsense in his post but this appears to be provided material.

I don’t know how accurate these claims are but they don’t sound out the ordinary for some of the people involved, from my own experiences here and elsewhere, and from claims by others who have contacted me.

And consider this comment at Lauda Finem, a site that often seems to have a close interest in matters related Whale Oil:

That brings us to the subject of Matthew John Blomfield, a master of exactly this type of con-job. Blomfield and his exploits are of course well known to LF and Whale Oil’s regular readers.

Again from my own experience a lot of claims and accusations made by Lauda Finem are fabricated lies and bizarre conspiracies (I expect that in their next attack on me they will accuse me of faking the moon landings and being an alien).

Getting back to Blomfield’s job vacancy above, in our humble opinion he appears to have omitted a couple of pretty important qualities, traits that any assistant working with him would almost certainly need to possess in order to be successful in working for Blomfield. The first and most important would certainly be the ability to field phone calls from deep-throated heavy-breathing individuals that refuse to give a name or leave a message, and the occasional death threat, without getting too emotionally involved or distraught.

This could be the sort of thing that Blomfield refers to that stinks.

Slater isn’t getting much help with his troubles with comments like that.

LF sometimes say they have no association with Slater but their posts frequently contradict many of their claims.

Slater’s bail out fund raising seems to me to be much of his own making, exacerbated by his stubbornness and the poor advice he seems to receive.

DISCLOSURE: Lauda Finem have made many accusations about me in relation to conspiracies involving business people, bloggers, media, real estate agents, police, the court and chem trails (ok, I made the last one up but that’s how ridiculous things are).

‘Assets’ reveal Lauda Finem-[Deleted as per court order]-Slater links

On assets and teams and Lauda Finem, [Deleted as per court order] and Cameron Slater.

Lauda Finem play with words to try to deny that they are a front for a handful of (nasty) people based in New Zealand.

We will say it once more, for the last time! Lauda Finem is a foreign based blog, it is not and never has been based in New Zealand or any of it’s territories.

Everything LF publishes we do so quite legally, no different to any other foreign news source. Moreover LF is NOT a party to any legal proceeding in New Zealand whatsoever, nor is any member of team LF, again all members live outside New Zealand, always have, always will. Nor will we be the subject of defamation proceedings in the future as absolutely everything published on LF is the TRUTH, as distasteful as that may be to those who have featured on LF

In typical irony they claim “absolutely everything published on LF is the TRUTH” immediately after telling a big porky.

They may claim that ‘team LF’ is just Antony Nottingham (ok, they don’t admit that but also don’t deny it) and their  New Zealand based operators are not members but ‘assets’.

Here’s an example of Lauda Finem referring to their ‘assets'”

Funnily enough when we had one of our assets point out Fishers mistake to Slater and tweeted it during the lunch break Slater got stuck into Fisher.


Here’s another example:

LF obtained the services of probably Australasia’s greatest investigative asset over the weekend for free…well somebody paid for his services, but it was not LF!!.

Just after that they refer to “New Zealand Justice Campaigner [Precautionary delete]” and anyone who has read through [Precautionary delete] and Lauda Finem – detail will recognise that’s probably not a coincidence.

And another: Whale Oil Blogger Cameron Slaters bad dream – climbs into bed with arch nemesis Matthew Blomfield  4 September 2014

In the recorded telephone conversation, between Blomfield and [Delete as per court order] (below)…

[Deleted as per court order]

[Deleted as per court order], one of Slaters many sources, a man who was prepared to go public and stand by Slater in court…[Deleted as per court order]and others who had turned LF assets has assisted in obtaining reams of evidential material which LF has yet to publish.

Lauda Finem openly admit  [Deleted as per court order], one of Cameron Slater’s ‘sources’, as an ‘LF asset’ who has “assisted in obtaining reams of evidential material which LF has yet to publish”.

In an earlier post: TVNZ, John Hudson, Matthew Blomfield and the Ruawai Property Scam – Part One 17 December 2013

In our last post on Blomfield we evidenced that he had likely either colluded with journalists or in the alternative mislead journalists. Having had a little time to review a fraction of the material we, like Slater, received recently…

This makes it fairly clear someone (in New Zealand) has been supplying both Slater and Lauda Finem with material.

Back to the previous post:

In doing so Blomfield had knowingly laid one of those false police complaints against Mr [Deleted as per court order], in fact it was the second in two years that [Deleted as per court order]had been subjected to, both of these complaints designed to intimidate [Deleted as per court order].

