National’s sockpuppet is trying to muzzle press?

Written By: - Date published: 8:18 pm, September 4th, 2014 - 218 comments
Categories: law, suppression orders - Tags: ,

Anyone care to guess who might be funding this?

http://twitter.com/tmurphyNZH/status/507407769876451328

Karol did her usual research. It looks like the name on the application is Cameron John Slater. But really? This is the clown who has been pleading poverty and representing himself against Matthew Blomfield. Now he has the money to try to get High Court injunctions?

I guess National just don’t want their dirty politics to keep driving their electability down eh?

The High Court Daily List from CourtsofNZ website.

NO 7 COURT BEFORE THE HON. JUSTICE FOGARTY
Ground Floor
2.15pm
CIV2014-404-2272 CAMERON JOHN SLATER v APN NEW ZEALAND LIMITED & ORS
(J R Billington QC) (.) (.) (.) (.)
Interim Injunction Application 1st
Call

NZ Herald article

Whaleoil blogger Cameron Slater is going to the High Court in an effort to stop media publishing information taken by the hacker known as Rawshark.

The blogger has filed papers with the court seeking to ban media and the hacker from any further publication of his emails and social media conversations.

In a case to be heard tomorrow in the High Court at Auckland, Slater will ask for a legal halt to use of the information by the New Zealand Herald, TV3 and Fairfax Media. He also wants the news organisations to turn over to him the information they have.

Stuff article

h/t: Tim Murphy and Karol

 

Updated: The strangest thing is that Cameron Slater himself in defending himself from a defamation case by Matthew Blomfield has been arguing that material copied unlawfully is not ‘stolen’ and in anyhow is in the public interest to be published by a “news medium”.

See “It’s not stolen I just borrowed it without asking”.

The level of personal hypocrisy by this despicable ‘blogger’ is simply breathtaking..

 

Updated: In the unlikely event that whaledump / rawshark is prevented from publicizing the appalling behaviour that Cameron Slater and his National handlers have been up to over the last 7 years, I’ll be happy to organize some popup domains,  homes for them, and directions to them. I would consider it to be part of my public service obligations to my society – the moderation and elimination of arseholes and their behaviours. 😈

Besides which, if the media get injuncted against reporting directly on the dumps, the story for the media can then move to being about the other bloggers reactions to Cameron Slater and his despicable behaviour. The media will be familiar with how that game is played. They have been doing it with David Farrar for more than a  decade and with Whaleoil for a shorter period of time.

218 comments on “National’s sockpuppet is trying to muzzle press? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    4 September 2014 at 8:24 pm

    All this effort to stop forged emails and Facebook messages from being published …

    • lprent 1.1
      4 September 2014 at 8:31 pm

      I guess that they aren’t forged after all?

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 8:58 am

        So we get Slater’s confirmation under oath that the emails etc. are his.

        What a dastardly plan 🙄

    • yeshe 1.2
      4 September 2014 at 8:32 pm

      they must be very afraid of what has been forged, micky … but no defamation ? maybe they are not forged after all. And the injunction will prove it, yes ?

      Then it will be all eyes on Wikileaks, with the name Ede being writ large.

      And so, as I have written elsewhere here tonight ..

      Key, meet Padlock; Padlock, meet Key.

    • Ben Adam 1.3
      4 September 2014 at 9:11 pm

      He can dish it out, but can’t take it! What a coward! He should be put in jail for a considerable length of time along with all his other nasty mates that colluded so callously to destroy so many people, their reputations and careers.

      He and his collaborators are the scum of New Zealand!

      • Cancerman 1.3.1
        5 September 2014 at 8:12 am

        On what charge should he be put in jail?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.3.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 9:01 am

          I can think of several. Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, interference in an SFO investigation, malicious use of social and other media. That’s just for starters. There are others.

    • AmaKiwi 1.4
      4 September 2014 at 9:17 pm

      What are the odds Slater will get the injunction? (I am not a lawyer.)

      • Ben Adam 1.4.1
        4 September 2014 at 9:46 pm

        Even if he gets one, internet is world wide.

        He can try to run, but can’t hide!
        He can try to shied, but is nakedly transparent.
        He may be a nut, but will be cracked.

      • David H 1.4.2
        4 September 2014 at 11:00 pm

        Probably 10000-1 unless the fix is in then no matter what’s said it will be granted, and then The Moronic MSM will finally get it. That they have been played.

  2. karol 2
    4 September 2014 at 8:27 pm

    And Selwyn Manning’s latest post is worth a look:

    Investigation: National’s Campaign Flying Blind – What National Fears Most and Where It Is Most Vulnerable

    FOR ALL THE PRIME MINISTER’S PUBLIC BRAVADO contacts inside National speak of a party in tatters, with electorate-based campaign handlers fielding concerns from rank-and-file members, volunteers angry at their leader and their party hierarchy for allowing this ‘dirty politics’ scandal to get away on them.

    But what is feared the most by National’s political elite is the pending dump of email correspondence between Jason Ede and Cameron Slater.

    That, and revelations potentially contained within the cache of documents, is what National insiders believe may eventually place the Prime Minister John Key under oath.

    Which maybe explains why Slater suddenly has an expensive QC representing him to try to muzzle the press, and stop the story – desperate measure.

    • joe90 2.1
      4 September 2014 at 8:38 pm

      heh

      But where Ede slipped up was using his Jason.Ede@parliament.govt.nz email address to receive digitised copies of official government documents from a photocopier/scanner in the Beehive. Its address is: l9-Photocopier@parliament.govt.nz. The l9 referring to Level Nine, the 9th floor of the Beehive Executive Wing.

      • karol 2.1.1
        4 September 2014 at 8:49 pm

        Hmmm. Yes.

        Interesting, also, is that Manning and the Nat insiders focus on Ede. That was signified in the video of John key;s standup a couple of days after the release of Dirty Politics.

        My transcript of part 2 (I never did finish that transcript)

        In it I indicated when Key’s voice squeaked, indicating he was experiencing considerable physical stress. And, especially towards the end of part 2 transcript – it happened most frequently when answering questions about Jason Ede.

        • Paul 2.1.1.1
          4 September 2014 at 8:51 pm

          Does anyone where Ede has disappeared to?

          • Anne 2.1.1.1.1
            4 September 2014 at 8:57 pm

            The other day someone here thought it was up his own………..

          • David H 2.1.1.1.2
            4 September 2014 at 11:19 pm

            Buried In the grounds of Parliament, in a shallow Grave for screwing up? Nothing that the NATS do would surprise me any more. Why has No one asked where he is? or ask to see his alive uninjured body.

