Cameron Slater has a idiot for a lawyer

Written By: - Date published: 8:00 am, April 14th, 2015 - 42 comments
Categories: articles, blogs, journalism, Media - Tags: , , ,

What has been amusing me over recent months has been watching Cameron Slater, our rather pathetic and quite inept “journalist”, having legal issues.  And financial issues from being involved in legal issues. I keep an eye on them for my amusement. It is like watching Charlie Chaplin doing some seriously funny silent pratfalls.

Apparently he hasn’t presented court required material in a timely manner in just about any court – from district courts to the Court of Appeal. I have heard that he has ignored court costs levied against him, ignored court orders to pay up, ignored the many bankruptcy notices and hearings, and tried to avoid process servers. Which is why he got served at his previous public appearance – just before being knocked out.

In short, he appears to be a fool walking towards disaster. At the rate that Cameron is going, the only real question is how soon he starts to discover how official assignee views hiding assets.

Which was why I wasn’t surprised that he also missed a deadline to appeal against the judgement in the High Court despite being given leave to do so.

But I was astonished when I heard that Slater or his lawyer filed an application for leave to present an appeal AFTER the deadline had passed. Instead of taking the cheapish legal shot granted by the High Court of simply making an appeal (any appeal) before some date in December, some incompetent legal dunderhead made the idiotic move of not filing with the Court of Appeal.  Then they took the much harder step of belatedly attempting to get the Court of Appeal  to allow them to appeal. Complete legal stupidity.

Anyway, that application for leave to appeal was heard yesterday in the Court of Appeal sitting in Wellington.

A report on RadioNZ indicates Slater’s legal team strategy.

Mr Slater argued disclosing his sources would subject them to unspecified threats from Mr Blomfield, saying he had fresh evidence to support this.

Ok, so they are arguing on the Evidence Act 2006, S68(2). Specifically paragraph a.

(2) A Judge of the High Court may order that subsection (1) is not to apply if satisfied by a party to a civil or criminal proceeding that, having regard to the issues to be determined in that proceeding, the public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant outweighs—
(a)any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informant or any other person; and
(b)the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts.

The judgement in the High Court (my paraphrasing for brevity) was that

  • Slater was judged to be a journalist.
  • That there didn’t appear to be any particular public interest in a disagreement between old business partners.
  • There was no apparent possibility of a chilling effect on legitimate whistleblowers from revealing the sources..
  • In this case the “journalist’s” sources appear to have been likely to have been pushing an extreme and vindictive feud as well as the dubiously or criminally obtained hard disk and documents owned by Matthew Blomfield. 
  • The High Court also decided that the sources didn’t appear to have likely significiant adverse effects, apart from being sued by Matthew Blomfield.
  • Cameron Slater was ordered to reveal his sources of the material that he used as the basis of the posts

Peter Aranyi had a summarised highlighting of the judgement, that is worth reading. But having read some of the posts from Cameron Slater targeting Matthew Blomfield which were in my view clearly defamatory and quite blatantly malicious falsehoods that went far beyond the purported ‘evidence’ in the posts, I wasn’t surprised at that judgement. I was only surprised that Judge Asher thought that Cameron Slater was a journalist. My respect for journalism plummeted further.

While I wasn’t in court in Wellington, from the journalists reports, it appears that Slater and his lawyer are only targeting the significance of any adverse effects on Slater’s “sources”. That does make me wonder who paid for the appeal, as filing court documents isn’t cheap, and why Slater was so concerned about that. But we’ll leave that for a journalist to nosey out…

So what was this fresh evidence put in front of the Court of Appeal judges?

But the three justices questioned whether such evidence would be admissible.

Huh? A lawyer put up fresh evidential material that might not be admissible in front of the Court of Appeal? What was was it? That is surely newsworthy? Is there more on this in the news from the courtroom?

Clearly not. Radio NZ’s piece was short, minimalistic  and concise. Exactly what you’d expect from a voice only medium. What about the print media?

Well, Stuff has a interesting article about Cameron Slater’s actions. But it is almost a puff piece that leads with Cameron Slater bludging a free trip to Gallipoli. When the journalist finally got down to looking at the newsworthy legal issues.

One of his grounds is that the judge was wrong to find the sources would not be adversely affected if identified. One of them, Marc Spring – who made no secret of his identity – recently had a restraining order issued against him, at Blomfield’s request.