As is becoming evident, Lauda Finem et al claims of being harassed can mean the opposite. This is true in my experience, and last week’s Court of Appeal judgment revealed “Mr Blomfield’s application for a restraining order against Mr [Deleted as per court order]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 [Deleted as per court order]constituted harassment under the Harassment Act 1997. A restraining order was accordingly made against Mr [Deleted as per court order] and remains in force until 9 April 2016.”

LF managed to collect additional evidence of this fact, Blomfield’s true intention, by covertly recording a telephone call that Blomfield made to [Deleted as per court order]…

How would LF, who claim none of their ‘team’ have ever lived in New Zealand, covertly record that telephone call?

At the same time Slater was communicating with Blomfield he was also chatting with one of our mutual sources, fishing for additional information on none other than Warren Powell, an action that seemed very suspicious. The source immediately contacted an LF operative and explained what had been unfolding in Slaters Skype texts…

A ‘mutual source’ again. However Slater doesn’use the term ‘asset’, he talks about ‘team’. This email is in the Lauda Finem post:


It seems clear from a number of posts at Lauda Finem that Antony Nottingham doesn’t like Slater. Slater is correct in saying the lauda Finem attacks against Slater’s wife were disgusting (like many LF posts). And he has also been the target of similar, like this in the same post as the emails:

So is Cameron Slater a candidate for filthy Maggot cunt of the year? In the absence of a plausible explanation from the fat-boy himself we here at LF certainly think so. Can Cameron Slater really be trusted to keep his sources safe? We here at LF think not.

But it is also clear from this that there is no honour amongst this lot, they are all vicious, even amongst themselves. The hapless Slater almost looks good in comparison to those who have been using and abusing him.

Back to Lauda Finem’s claim:

Moreover LF is NOT a party to any legal proceeding in New Zealand whatsoever, nor is any member of team LF, again all members live outside New Zealand, always have, always will.

Lie 1 – [Deleted as per court order] still lives in Auckland as far as I know.

Lie 2 – Lauda Finem stated “[Deleted as per court order], one of Slaters many sources, a man who was prepared to go public and stand by Slater in court”. And there is also evidence that [Deleted as per court order]is a party to other legal proceedings.

Lauda Finem and Cameron Slater may use different terms but it seems clear that an LF asset is the same thing as a Slater team member.

Regardless of their semantics one could wonder whether people like [Deleted as per court order] are assets or liabilities.


[Precautionary delete] and Lauda Finem

Lauda Finem is a website that has mainly New Zealand orientated content and is clearly targeting a New Zealand audience. It has a reputation for personal attacks, lying and defamation, with potentially hundreds of people amongst the targets.

Disclosure: I have been a target of Lauda Finem and have been subject to attacks in several posts that contain a number of blatantly false claims and I believe it sometimes amounts to defamation.

In my opinion they have a long record of making false accusations and making despicable attacks, and theer seems to be a lot  intimidatory and threatening behaviour. And they commonly accuse others of doing exactly what they themselves are doing.

This post plus a more detailed post shows to some degree how closely associated [Precautionary delete] has been with the Lauda Finem website. How close is up to you to judge, from Lauda Finem’s own words.

In August Lauda Finem claimed:

We will say it once more, for the last time! Lauda Finem is a foreign based blog, it is not and never has been based in New Zealand or any of it’s territories.

Everything LF publishes we do so quite legally, no different to any other foreign news source. Moreover LF is NOT a party to any legal proceeding in New Zealand whatsoever, nor is any member of team LF, again all members live outside New Zealand, always have, always will.

I think that is at the very least very misleading. One could quibble over what “member of team LF” means exactly.  ‘Foreign based’ means nothing, this site could claim to be foreign based or hosted (like Lauda Finem is).

But it’s clear that Lauda Finem have had a close interest in New Zealand based issues and have paid close attention to people in New Zealand, and have paid comparatively little attention to anything or anyhone outside New Zealand.

And if as some believe that [Precautionary delete]’s brother Antony is the only significant ‘team LF’ member who resides overseas then the claim that all members of the ‘team’ have never lived in New Zealand is suspect.

I have asked @laudafinem directly if he/she is Antony Nottingham and they have avoided answering, more than once. I don’t recall seeing any specific denial that Antony Nottingham is the overseas ‘owner’.

Denials of New Zealand associations are usually couched in vague language designed to imply no New Zealand connection rather than categorically deny.

My posts will show that a significant part of many of Lauda Finem posts and much of their content is closely related to and involves [Precautionary delete] – who I believe lives in New Zealand.