          • Tracey 2.1.1.1.3
            5 September 2014 at 7:20 am

            Inspector General does cos she has issued him a sub poena like she did the Pm, oh sorry, The PMs office.

            he was last seen entering parliament. Wasnt seen leaving…

    • Puddleglum 2.2
      4 September 2014 at 10:47 pm

      That is an extraordinary post.

      If correct, National are haemorrhaging from within.

      Their only electoral hope is that over the next two weeks the broader voting public remain ill-informed or simply ignorant about the depths of this crisis and the seriousness of the malfeasance that has been occurring at the highest levels.

      • lprent 2.2.1
        4 September 2014 at 10:51 pm

        Explains the sudden rush to court eh?

        National would like this to not be in public debate.

        • Puddleglum 2.2.1.1
          4 September 2014 at 11:00 pm

          “National would like this to not be in public debate.”

          Yep – or, more simply, not on the 6 o’clock news.

          Unless all Ede’s emails show is him swapping videos of cats on the internet with Slater I don’t see how Key could avoid the shrapnel as the bomb explodes.

          • weka 2.2.1.1.1
            4 September 2014 at 11:15 pm

            At what point would the govt be called on to resign? Do the links need to be direct to the PM? Or would even that not be enough?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.1.1.1
              5 September 2014 at 4:15 pm

              I think the pertinent question is: when will the first criminal charges be laid and against whom?

              By the looks of it the Ede/Slater and Collins/Slater dumps have gone to the MSM.

              More popcorn please!

      • Tracey 2.2.2
        5 September 2014 at 7:21 am

        and no speculation fromt he Press? They speculate ad infinitum about labour… but I guess this proves Labour doesnt run the same dirty tricks campaign and can’t pass on the scuttlebutt tot he Press

    • Tom Jackson 2.3
      4 September 2014 at 11:01 pm

      That’s been obvious for a few days now. Ede appears to have vanished from the face of the earth. Pretty much everyone else involved in #dirtypolitics has at least attempted to front up.

      I would hazard a guess that the first thing that the Nats did is demand access to all of Ede’s email accounts, and that they saw some stuff there that they really didn’t like, but wasn’t in Hager’s book. Whaledump may well have held back some parts of the emails from Hager for tactical reasons. It’s what Glenn Greenwald does and it is very effective at shutting down spin.

      • Tom Jackson 2.3.1
        4 September 2014 at 11:27 pm

        Although reading the article, Manning says that they haven’t and are flying blind. WTF?

        Cunliffe really needs to go for broke here and make sure to put the boot in at every opportunity.

    • David H 2.4
      4 September 2014 at 11:09 pm

      That plus he charges a fortune to smear people.

    • Tracey 2.5
      5 September 2014 at 7:19 am

      Which makes Audrey Young’s party political broadcast for national recently (analysing poll results) very interesting. She offers not a jot of surprise that kiwis really don’t care and seems to have no opinion on whether they should.

      Anyone who bothers to open their eyes and read the book will be appalled, not cos its false, but because it is true, and the CGT stuff this week? The strategies of Hollow Men and Dirty Politics are bein gplayed out in front of us, and Audrey Young has read the books and has no comment?

      The contempt national is showing kiwis is frightening

      Smirking for New Zealand

      Indeed.

  3. Hanswurst 3
    4 September 2014 at 8:27 pm

    Even in unsuccessful, doesn’t this court action run a real risk of the media going merciless on the issue? There is plenty to hammer Slater and the PM on regarding their public replies and utterances over the last few weeks, even without referencing the hacked material directly, and Key might suddenly find himself facing far less lenient questioning.

    • Saarbo 3.1
      4 September 2014 at 9:18 pm

      Yes, it possibly gives an indication on how juicy/damaging the info they are trying to hide is. I would imagine that daddy Slater is getting a few calls from National’s stal-warts asking him to sort his son out, perhaps this is part of it.

    • mickysavage 3.2
      4 September 2014 at 9:30 pm

      I am sure there are some bright people behind this. They would balance out the Streisand effect (something Slater talks about all the time) of a high powered court case to suppress information against the damage caused by publication. Obviously publication was considered to be too dangerous to contemplate.

      • Hanswurst 3.2.1
        4 September 2014 at 9:49 pm

        Agreed, but just because they choose the lesser of two evils doesn’t mean that that lesser evil won’t blow up in their collective face. When faced with the choice of jumping into a pit of boiling oil and a pit of ravenous bears, one may well choose the latter, but the truth is that one’s likely done for either way.

      • Paul 3.2.2
        4 September 2014 at 9:55 pm

        So what is being hidden must be reaaaallly bad, as Slater in court trying to shut down the story looks terrible.

        • mickysavage 3.2.2.1
          4 September 2014 at 10:09 pm

          If I was the Herald’s lawyers I would agree to an injunction preventing the release of every email except those from or to Jason Ede and then argue the Ede emails should be released on the basis that he is a public servant and that it was in the public interest to see what he said.

    • Tracey 3.3
      5 September 2014 at 7:22 am

      We can only hope…

      No breath-holding please

  4. TeWhareWhero 4
    4 September 2014 at 8:29 pm

    “Now he has the money to try to get High Court injunctions?”

    Daddy must have increased his pocket money.

    • yeshe 4.1
      4 September 2014 at 8:36 pm

      He has a sugar daddy, TWW.

    • Tracey 4.2
      5 September 2014 at 7:23 am

      Still no one in the media has connected Carrick Graham to Sir Douglas Graham?

      Did anyone run the former national Party MP paying for attacks on opponents (Katherine Rich… food and beverage)

  5. TeWhareWhero 5
    4 September 2014 at 8:32 pm

    Clearly they are worried about something which has not yet come out. It gets better.

  6. Anne 6
    4 September 2014 at 8:35 pm

    The bully boy’s sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

    A feature of a typical psychopath is: they believe they can do what they like… lie, cheat, play dirty games, interfere in the private lives of whomsoever they please and will commit criminal acts in the process. Bully boy is a typical psychopath. Not surprising if a third party is aiding and abetting him by stumping up with the dosh?

    It will be party time when bb finally gets sent down for a stretch in gaol and maybe one or two others will go down with him?

  7. Fijibill 7
    4 September 2014 at 8:36 pm

    What’s the likely outcome?

    • lprent 7.1
      4 September 2014 at 8:40 pm

      Probably that the press will argue that it is in the deep public interest. That Cameron should show a reason why he should be treated any differently to any of the people he has treated like this.

      I’d be amused if the court decides that they will give a decision in two weeks.