“The actions of the respondent [Blomfield] after delivery of Justice Asher’s judgment is a good indicator that sources are at risk here,” Slater told the Court of Appeal.

But Blomfield’s lawyer, Miles Beresford, told the three Court of Appeal judges that Spring had been sending text messages harassing Blomfield, and the restraining order did not prevent Spring appearing as a witness in the defamation case. It was not a vexatious proceeding and it would not apply to others.

Huh again? Slater’s lawyer is arguing that Matt Blomfield taking a defensive restraining order to prevent Marc Spring from trying to contact him puts Marc Spring at risk? If Marc Spring’s texts are anything like his emails to me about Blomfield, then in my opinion I’d think that Spring is the danger to others. Especially Matt Blomfield. Unsubstantiated smearing doesn’t even begin to describe the way he writes about Blomfield. Malicious and extreme gets somewhat closer. Wormtongue perhaps?

But despite the wrong-headed stupidity of Cameron’s lawyer of presenting this ‘evidence’ to the court, I can’t see why the Court of Appeal judges would think that was particularly inadmissible.  I rather think that they’d just find it irrelevant and ignore it.

You have to remember the role of the Court of Appeal and what it does.

The Court of Appeal has a critical role in developing legal principle and maintaining consistency in the application of the law. It supervises through appeal the judgments of the High Court and ensures consistent application of the law in the High Court.

In other words, they aren’t there to litigate a court case. They are there to supervise the High Court (and sometimes District Courts). They are almost entirely concerned with the soundness of the decisions of lower courts and the conformance with the overall body of law in NZ. They are the quality control system.

Generally that means that you have to make a case before them based on the evidence that was presented to the lower court, including the evidence that was excluded, and the process followed in making the decision.

Consequently new evidence isn’t commonly presented to the Court of Appeal, which is why I was rather incredulous.  It may be presented when questioning the judgement of including or excluding what was presented in the lower court because of the jury. But in this case, I was there at the High Court for the appeal. There was no jury and the high court judge heard everything.  I can’t really see anything that was presented in court or in the public documents that wasn’t covered in the judgement.

What is presented to the Court of Appeal is arguments to refute parts of the judgment(s) of the High Court judge and/or jury. The intent is to show that the judgement was unsound based on the process and evidence presented in the lower court. In this case it was a High Court judge making a long and exhaustive ruling on an appeal from a lower court judgement and the appeal based upon a favourable reception to that appeal.

New evidence? It probably has a snowball’s chance in hell unless it conforms to the purposes that the Court of Appeal operates under. But judges of the Court of Appeal would usually just examine it against their guides and cast it aside as irrelevant during the process.

But I am still puzzled. To say evidence may not be admissible is bit unusual. It sure as hell doesn’t sound like some protective restraining order between participants in a defamation case would be inadmissible, just irrelevant. It does make me wonder what in the hell the possibly inadmissible fresh evidence was and why it wasn’t reported?

Now I might not expect a journalist to understand that curiousity. But I’d sure as hell expect a lawyer to understand it.

So who is that idiot of lawyer that Slater had at court?

charlie chaplinAnd hours later, I’m still laughing. It turns out that Cameron Slater was representing himself! In the Court of Appeal! And he clearly has no idea about what the Court of Appeal’s role in the judiciary is. Despite being previously denied leave to appeal to them by the Court of Appeal back in 2011.

Oh dear, it appears that the idiot lawyer has an idiot for a client… Just watch the video on the stuff article. It is quite clear that he simply just doesn’t understand the process.

If there is one thing you can be sure about with Cameron Slater, it is that he cannot fail to screw up.  He is a posturing disaster for all of those around him. In this case I suspect that he hasn’t read anything about the actual role of the Court of Appeal

I suspect that his clients and sources are probably going to be quite unhappy with him.

 

 

Disclosure for the benefit of the usual trolls in the unlikely event that they read down this far.I have never met Cameron Slater. But after observing his behaviour for over seven years, I think he is simple in his inability to think things through to consequences, rather sociopathic in his inability to understand anyone elses feeling apart from his own, and inclined to be led by whoever is influencing him at the time. He appears to be a good match for being a simple thug. Which is why he has been such a useful tool for the factions in the right from John Key to Simon Lusk.