He has probably featured in more Lauda Finem posts than anyone else. He has frequently been quoted and praised.

He features in something like 90 posts, and sometimes he is virtually the sole focus of the post. His name is repeated sometimes 20, 30, 40 times in a post.

If you read and believed much of Lauda Finem you could easily get the impression that [Precautionary delete] is the most wonderful  and truly great unsung hero in the world (using some of their own words). Nottingham could hardly praise himself any more than the frequent accolades he gets on Lauda Finem.

I have collated quite a bit of information that demonstrates the attention given to [Precautionary delete]by Lauda Finem. It builds a picture of what sort of association Lauda Finem and [Precautionary delete] have.

Lauda Finem have often made it clear that they are located outside New Zealand and [Precautionary delete] doesn’t own the site. That may be so but it leaves open many possibilities that could include co-operation, collusion, co-authorship, exchange of information etc. Some of those at least have taken place.

It  is long but I believe an important record – a record accumulated by what Lauda Finem themselves have collected, in their own words.

There’s a clear pattern of Lauda Finem investigations paralleling [Precautionary delete]’s investigations and court actions.

My take on this? [Precautionary delete]appears to me to have been a significant and possibly integral part of the content at Lauda Finem over the past five years.

Here are some brief examples.

Lauda Finem state they have received information from [Precautionary delete]that they then posted:

We also received, via email,  Justice and consumer rights campaigner [Precautionary delete]s comment, we have however not edited it, after all it is his story and his personal opinion of Milne and has undoubtedly been formed as a result of his own personal experiences of him, Fair Go, TVNZ and its so-called “staffers”

An Open letter suggests that communications have been both ways:

You will note that we have copied in Justice campaigner [Precautionary delete] as it seems to us that he to has been greatly affected by these sham websites and their so called members

Kind Regards

Sharon McBride

The Team @ Lauda Finem


With that outcome in mind LF have emailed [Precautionary delete]and advised him of Blomfield’s email…

There’s a number of similar admissions.

Lauda Finem also claim to be providing safe storage of information of Nottingham’s:

LF has it on good authority that [Precautionary delete], as is his nature, had filmed Mayer on numerous occasions confessing to the criminal frauds, and also filmed Mayer’s sister-in-law offering up her involvement in his orgy of criminal forgery and fraud.

Apparently [Precautionary delete]secured a video statement from the sister-in-law following a visit to the SFO. None of these video’s have been supplied to the Serious fraud Office…as yet. (LF however have the complete set, here in the Netherlands for safe keeping)

This suggests that Nottingham has given “the complete set” of videos to “LF” in the Netherlands for safekeeping.

This also demonstrates typical contortions where they seem to be claiming some vague and distant association but then contradict it – “on good authority that [Precautionary delete]”, “apparently [Precautionary delete]” but then they state they are storing the complete set of [Precautionary delete]videos.

Some more extracts:

“Quite what it was that he’d hoped to achieve we’re unsure of as neither [Precautionary delete]or for that matter Lauda Finem take kindly to threats.”

…”and Butler chose to play games with [Precautionary delete]and the team here at Lauda Finem.”

“We like justice, as does justice campaigner [Precautionary delete]. In fact from what we’ve been able to establish Mr Nottingham likes, as we do, sifting through the chaft and finding facts that support justice…”

“We’ll be sure to pass on your bogus admission to Mr [Precautionary delete]…”

“From what documentation we have been given by the informant victim it would appear to us that [Precautionary delete] clinically assessed Nurse Athol as suffering from narcissistic disorder and as suffering from a psychosis that was being played by Nurse Athol’s masters at ACC.”

“Women are just as susceptible as men to wanting the trappings of power, or to be driven by jealously, and according to New Zealand Justice Campaigner [Precautionary delete]Ms Bowie-Broad is a ravenous plague rat when it comes to spreading her disease of lies, deceit, jealously, incompetence, and intellectual inadequacy.”

” [Precautionary delete]had also found out…”

“A breakthrough for LF came with David “what bomb” Butler rolling over naming names to Justice Campaigner [Precautionary delete]. [Precautionary delete], in his normal style, got significant admissions out of David Butler whilst, unbeknownst to Butler, filmed Butler.”

“Nottingham and LF didn’t disagree with Butlers position.

“On footage that LF holds [Precautionary delete]appears to tear up when Butler gives [Precautionary delete]two examples of his early life…:

“What concerns us is that the people that are being threatened have nothing to do with the ownership or operation of LAUDA FINEM…”

They keep referring to ownership of the website, but ownership is not the issue here, it is the degree of association and collusion between Lauda Finem and [Precautionary delete] that is of critical interest.