      • yeshe 7.1.1
        4 September 2014 at 9:13 pm

        me too; laughing out loud even !

      • Tracey 7.1.2
        5 September 2014 at 7:27 am

        “That Cameron should show a reason why he should be treated any differently to any of the people he has treated like this.”

        I doubt they will take account of that, per se, but I would certainly run it to indicate that Mr Slater has no reputation to protect. You have to have a good reputation to complain of it being besmirched.

        Could be a GREAT way to get the emails well and truly into the domain that have already been published and confirmed as true, which will dent national’s claims in the early days that they were lies.

    • Bearded Git 7.2
      4 September 2014 at 9:20 pm

      That whaledump73 (or whatever number he is up to) will dump the lot before 2-15 tomorrow.

  8. Anne 8
    4 September 2014 at 8:47 pm

    I’d be amused if the court decides that they will give a decision in two weeks.

    Does that mean if the court decides to give a decision in a few days.. Whaledump and the news outlets can have an orgy of dumps and stories until the decison is finally made?

    • Hanswurst 8.1
      4 September 2014 at 8:50 pm

      Perhaps they’re playing more of a game of chicken. They mightn’t expect to win, but possibly have some idea how damaging the realeases will be, and are banking on their all being released in a big dump now to preempt the possibility of any injunction, which would at least give some time for the fuss to die down before the election, rather than seeing National face a slow drip up until much closer to polling day.

  9. ianmac 9
    4 September 2014 at 8:51 pm

    Last week the Law experts said that under the current Act, “data is not property and therefore cannot be stolen.” Odd but as a non legal mind it seems possible. Suppose the copying is not the same as stealing a book. (They did say that there are some specific exceptions like identity theft.)
    Sorry I can’t name the legal beagles but may have been Andrew Geddis or ummm. Oh well. It may be relevant in an Injunction application.

    • Tracey 9.1
      5 September 2014 at 7:30 am

      In the case of “Brambles” in Australia and Citibank v Blompkampf and White (New Zealand) the cases resolved that if client information held electronically gets into the wrong hands, whether by legal means or not, the information was always the property of the clients and unless they gave permission for their data to be used by the people now in possession it could not be used.

      Now this is different cos there isn’t a client relationship per se. Although Slater has Carrick Graham, Hotchin and Katherine Rich as clients at various points

      • yeshe 9.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 9:33 am

        Albeit secret relationships we only know about via the released emails. So does this mean Slater has to prove they were/are clients ?

  10. greywarbler 10
    4 September 2014 at 8:56 pm

    When does data change to be regarded as information?

    • ianmac 10.1
      4 September 2014 at 8:58 pm

      I do not remember where the legal discussion was but will search.

      • greywarbler 10.1.1
        4 September 2014 at 9:07 pm

        @ ianmac
        I would think that lprent would know about this. I’m sure it is in his head somewhere!

    • mickysavage 10.2
      4 September 2014 at 9:49 pm

      A quick and dirty description …

      If the data is not moved then you probably have not stolen it BUT it is illegal to access a computer without authority. Like for instance going into the Labour Party server and downloading their CMS data or going into Cameron’s computer and downloading a copy of his email.

      If the information is then given to a reporter then there may be a public interest defence in publishing it which may mean a reporter can discuss the information publicly if the public interest demands it and the reporter can claim journalist privilege like Slater did with the hacked emails from Matt Blomfield and like Nicky Hager did with Slater’s emails.

      Cameron’s position on these issues as an independent political commentator without a paid axe to grind is that when he is on the receiving end it is bad but when he on the giving end it is justified.

      His principles appear to be very flexible …

    • SpaceMonkey 10.3
      4 September 2014 at 10:37 pm

      Information is data put into a context, organised or given some structure, etc… at least that’s how I understand it.

  11. weka 11
    4 September 2014 at 9:10 pm

    Has the MSM being covering the Blomfield angle at all?

  12. yeshe 12
    4 September 2014 at 9:14 pm

    How comforting to know that Teflon is impossible to repair once it begins to chip off.

  13. ianmac 13
    4 September 2014 at 9:17 pm

    This is not what I was looking for because somewhere they were quoting a recent Act which has never been tested before the Court. That below may not help. Sorry. Contact Graeme Edgler
    One place was on Public Address when Graeme Edgler wrote this when discussing Slater/Eade stealing Labour Computer info:
    “Accessing a computer without authorisation is a crime under section 252 of the Crimes Act 1961. It says:
    (1)…
    I’ve been going back and forth on this since the release. My current position (of many shifting ones) is that it’s subsection (2) that is important in determining whether the offence was committed, but it is difficult to see how far that would go.

    Subsection 2 says:

    To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other than the one for which that person was given access.”

    pneumeric (who is he/she?)says:
    “It strikes me that maybe section 249 of the crimes act is possibly relevant to this incident if 252 is not.

    249Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose
    (1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
    (a)obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    (b)causes loss to any other person.
    (2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly or by deception, and without claim of right,—
    (a)to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    (b)to cause loss to any other person.
    (3)In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section 240(2).

    • Hanswurst 13.1
      5 September 2014 at 2:06 am

      I think you might be thinking of a UK ruling (I think it was referenced here recently, too) that states pretty much that . A short description of the ruling is here.

      ETA: Ah, here is the comment on The Standard, and it appears to say that it’s in NZ as well.

  14. anker 14
    4 September 2014 at 9:18 pm

    If he stops media from publishing stuff from Whale Dump, surely that wouldn’t prevent the blogs from doing so.

    This website might get a huge number of new visitors if that is the case. And guess what they might start reading all the other posts! Karma for the right wing?

    • yeshe 14.1
      4 September 2014 at 9:22 pm

      can’t stop publication on the net’.. maybe in NZ, but elsewhere? .. c’est impossible !! wikileaks anyone ?

      • lprent 14.1.1
        4 September 2014 at 9:42 pm

        Exactly. I’ve had servers for this site sited all over the world in the last seven years. Most of the accounts are still available. Routing and obscuring the servers is childs play.

        Interesting levels of support from my tech friends.. They like the idea.

        • yeshe 14.1.1.1
          4 September 2014 at 9:48 pm

          😀 we love you LPrent

        • adam 14.1.1.2
          4 September 2014 at 10:15 pm

          *HUGS*

        • Tiger Mountain 14.1.1.3
          5 September 2014 at 6:38 am

          Thats the spirit lprent.

          The sack of manure and left over scabbery assembled in some grotesque mockery of human form–Slater–cannot be allowed to get away with this travesty on top of all he has done. Even picking on school teachers and decent principals like Pat Newman fer crissakes I discovered yesterday.