I also think that Slater brings blogging and journalists into disrepute. I have met good and effective journalists and I am a blogger who doesn’t tolerate the kind of crap that Slater has done. I want him gone from blogging. I presume most decent journalists want him gone from journalism.

I have met Matthew Blomfield once at the high court appeal, and I have talked to him a few times by phone or email when writing posts. He sounds and acts like a pretty typical entrepreneur on one of the inevitable downward parts of their cycle. I have met a few of them over the years.

42 comments on “Cameron Slater has a idiot for a lawyer ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. dukeofurl 1
    14 April 2015 at 10:12 am

    Where he got the money to file court papers ?

    Remember the little fund raiser he ran a little while ago?. The one that imploded when the law firm whos trust account he was using , hadnt been told or even got their permission. he seemed to think that a legal trust account is run like a footy social club.
    A bit like his Dad, who is funding the trip to Gallipolli, [deleted]

    The normal people who run the Auckland national party have long known the Slaters are toxic. Collins and Co must seriously wonder what they deserved to have him batting for their team

    And so it continues , like sands through the hourglass, these are the days of Slaters lives.

    [lprent: I have seen that said. But I have never seen a source, so I’m not willing to allow it on here – deleted. I also don’t know who is funding the trip to Gallipoli, but it sounded like John Slater won some kind of lottery, so presumably he isn’t funding it. ]

    • veutoviper 1.1
      14 April 2015 at 11:58 am

      Lprent — the lottery mentioned would presumably be only for tickets to the three commemoration ceremonies at Gallipoli being run by the NZ and Australian governments. More here on the lottery system for allocation of tickets –

      http://www.gallipoli2015.govt.nz/

      Presumably, all travel costs to Gallipoli, accomodation etc is up to the person or persons attending.

      • lprent 1.1.1
        14 April 2015 at 12:59 pm

        Ah, that explains it.

        I do tend to find it a bit odd myself with the whole Gallipoli thing. It seems to have become somewhat of a publicity stunt.

        Slater said after a Court of Appeal hearing in Wellington on Monday that it was a dream come true to be asked to go with his father to the centennial Anzac commemorations in Turkey, after his father won places in the ballot.

        Slater’s great-grandfather, Harry Crozier, suffered a serious leg injury at Gallipoli that permanently disabled him.

        The blogger said the trip was an important part of his family history, and he wanted to be able to honour Harry Crozier, and his father-in-law, an Australian who served with New Zealand forces in the Vietnam war.

        My rather large family throughout the generations has had numerous people who have been in the military and in various wars. Many of them are still serving.

        I joined the TF as soon as I was able and was there for many years until I ran out of time to do it and supporting politics at the same time. My sister-in -law was in the RF and served in Bosnia. We buried the last of the family WW2 vets a few years ago. A rather deaf gunner from El Alamein and Italy.

        My partner Lyn was just over in Vietnam with her father. He was an aid worker there in the 70s. She was scoping a doco about it and spending time with her dad as he went over the ground. But she also goes off regularly to help on aid projects around the world.

        I’ve never particularly bothered to go back into the family history to find out about Gallipoli or WW1, but I know that I had direct relatives fighting in the NZ Land wars in the 1870s. They were on a wall in a museum. I rather doubt that their grandkids missed out on the imperial bloodbath.

        But surely it is best to just honour your ancestors by actually doing something more useful than being a tourist?

        Like volunteering to go and do something useful. But I guess that being a tourist is just easier.

        • Anne 1.1.1.1
          14 April 2015 at 3:27 pm

          It seems to have become somewhat of a publicity stunt.

          Of course its a stunt. Everything he does is a stunt. Narcissistic to the core. What on earth are the MSM doing interviewing such a discredited twat in the first place?

    • dukeofurl 1.2
      14 April 2015 at 12:18 pm

      The ballot was for the tickets to the dawn ceremony as they limit numbers.

      http://www.gallipoli2015.govt.nz/. Apart from invited guests, the journey is self funded, those that cant afford it have to give up their places to those balloted on a wait list.

  2. Tracey 2
    14 April 2015 at 10:16 am

    I was interested to hear Hooton say yesterday that Mike Hosking does not consider himself a journalist. What say you, Justice Asher?? Is MIke Hosking less or more of a journalist than, say, Mr Slater?