We accept your apology and would suggest that you also apologise to Mr [Precautionary delete] for having wrongly assumed his involvement with Lauda Finem. We have made it clear on a number of occasions who owns, runs and contributes to Lauda Finem, on one occasion publishing an email we received from Fairfax Media NZ. Indeed [Precautionary delete] would have the quite extraordinary ability to be omnipresent given that he lives in New Zealand and the team @ Lauda Finem are all in Australia.

That was several years ago when one member and probably the official owner of Lauda Finem was based in Australia – believed to be Antony Nottingham.

Lauda Finem now claim to operate out of the Netherlands and some claim that is where Antony Nottingham has moved. I know there is some Lauda Finem related activity from the Netherlands.

But it is obviously that Lauda Finem have close connections with New Zealand, and it seems with [Precautionary delete].


An LF admirer

I don’t bother with Kiwiblog’s General Debate much these days, it mostly seems to be the same old names and same old arguments. But I had a browse last night and find a couple of gems from ‘Reid’ from Tuesday. First a vote of support for Lauda Finem:

Good old LaudaFinem strikes yet again, shedding sunlight on a topical issue where our useless, idiot, pathetic, cowardly and very very stupid moronic media, utterly, yet again, fail to, in any and every single way possible. This time, explaining the background to the aussie deportations: the vital why, not the what, but the why. The critical and crucial element to the issue that, yet again, our vapid Fourth Estate not just glosses lightly over but completely fails even to mention, let alone explicate in detail. A task that this intrepid overseas website does again and again and again and again. It’s one of the best news sites in NZ.

They might not appreciate him saying “in New Zealand”.

And then in response to this…

I know you’ve mentioned Lauda Finem for a different reason, Reid, but do you have any idea why the people behind that blog are currently at war with Pete George? I’ve checked out Pete George’s blog and, well, let’s just say that he’s under siege.

…he launches into a same old style rant.

No I don’t. But at a guess the beige badger almost always gets the wrong end of the stick and that’s fine. For example with his rape culture meme. However what’s not fine is he then gets on his high horse just like his hero and mentor Dunne. So not only is he wrong but he’s also self-righteous.

That’s similar to how Lauda Finem do things, making things up and repeating  them (this is old repeats from Reid) – it’s called deliberate lying.

Which also, I suspect with LA, would be fine too. But where he then crosses the line is that in his roaring galloping self-righteous mentalism (which is in fact, logic and all things Holy actually totally incorrect every whichway you can imagine), he then picks a personal target which in his insanity personifies his outrage over “x” and in his weak, pathetic and most importantly dishonest disengenuous proceeds to do his level best to take down his target, using whatever means at his disposal.

Of course he’s such a moron it’s like being mauled by an arthritic church mouse with cancer on their deathbed about to die that same evening but even so, because of his idiocy combined with his insanity, the target is invariably innocent, and I think that’s why LA are doing what they’re doing.

Funny. And ironic.

Of course I don’t know, I’m guessing. I don’t know them, I have no association with them apart from admiring their contribution to the NZ media fabric which is considerable and if they read this, thank you.

Reid calls most people sheeple amd morons because they don’t agree with his claims the world is about to end, but admires LF. Says a lot.

But that’s my theory on it.

FWIW I was surprised to read those posts too. I thought PG is such a profound lightweight, why bother, who cares what he does. I wouldn’t have personally, given the weight of most of the issues they target.

BTW, I know you pointed me to an article the idiot once wrote about me. I’ve never read it and I never will, for the abovementioned reasons. Life is too short to waste time on thinking about thoughts emanating from a fool like him.

He wasted quite a few words not thinking about me.

He later comments:

Cows don’t try to jump open gates nasska.

That’s why.

Compared to sheeple cows can solve quantum physics and space travel and would get every single Nobel prize for both this and the next century, compared to the collective mind-power were it all combined, of sheeple.

So naturally I don’t want to honour actual sheeple by pretending they’re as brainy as a cow.

They might misunderstimate their total and actual stupidity in the scheme of things, and start thinking things such as: Shillary would actually make a really good POTUS, and such-like.

Then where would we be.

Plus I don’t give a fuck about equality and in my personal life I try to be as evil, cruel and unequal as I can possibly be without getting arrested, just cos I can.

Perhaps that’s why he admires Lauda Finem so much.