          I said weeks ago that all roads lead to his ultimate enabler, the Prime Minister. The Nats and corporates and state apparatus are desperate to somehow keep slippery out of it for another two weeks. We must not let them.

      • David H 14.1.2
        4 September 2014 at 11:35 pm

        SO everyone does a Slater ON Slater and publishes online. Hoisted on his own petard. See there is a god lol

    • Tracey 14.2
      5 September 2014 at 7:32 am

      It will be a blanket ban on publishing, which will cover ALL forms.

      • yeshe 14.2.1
        5 September 2014 at 9:36 am

        If that happens Tracey, and material is then ‘published’ overseas on Wikileaks, just for example, would that ban prevent us from even discussing such ‘publishing’ here ?

        • Tracey 14.2.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 1:10 pm

          Thats something i asked lprent but he is crazy busy i think.

          I dont know how the definition of publishing works offshore…

          As in if this blog posted a link to an overseas site which had the info, is that deemed to be published in nz…

          I think, but am not sure, that the emails could be talked about but not quoted from?!?

  15. BLiP 15
    4 September 2014 at 9:20 pm

    ‘

    The National Ltd™ Prime Minister using the nation’s spies for political purposes, the National Ltd™ Minister of Justice participating in an organised conspiracy to pevert the course of justice, the National Ltd™ Minister of Education covertly launching personal attacks on individuals who dare take the consultation process seriously, the National Ltd™ Minister of Social “Development” breaching privacy to publicly attack critics of government policy, the National Ltd™Minister of Transport flouting his department’s own security measures because he was running late for a plane, a former National Ltd™ Minister participating in orchestrated attacks on individuals seeking to improve public health, the son of a former National Ltd™ Minister of Justice launching personal attacks on behalf of clients who cannot deal with the content of criticism, a principal within the National Ltd™’s front-group “The Taypayer’s Union” getting roused out of bed to scamper down to the pub to take pictures of Winston on the piss, National Ltd™ Press Office bum-boy gone into hiding . . . remind me: who’s paying for Slater’s QC tomorrow afternoon?

    • Paul 15.1
      4 September 2014 at 9:22 pm

      Royal Commission needed urgently.

    • Bearded Git 15.2
      4 September 2014 at 9:32 pm

      Brilliant blip. I think McCully should be in their with his Malaysian clusterf#@k.

      That brave lady deserves justice.

    • David H 15.3
      4 September 2014 at 11:39 pm

      So TricKey’s spies already have all our names and addresses. Oh well What are they going to charge us with? Laughing at Slaters futile attempts to put the genie back into the bottle? Charge away.

      • BLiP 15.3.1
        4 September 2014 at 11:52 pm

        So TricKey’s spies already have all our names and addresses . . .

        Without a doubt. Considering the vehemence with which some comments are made coupled with the political leanings of many here, if not the SIS then certainly John Key’s Diplomatic Protection Goons will have had many of us assessed for potential risk. How disappointing it must have been to discover that we are ordinary New Zealanders with something of a passion for politics, Mind you, how long before political trainspotting becomes a crime?

        • Colonial Viper 15.3.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 12:00 am

          If you’re from the Left, its been a crime for decades. Just ask Anne et al. Many stories.

        • Rich 15.3.1.2
          5 September 2014 at 12:03 am

          You mean before the blacklisting starts?

          I suspect that it already has.

        • Tracey 15.3.1.3
          5 September 2014 at 8:42 am

          My Tory Uncle (stood three times in national selection processes) started a conversation last week with

          ” I consider myself a man of integrity…” and then went on to pan Laila Harre and Hager. Has never read a Hager book and believes he should be spied on because he poses an extreme danger. I asked what he meant by extreme danger, he became offended but I pressed. He said because he doesn’t like the country Hager wants NZ to be.

          I asked him how he knows what Hager wants if he doesn’t read him. He then stood up (not exaggerating) and stood over me. My cousin, who is a friend of Harre, quietly asked my Uncle to sit down. He then turned his ire on both of us.

          I know he is a passionate man and he is 76, but his actions were excessive and a bit scary. He repeated all the lines “Labour does it too”. “It’s all lies”. “What about policies”. he described these as “indisputable facts”

          He is a very intelligent man but he was just spewing out, literally almost, every line this Govt has fed.

          My contribution to the conversation was to question why Hager was an “extreme danger” , and if they were really facts.

          I basically sat while he had a tirade.

          I have experienced this once before with him in my home over 15 years ago when I challenged him on gender equity. My partner had to ask him to leave.

          BTW he married his male partner two years ago.

          I didn’t ask him why he would vote for a party that may end up relying on a man who wants to reverse that marriage….

          • greywarbler 15.3.1.3.1
            5 September 2014 at 1:56 pm

            Told off someone the other day for dissing the nanny state. Said that I was sick of hearing this term used disparagingly when it really means a government that serves the people which is what I want.

            So many people spout slogans. The brain goes bye-byes and out come the lines from bigots or derisory put downs. As if that was going to be sufficient as a blueprint for having a well-run state and decent society.

        • Anne 15.3.1.4
          5 September 2014 at 10:31 am

          How disappointing it must have been to discover that we are ordinary New Zealanders…

          I can give an example – albeit it happened 20 years ago.

          While working as a Met. Briefing Officer on the RNZAF Base, Whenuapai it became obvious that a close eye was being kept on my ‘activities’ both on and in close proximity to that Base. One day two security officers were passing and looking through a window to see who was in the office. One was overheard saying in a quizzical voice… but she’s very nice. They could only be referring to me because I was the only woman working in that office.

    • Tracey 15.4
      5 September 2014 at 7:35 am

      Stop it! no one wants to see you laying the truth bare…

      Dont forget farrar pretending he was changing his ways and then promptly the taxpayers union and he push this “kill the PM” funded by taxpayers WITHOUT ringing NZ on AIR for confirmation… yup, he’s pretended to change his ways for sure.

  16. Flipnz 16
    4 September 2014 at 9:22 pm

    Any chance whaledump protected as a whistleblower?

  17. karol 17
    4 September 2014 at 9:31 pm

    It’s in Lynn’s post above:

    HON. JUSTICE FOGARTY

  18. Alistair Connor 18
    4 September 2014 at 9:35 pm

    The cat’s out of the bag on too many counts.

    Katherine Rich : Remember the storm of legitimate objections when she was appointed to the Health Promotion Agency Establishment Board, being simultaneously chief lobbyist for the supermarkets? (Grocer’s association)

    Scoop:

    “By appointing Katherine Rich to this position, the government indicates that it wants to have the alcohol industry strongly represented on the new Board of their central health promotion agency,” added Professor Jennie Connor, another medical spokesperson of Alcohol Action NZ.