    • dukeofurl 2.1
      14 April 2015 at 11:28 am

      Asher was just looking to have his place in history.

      The judgement sort of was like putting Slater up for trial as the prime suspect for being a journalist and at the end of it finding him not guilty.

      Then their was the judge who said Hager wasnt a journalist because he wrote books.

      The judicial mind is a strange thing, no wonder they need a Court of Appeal to keep them on the straight and narrow

    • lprent 2.2
      14 April 2015 at 11:29 am

      But I’d agree with Hosking, just as I agreed with Cameron Slater when he used to say he wasn’t a journalist.

      Legally I strongly suspect that Hosking is if he claimed to be in court.

      In practice? Well I think that depends on if he ever relies on the Evidence Act to try to protect himself from defamation. Mike Hosking appears to have a similar moral backbone to Cameron Slater. One with all of the resilience of quick clay

      • tracey 2.2.1
        15 April 2015 at 2:48 pm

        In the past I would have considered Hosking a kind of journalist but not in a very long time. He is, as the PM puts it, an entertainer. Mr Slater is entertaining I guess… The thing is, IF Hagers evidence from the book is relied upon…in a case against slater being a journalist, wouldn’t Slater then have to prove which posts he actually wrote himself? I mean a journalist that puts their name to stuff others write is a plagiarist, not a journalist?

  3. veutoviper 3
    14 April 2015 at 10:30 am

    Thanks for this informative post. LOL!

    I noticed the Court of Appeal hearing on the court daily lists yesterday, but did not hear the RNZ news item or see the Stuff article, so was wondering what happened in the Court of Appeal hearing.

    Talk about a Comedy of Errors – and I cannot believe that Slater appeared for himself. I so wish I had been there! I give him zero chance of a positive decision.

    Had a quick look at WO using donotlink.com but could find not post on his CoA appearance. Surprise, surprise.

    Unrelated to Slater’s case, but there are two “telephone conference” hearings in today’s High Court daily lists on other cases of interest:

    – In Auckland, an In Chambers telephone conference on Crown v. John Banks (Justice Fogarty)

    – In Wellington a telephone conference on Hager v. the Attorney-General and others (Justice Dobson)

    Presumably these are ‘issues’ conferences and we won’t hear anything from these.

  4. toad 4
    14 April 2015 at 11:42 am

    Had me fooled, Lynn. I read right through to the Chaplin photo thinking how stupid and unlike you it is to write stuff that is defamatory, especially of someone in the legal profession.

    Then I read who was providing Slater’s legal advice & representation.

  5. johnm 5
    14 April 2015 at 11:53 am

    I’m feeling sorry for Cameron Slater! What with a technical knockout first round and this legal quagmire on top, shouldn’t he be allowed to retire gracefully and much chastened!? Poor Bastard.

  6. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6
    14 April 2015 at 11:54 am

    “an idiot”

    • Puckish Rogue 6.1
      14 April 2015 at 12:19 pm

      🙂

    • lprent 6.2
      14 April 2015 at 1:00 pm

      😈 If this winds up as a diversion into grammar, it is heading to OpenMike. But I suspect that either a or an works in this case.

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6.2.1
        14 April 2015 at 1:06 pm

        How do you pronounce “idiot”?

        • lprent 6.2.1.1
          14 April 2015 at 1:16 pm

          Try sounding it out and see how it sounds.

          BTW: I didn’t mention how much I appreciate your pedantic support of the characterisation of “idiot” for Slater’s lawyer.

          • In Vino 6.2.1.1.1
            14 April 2015 at 5:02 pm

            Tell him to use a glottal stop instead of the ‘n’. I suspect he could use a few other stops as well.

            • Rodel 6.2.1.1.1.1
              14 April 2015 at 8:02 pm

              ‘Twould be more accurate in Slater’s case to use the definite article…..’the idiot’

  7. aerobubble 7
    14 April 2015 at 11:54 am

    a School Principle thought they could introduce a rule that interfered with a student basic human rights to bodily functions. Now, another School Principle finds a students parents walk all over the rules, when the Principle miss used the rules to deny students a hearing. It was so absurd, i mean, seriously, the kids were guilty, everyone expected and wanted them punnished, yet even laughably the Principles association could not get its head around the ideathat even the guilty are afforded due process, and stunningly claimed schools wer above the law when making rules.

