“….Obviously the system has struggled to accommodate my situation…..”

The scary thing is that this guy, ‘managing’ our finances, our money hopes that people will accept this as truth but even worse he might believe it himself.

There is no bush-lawyering. It is simply designed to be difficult……

So I’ve constructed the system here to be as difficult as possible to play the types of legal games that Crosby just did with Hager. As far as I can see your basis of argument is that I should lie back and enjoy being raped by some small minded rorter from dipton. I’m not obstructing anything, I just made sure that I reduced my potential legal exposure. If you think that is a problem then perhaps you should look at exactly what most of corporate law is.

Err .. so tax rorts rife in the property industry have never existed, and Bob Muldoon never played favourites.

Yeah right. Try telling that to people about to leave the country.

Stephen Price in the Media Law Review.

but someone could sue you Lynn as the owner of the site

Actually I own the domain name…. The site is a co-op. The content on the site is ‘owned’ by the respective authors and commentators in so far as anyone can be bothered with it. It is running on free software on a rented virtual server that I’m not even paying for anymore (thanks to the generous people using the paypal button). I merely technically admin the site, do some moderation and sometimes write posts.

…in the disclosure period a judge could order you to give up the name of the person responsible for a post, and if you didn’t know who they were, at least their IP address.

Yep, and this is where it gets interesting at several levels. The big problem with defamation law is that question of the accuser not having to present a case. There is no prerequisite judgement about if there is a case to answer as there is in every other branch of the law.

In the disclosure period you have a countervailing argument of Marty’s privacy, explicitly stated in several areas in this site. So getting a judgement to give up the IP would require that judge would have to rule that the case presented by the accuser would have to override the explicit right of privacy on this site. That means that a lot of the accusers case would have to be prevented, especially why they did not think this was honest opinion. Personally I think by that time it would be getting too tenuous for a judge to do the order.

Anyway, I personally don’t remember numbers. I’d also be locked out of the site by people protecting their privacy and their own content. They’d have to get a court order to physically access the site to find that IP in the US courts. If the data hasn’t moved……

What the accuser is left with is to try and run a case against some-one who essentially ‘owns’ a domain name. Gets a bit tenuous….

The Greens say ‘if someone’s got to own the properties we rent, it may as well be our Superfund’, there’s nothing ethically different in that than if they had bought the properties individually and were getting the mortgages covered in fact, that would probably cost the taxpayer more because most rental

I believe there’s a lower limit on the amount available if it’s an MP’s own property. Also, I certainly can’t see it costing more, because I understand the Greens are already claiming the maximum.

Of course Lynn if you were sued for defamation, in the disclosure period a judge could order you to give up the name of the person responsible for a post, and if you didn’t know who they were, at least their IP address.

It doesn’t even matter where the site is hosted. If you are the owner, you are subject to NZ law and the courts do have jurisdiction as much as they would if you made the comments on the street.