    But Key was comfortable with that…

    The appointment of the head of an influential lobby group for the food industry to a health promotion agency is not a conflict of interest, Prime Minister John Key said this afternoon. […] Mr Key said that the inclusion of Ms Rich – a former National Party MP – on the agency’s board was appropriate.

    “I’m comfortable that she’ll be able to manage any conflict….It’s important that a board has a range of different views.”

    • Paul 18.1
      4 September 2014 at 9:41 pm

      This story about the Food and Grocery Council ( sounds so quaint doesn’t it..but actually a front for big agriculture and big liquor to push their poisons on us.
      Katherine Rich heads this powerful lobby group.
      And they’re still up to tricks.

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/wellbeing/10443122/Anti-sugar-campaigners-wowsers

      • Alistair Connor 18.1.1
        4 September 2014 at 10:02 pm

        Yes… A “Rich” diet, with lots of alcohol, sugar and saturated fats, that’s so good for health…

        Oh wait. It’s only for poor people.

        • Paul 18.1.1.1
          4 September 2014 at 10:06 pm

          Rich was interviewed by Nigel Latta in his show about Sugar.
          He wasn’t impressed by her trying to fob him off with the typical Tory line of personal responsibility. Latta, as a psychologist, mentioned the power of advertising and the impact of addiction.
          Scientific arguments sadly don’t weigh heavily on Rich and her type.
          Wouldn’t be surprised if Slater was used to undermine Latta for daring to question the way the Food, Prison and Drink industry make their profits.
          Thank goodness for Hager’s book.

          • unsol 18.1.1.1.1
            4 September 2014 at 10:42 pm

            I’m kinda tory 🙂 & I agree with personal responsibility, but I don’t think that should preclude a collective responsibility to help encourage personal responsibility! 🙂

            I think the govt should mandate a no junk ban in all schools – force the schools to force the kids to force the parents to grow the feck up.

            Everyone goes on about how junk food is cheaper than good food, that coke is cheaper than milk yet how many people scull a couple of 2 litre bottles of milk in one day? Probably none!

            Same thing with potato chips – if you tried to eat the same amount of calories in apples as a bag of chips you’d probably only get as far as 2 apples.

            So no, healthy food doesn’t have to hurt the budget as the reality is junk food is addictive so you end up eating more calories than you ought which means you get fact which means you eat even more which means a junk food diet is very expensive….the cost of the evil arches is exorbitant as are most takeaways…homemade is way cheaper.

            We just need to get back to basics, rewire back to the days of fast convenient prepackaged food.

            We need to treat sugar addiction seriously & we need to educate people on what real food is & get them eating it…which means some government intervention….helping people to help themselves.

            But yep, agree re Rich – the dirty politics info certainly put a different perspective on how credible she is….as in not all. And who would have thought…I wrote her off as a timid little mouse ages ago!

            • Paul 18.1.1.1.1.1
              4 September 2014 at 10:52 pm

              I think one of the most interesting details might be how National Party MPs are sweetened to retire as MPs. Didn’t 17 resign this time?
              Rich managed to get a lucrative job after being a MP too.

              As to responsibility, soft drink manufacturers and junk food merchants use psychologists to manipulate young people’s minds. A parent trying to teach responsibility is up against millions of marketing dollars.

              This film shows how powerful these techniques are.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-C111yTMRc

              We need defences against them.
              Rich is a tool of such corporate power.

              • unsol …
                4 September 2014 at 11:22 pm

                No, I think we need defences against lazy complacent parents first.

                I’m a parent & frankly anyone who tries to pass the buck re their poor food choices as the gatekeepers on what food enters the house is lazy and negligent.

                The food manufacturers are the least of my problems, my issue is with helicopter parents (hover/too many boundaries) or school of hard knocks/freedom parents (no boundaries) & the lack of strategy that is going into their parenting. Seem many forget it is a verb – has been ever since children became economic worthless (i.e. when we stopped putting our ids out to work to feed the family!) & emotionally priceless.

                End of the day it is the parents who are meant to have the foresight, the understanding of cause & effect – eat too much crap and you get fat/and or very sick which means you may not be able to do the things you love – and convey this to their kids in an age appropriate way.

                Junk food should be seen like alcohol & swearing – adult choices that come with the privilege of being an adult including all the responsibilities (working, paying bills, doing the chores etc). Kids are not adults therefore do not get to dictate adult choices. It is that simple. Yep it gets damn annoying having to stand firm on those boundaries, but I just remember we are not raising children, we are raising adults & the stands we take today will have a massive impact on their futures.

                I’m not a purist & love junk food myself, but I do believe it is important to teach our kids what real food is & lead by example – veges, fruit (not fruit juice – juice = no fibre = sugar = pancreas going into overdrive!), whole grains, lean meats & fish, milk & natural yoghurt (dairy is not yoghurt!)…all topped off with a glass of water each meal.

                Boring but filling & nutritious. It baffles me how understanding what basic nutrition is has become so complicated & difficult.

                Anyhoo, at least we agree on one thing – Rich is dodgy as. Or at least by association.

                • Tracey …
                  5 September 2014 at 7:38 am

                  Do you support the removal of GST from fruit and veggies and staple foods?

                  • Weepus beard …
                    5 September 2014 at 9:07 am

                    And then recover the drop in revenue from a sugar tax on processed foods. It would be a double whammy. Not a bad idea.

                  • unsol …
                    5 September 2014 at 9:39 am

                    I’m guessing you do? For me it depends on how broad you want to go….I think GST should only apply to consumer choices & should not apply to basic needs – ALL whole grains (which then covers cereal – wholegrain oats to make porridge should be the kiwi staple, not weetbix or those other god forsaken products trying to pass off as nutrition) refresh fruit, veges – no cans & packaging unless say around a silver beet bunch or spinach bag or container holding fresh courgettes or mushrooms), milk (not flavoured), standard/regular cheese, butter (not marge – marge is one chemically away from being nuclear), raw meats & fish. No pre cooked anything. Nor do I think it should apply to doctor or dentist visits, private school fees or rates.

                    I support GST on bread as frankly most bread is not up to standard. Bought stuff contain few whole grains & far too much sugar & salt.

                    We could instead scrap the GST on bread makers as well as the ingredients needed to make good nutritious bread – wholegrain/wholemeal/white flour, linseed, rye flour, gluten free varieties etc

                    I think it is a cop out that neither major party will seriously consider at least modifying our GST policies.