    Schhool would avoid the need for courts to make an arse of their head teachers, by getting lawyers to read said rules before they introduce them.

    But here is why its relevant, the media, Moro, could not bring themselves to provide balance, even offenders need due process, and i believe open up NR to a law suit, as it looks remarkable like hate speach towards youth,the way it was handled.

    but im no lawyer, so…

  8. Skinny 8
    14 April 2015 at 12:11 pm

    I am picking dads boy will be saved at the 11 hour by his old man. I guess Cam thinks blood is thicker than blubber. Defending himself like he is up on a parking ticket violation, what a bloody buffoon. Cut him Daddy O ya have spoilt this prick rotten, now teach him a lesson in life otherwise it will be more disgraceful acts to follow.

  9. Ed 9
    14 April 2015 at 4:20 pm

    It may well not be fair to imply that the lawyer may be the legal dunderhead – don’t lawyers working for their clients act under instructions? The appeal may well have acted promptly on instructions – for all we know having advised his client correctly as to likely consequences.

    [lprent: I’m guessing that you didn’t read the whole post? ]

  10. Ovid 10
    14 April 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Charlie Chaplin did much in his time to expose the public to the ravages of poverty through his tramp character, the impersonalised nature of factory work in Modern Times and the risks of fascism in his masterpiece, The Great Dictator. Slater should be so lucky if he had a man like Chaplin advise him.

    • lprent 10.1
      14 April 2015 at 7:12 pm

      Yes, but he also had quite a lot of fun with lawyers, for instance in this notable instance when he was charged with “white slavery” and civil rights offenses by J Edgar Hoover by . But way down the post is the bit that I remember so vividly…

      Berry’s appeal for more money was denied. Berry’s lawyer was initially awarded $5000 in legal expenses. That’s more than Berry got for her child per year. Berry’s lawyer sought greater financial compensation. After nearly a two-year legal battle, Berry’s lawyer secured a court order requiring Chaplin to pay him $42,706 in legal fees.[27] The biggest winner in Berry’s paternity suit was Berry’s lawyer.

      It was pity that by this stage he wasn’t making movies, because I suspect that he’d have had something to not say about them. My bet is that the swearing would have been audible none the less.

      Of course the lawyers here aren’t like that eh?

      There was a reason I put Chaplin in. I kept imagining Slater as a Chaplinesque lawyer..

  11. NickS 11
    14 April 2015 at 7:10 pm

    *grabs popcorn*

    Prediction – Cameron’s in for a world of legal hurt this year, and probably home detention on top of being forced into bankruptcy.

    And it’s mostly his own damn fault, fuck he probably got given sane legal advice and ignored it.

  12. anonymous squirrel 12
    15 April 2015 at 2:44 am

    This post on reddit may be of interest, at least to the site admins
    http://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/32jxb8/cameron_slator_pays_5k_to_hack_the_standard/
    https://twitter.com/B3nRaching3r/status/587853589416124416?s=09

    Do take the time to look at the twitter, back to october 20014 at least.

    [r0b: Thanks, we’re watching events]

    • freedom 12.1
      15 April 2015 at 2:42 pm

      on a related issue – that protonmail looks like an interesting set up
      they have hit capacity but are taking reservations so I booked a name
      – even though freedom was already taken 🙁

  13. Michael who failed Civics 13
    15 April 2015 at 2:27 pm

    How thrilling to learn that NZ will be represented at Gallipoli this year by Slater. I’m sure my great uncle, whose remains lie somewhere on the battlefield, will be delighted that we see fit to honour his sacrifice by sending Slater on our behalf.

    • lprent 13.1
      15 April 2015 at 10:38 pm

      Based on Cameron’s usual kinds of behaviour, I’m sure he will find time to pee on the wrong part of the battlefield as he tries to find an islamic terrorist. I suspect that he is as good at map reading as he is at everything else.

  14. Sable 14
    15 April 2015 at 6:51 pm

    All too funny…..

  15. Ian 15
    15 April 2015 at 9:43 pm

    I wish Cameron and his father well on this trip.They have been very lucky to win seats at the centenial. It is very good that they are also paying their own way.

  16. linda 16
    18 April 2015 at 8:14 am

    some tweet from Cameron will upset Isis and he will be the star of his own video

Links to post