                    Anyhoo we’re off topic….

                    • Tracey …
                      5 September 2014 at 1:13 pm

                      You tok it to junk food and healthy food. Reducing price of fruit and veggie by 15% might be enough to tip the balance away from crap food.

                      I would imagine something like the aussies have.

                • Molly …
                  5 September 2014 at 8:05 am

                  Unsol, your comments regarding other parents for some reason struck a discordant note when I read them.

                  On reflection, I think it is because I believe one of our fundamental jobs as parents is to impart the knowledge to our children that we do not have to justify our personal decisions – by criticising others.

                  You have absolutely no knowledge of the priorities in other people’s lives – and yet you are happy to give them a blanket condemnation – because of one skill that you think they need to possess.

                  I agree with your sentiments regarding healthy eating, but I do think that you fail to take into account a lot of influences from habit, to advertising, to access. And if you currently think that nutritious food is boring, you still have a lot to learn.

                  I don’t agree with your complete dismissal of parents for not being in the same place as you.

                  • unsol …
                    5 September 2014 at 9:45 am

                    We will never be in agreement that nutrition is compromised by access or advertising, but yes to education- if you re-read my comment I emphasis that…but through the kids.

                    As for nutritious food being boring – that was an acknowledgement of how others see it/the excuse others might use when trying to change bad habits.

                    A parent has 3 priorities required by law before anything else: provide your child with food, clothing & shelter.

                    Pies & other junk food are not food, not by a long shot & even if parents don’t know this, the schools do so it is time the community stepped in to help parents meet their obligations.

                    • Molly …
                      5 September 2014 at 12:16 pm

                      Regarding advertising: a couple of points which in part agree with your identification of some “foodstuffs” being incorrectly identified as food.

                      I had an interesting conversation with someone working in the food industry, who since working there will now only eat organic food. He suggested that very few know the amount of additives and preservatives put into our processed foods.

                      Often foods are promoted as being low-fat (when they are high in sugar) and being healthy (when in fact they are still highly processed).

                      Instead of supporting and promoting local, seasonal diets – healthy eating advocates still focus on generic fresh fruit and vegetables – if they are imported, they are costly both in terms of environment and lesser nutritional value.

                      Our economic reliance on dairy, ignores some statistical evidence that dairy consumption for some can increase obesity, heart disease and diabetes. There are studies that support the findings in the book “The devil in the milk” that identifies the consumption of A1 milk to have negative health outcomes.

                      Yet we say milk is healthy.

                      Advertising – and mixed messaging from the MSM – don’t help with providing quality, useful information to the public. And this does have an effect.

                    • Tracey …
                      5 September 2014 at 1:15 pm

                      Do you wonder why billions are spent on advertising if it doesnt work?

              • Rich …
                4 September 2014 at 11:44 pm

                Hey go easy!

                My job is not that lucrative either.! (my employer pays a rubbish salary)

      • David H 18.1.2
        4 September 2014 at 11:52 pm

        Yeah in the Katherine Rich Zip from Whaledump, there was a document from Facilitate to Nestle’s about these sorts of things.

    • Tracey 18.2
      5 September 2014 at 7:36 am

      Fabulous… has the Press quoted it back and asked if he is still comfortable now that she has paid a nasty blogger to attack and opponent?

  19. disturbed 19
    4 September 2014 at 9:37 pm

    “Even in unsuccessful, doesn’t this court action run a real risk of the media going merciless on the issue”

    The press are making money from covering this case so it could harm their pocket and they sure wouldn’t be keen to see a country where they are restricting “free press” would they.

    Then the Government would be seen to doing the Goebbels trick again and covering up the evidence from public prying eyes while Key’s claytons investigation goes on away from public scrutiny.

    Sort of Hitlerish don’t you think?

    [lprent: You can’t help yourself? Do you want my assistance in learning godwin restraint? ]

    • Hanswurst 19.1
      4 September 2014 at 9:54 pm

      My mum was sort of Hitlerish sometimes while I was growing up. However, I never made the comparison because I thought it was stupid (well, at least I would have if the idea had even occurred to me).

  20. Lanthanide 20
    4 September 2014 at 10:02 pm

    This blog claims Slater has been billed almost $60,000 in legal fees over the dirty politics so far: http://laudafinem.com/2014/09/03/slater-fed-enough-dough-by-cashed-up-supporters-to-apply-for-court-injunction-to-save-his-reptilian-skin/

    • Paul 20.1
      4 September 2014 at 10:09 pm

      Cashed up supporters…
      The liquor industry
      The food industry
      The tobacco lobby etc etc

      You know, ordinary Kiwi Mums and Dads, as the Nacts always dribble on….

    • weka 20.2
      4 September 2014 at 10:30 pm

      Anyone who uses the term ‘rape ape’ doesn’t deserve to be read, let alone taken seriously. Beyond that, Laudfinem is not a reliable source

  21. NZJester 21
    4 September 2014 at 10:09 pm

    It is so hypocritical of him for trying to stop others doing to him what he himself has been doing. At least his dirty laundry is only coming from copies of his messages and not a stolen hard-drive.

    • unsol 21.1
      4 September 2014 at 10:30 pm

      I agree in that a stolen harddrive is without question stolen property so why has Slater not been charged with receipt of stolen good & his source been charged with theft?

      But I think copied information from a hacked or open site that accidentally left more open than intended is also stolen when it is not used for its intended purpose (Slater’s private messages being published/his copying personal credit & donor info from the Labour Party website etc).

      Slater didn’t write those emails for public eyes & the Labour Party did not intend for anyone to be able to access credit & donor infer,

      Both the hacker & Slater committed wrongs & both should be held to account….which means Slater loses either way!

      • Tracey 21.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 7:41 am

        I agree but would add that the law allows for a thing called “public interest”. That might not protect the hacker from charges but might protect those who received them. Hager, for example, had extensive legala dvice before publishing, and has not yet had papers served on him.

        IOW, the main difference between The open labour site and the hacker is what they reveal and how the information was used. And that is where the public interest part comes in.

        The Injunction is a kind of “anti whistle-blower” attempt.

        We collectively need to be careful about how much we want to deter whistle-blowers?

        • karol 21.1.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 8:13 am

          There were 2 lawyers tweeted their best guess as to the judge’s decision today.

          Edgeler, I think went with granting injunction to stop the hacker releasing more info, but not gagging the press.

          NZBarrister, I think, went with interim junction gagging hacker & press, but long term allowing the hacked material to go public. And that would be the results the Nats would want – gagging before the election.

          • Tracey 21.1.1.1.1
            5 September 2014 at 8:22 am

            My gut feeling is the Court will go with Injunction because it cannot be seen to condone possible illegal behaviour.

            the clean hands aspect would be interesting in terms of those lawyer’s views.

  22. unsol 22
    4 September 2014 at 10:24 pm

    I think that all personal information the hacker got from Slater’s accounts (financials, personal family emails, doctor info etc) should be deleted & declared as such – call it a gesture of goodwill (btw not sure why he needs anything returned when he would still have the information on his own server!)….you know, because your response is a reflection of your character not someone else’s.

    But in terms of all correspondence between Slater & politicians – it’s fair game.

    Will be interesting to see whether Slater’s stance flies in court tomorrow. His comments might be able to be protected/redacted, but not the pollies when they have been corresponding on work/government email addresses on the public’s dime. No way hosea.

    And then there is of course Slater’s blinding hypocrisy; fancy demanding an injunction for the very reasons he has been furiously disputing in the Blomfield Case! Seems the sloth is the master of own goals!

    By Slater’s own standards his hacker has just as much right to publish his emails as he did when publishing the Blomfield & Labour Party stuff.

    I think that is the tort the courts should focus on – whether hacked into, walked into or given, was the online content copied (can’t actually be taken per se unless you infect the owner’s server with a virus etc) used for its intended purpose? In all 3 cases I would say no…..which means Slater is screwed either way! If he wins on this he will have to give up his source in the Blomfield case or become an accessory after the fact (depending of course whether the Blomfield harddrive was accessed, given away or stolen…..if stolen then the source should be charged with theft & Slater charged with receipt of stolen goods).

    Then there is the small issue of the blogsphere…….the hacker could just dump everything he has on Slater & the Nats & no one could do anything about it….

    Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    Either way Collins & the Whale have truly been dumped in it – Collins will never get a top ministerial position again & Slater will never ever be accepted into the NZ Press Council……no matter who you vote for I reckon that is a big win.

    So thank you very much Mr Hacker…thank you for making Slater live up to his own mantra as sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant….and may the sun continue to shine brightly on him & his ilk!

    • lprent 22.1
      4 September 2014 at 10:57 pm

      What about his financials where he was taking pay for running others attack posts under his name?

      It seems to me that there is a strong public interest in knowing who was paying for those undisclosed campaigns.

      The ports of Auckland for instance. The campaign over the blood testing for Auckland. And many more..

      • unsol 22.1.1
        4 September 2014 at 11:32 pm

        Definitely a case for public interest, but my understanding is that the law never accepts the means justifying the ends. A case has to be established on its merits & legally – if say you broke into someone’s home, saw the missing Mona Lisa & handed it in you would still be charged with breaking & entering.

        We all now know without a doubt Slater has been donkey deep in all kinds of amoral wrongdoing, but whether it was illegal and whether it can be proved it was illegal is another thing all together.

        I also think it would be naive to assume that undisclosed campaigns is a new phenomenon – big money has been buying policy for decades.

        My concern is personal attack stuff – such as Collins passing on information she only had access to because of her role as a Minister.

        She needs to be thrown out of parliament as I think she has breached the cabinet manual. I also think she should be disbarred for unethical practice.

        • lprent 22.1.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 7:01 am

          But now you are confusing those who publicize the stolen materials with those who steal the materials.

          It also doesn’t have to be ‘illegal’ dealings by Slater et al, amoral or questionable is all that is required for questions of public interest. After all we wouldn’t have Len Browns sex life to look at if we only looked at things that were ‘illegal’. eh? Nothing about that was ‘illegal’. But it was in the public interest because there was a probability that it might be.

          You’ll not that I am quoting the ‘illegal’. That is because it is a lazy way of thinking and bears no actual legal weight.

          The term you are looking for is actionable. It means that someone could bring a legal action against Slater or someone else with a reasonable expectation of getting a judgement against them. That could be criminal or civil. The public interest in in making the actions visible so that individuals and society can act against them if they are actionable.

          Matthew Blomfield has a very good case against Slater and quite a lot of his case also lies against the person who provided Slater with the material that he used. The person whose details were ‘leaked’ from the Ports of Auckland has a very good case against the Ports of Auckland if it could be shown that they were deliberately leaked by the Post of Auckland (directly or indirectly) as part of their dispute. Similarly the attacks on MUNZ. There are a host of similar campaigns run by Slater, Odgers, Williams and others that all bears the hallmarks of being actionable conspiracies.

          • unsol 22.1.1.1.1
            5 September 2014 at 10:10 am

            So what you’re saying is that I have mixed up legality with actionable? What about data theft in the Crimes Act? It was covered on the post about Slater copying info from the Labour Party website? Content was hacked, only copied, but not used in manner in which it was intended therefore data theft?

            The Brown info was legally obtained so no issue there & definitely in the public interest it appeared to have resulted in misuse of council resources. I just don’t agree with amount of detail Slater went into. I did find it ironic that Slater’s wife had plenty to say on the matter…

            As for the Slater emails we agree the hacker committed a crime but because the content could be in the public interest you are saying that there is no data theft? Which means Hager is in the clear & the media should be able to continue covering the content? Do we have a precedent in NZ for this?

            In terms of Blomfield – I agree, I reckon he has the stronger case. Slater is obviously arguing the publication of the info was in the public interest yet I don’t think it was so can’t see why Slater hasn’t been charged with receipt of stolen goods. Harddrive was stolen & clear case of data theft & defamation?

            POA I don’t know anything about!

        • Tracey 22.1.1.2
          5 September 2014 at 7:46 am

          Whistleblowers and the laws to protect them accept an ends justifies the means legal concept. Again it is about public interest

          My understanding is that an Injunction is an Equitable remedy. In equity to succeed you (the one seeking redress) must come tot he Court with clean hands. This is along the lines of what I think LPrent was saying, higher up, Slater appears to be seeking legal relief from something he does.

    • yeshe 22.2
      4 September 2014 at 11:01 pm

      Collins should not only never be a minister again, she has no right to be an MP and needs to be disbarred as a lawyer; nothing less in a decent society. And prison time if even one fraction of these emails are proven.

      • unsol 22.2.1
        4 September 2014 at 11:36 pm

        I agree except prison….I think that is being exceptionally optimistic given we have only in recent years started to appropriately sentence people for very serious crimes! Let’s not forget there are still some judges who believe women cannot be raped by their husbands & pedophiles should be given a free pass just because they happen to be good at “entertaining”.

        • yeshe 22.2.1.1
          4 September 2014 at 11:46 pm

          Isn’t it ironic to say it’s optimistic to think our former Minister of Justice could be imprisoned .. it should be the most pessimistic view we should ever encounter !

    • Tracey 22.3
      5 September 2014 at 7:43 am

      Have you read the Book? I only ask because Collins is only one aspect of the behaviour that has benefitted the National party and its leader.

      The CGT focus this week both online and offline suggests the strategy rolls on, without Collins. There is a disdain for the electorate amongst all of this that we ignore at our peril.

      • unsol 22.3.1
        5 September 2014 at 10:17 am

        Yep, lucky enough to borrow a copy.
        One aspect yes, but definitely the most pertinent. I suspect with other allegations Slater could probably write his own book about the Labour party. The Collins/ede/Slater combo seems to be in a world of its own.

        • Tracey 22.3.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 1:16 pm

          You have read the book and think slater has held back on evidence he has to discredit Labour?!?

  23. weka 23
    4 September 2014 at 10:39 pm

    So what’s the play here? Leaving aside the possibility that Slater is just daft, if he gets an injunction against the media, the files will still get dumped on the internet. So is the point to keep the information out of the MSM as much as possible until after the election?

    • Paul 23.1
      4 September 2014 at 10:40 pm

      Or get it dumped in one fell swoop now?

    • yeshe 23.2
      4 September 2014 at 11:18 pm

      My hunch is they know something 100% HAZARDOUS AND NUCLEAR to Key is on its way via Ede and Slater. They can’t stop it now, but will at least attempt to keep it off TV screens and MSM organisations.

      They are hoist in their own petard of mismanagement — by denying for three weeks that anything was valid, they could not seek injunctions or legal relief. It’s actually very funny if it were not so effing tragic for us as a nation.

      Interesting that TVNZ does not appear to be named in the injunction application — is this at last an acknowledgement TVNZ News and Current Affairs is controlled from the 9th floor as we always suspected ? Ha ha.

      • Tracey 23.2.1
        5 September 2014 at 7:49 am

        I’m not so sure. I think they are concerned that sheer volume creates doubt of their “line” tot he public. Remember the Nats rely on the notion that if you repeat something often enough, the punters believe it (truth is irrelevant), they may be worried in that regard.
        Death Tax is straight out of the Joyce/Crosby?Textor playbook, and see we had a gaggle of right wingers peddling it yesterday. One masquerading as a concern troll pretending he was being factiual, and after 24 hours, another went “deathtax: “SCREAM!!!!!”

      • karol 23.2.2
        5 September 2014 at 9:01 am

        Interesting that TVNZ does not appear to be named in the injunction application — is this at last an acknowledgement TVNZ News and Current Affairs is controlled from the 9th floor as we always suspected ? Ha ha.

        I think David Fisher’s article today says it’s because the hacker has released material to these organisations:

        In a case to be heard today in the High Court at Auckland, Slater will ask for a legal halt to the use of the information by the Herald, TV3 and Fairfax Media.

        He also wants the order to apply to the hacker, and the news organisations to turn over to him the information they have.
        […]
        He said the named organisations had journalists he believed were in contact with the hacker, who appeared to be motivated by his views on the Whale Oil blog.

        “I believe the hacker is releasing information as some form of revenge, not in any sort of whistle-blower capacity or to advance public interest.”
        […]
        Since Dirty Politics was published, Rawshark has made public information online and through the three news media organisations Slater names in his court application.

        • yeshe 23.2.2.1
          5 September 2014 at 9:10 am

          thx Karol.

          Oh, the corrosive irony of this from Herald link. Hope Mr Pleasants and Adam Feeley and so many other are reading this from Slater’s affidavit:

          “I believe the hacker and associated persons are setting out to destroy my reputation and cause me the maximum amount of mental distress possible,” he wrote in an affidavit.

          Looks Like Slater’s diem is being carped !

  24. Rich 24
    4 September 2014 at 10:45 pm

    Someone somewhere was saying that this was in equity and that clean hands were therefore required.

    If that is the case (and I think I’ll be put right if it is not) is some judge prepared to rewrite 500 yo law or is there a chance that this will be thrown out very quickly? Or will it just go ahead, stop publication and someone gets a dollar at the end of it?

  25. Tom Jackson 25
    4 September 2014 at 11:30 pm

    Wouldn’t it be funny if the Nats had to give Winston the inquiries he wants in order to get him into coalition, and it meant the end of Key, Collins and the rest of that faction?

    I reckon that after the election, the more moderate members of National might promise him that as a means of purging their party of the loons, and Winnie would take it. It would mean he ended his career by revenging himself on that faction of the National Party, and we all know the old dog would relish that.

    • yeshe 25.1
      4 September 2014 at 11:39 pm

      Not as funny as him being in a left coalition with more power to accomplish exactly the same things. Can’t see him wanting to be on Key’s or National’s Titanic in any shape or form now.

      • Stuart Munro 25.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 2:21 am

        Winston should do a reverse takeover of National – he’s the only one fit to lead it. And once he was leading it we might get some straight answers out of him.

  26. Frida 26
    5 September 2014 at 6:43 am

    Sorry, because I am doing this on my iPad, my comment is out of sync, but in reply to the query of his chances of obtaining the injunction – quite high unfortunately as he only has to show an arguable case. The stinger is usually the undertaking to meet the defendants’ costs if the substantive action is ultimately unsuccessful, but I guess if he’s being funded by Daddy/the Nats, that’s not a problem.
    In my experience, courts will issue injunctions immediately, it won’t take two weeks.

    • lprent 26.1
      5 September 2014 at 7:04 am

      I know.

      The question is probably going to be if he can injunct against media because of persons unknown.

      However even if successful. I think that it’d be simple enough to create a whackamole where the media can move in instead to talking about the ineffectual attempts to stifle this discussion.

      I suspect that in terms of bad publicity for Slater and his backers like the National party that will be even worse.

      • Tracey 26.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 7:55 am

        If a NZ publisher inserted a link to an overseas site in their story, have they published the material?

      • Frida 26.1.2
        5 September 2014 at 8:46 am

        I hope so. All we can do is take comfort from the fact that, even if the injunction is successful, this ain’t going away any time soon.

    • Tracey 26.2
      5 September 2014 at 7:54 am

      he has to show the harm of publishing now, outweighs any decision in his favour later (when the full hearing for the Injunction is heard).

      IF publishing now renders a suppression later redundant and he will suffer harm, then he may get it.

      BUT, imo, the joker in the pack is how clean are his hands.

  27. RedBaronCV 27
    5 September 2014 at 8:19 am

    Are they also trying to injunct Natrad and TVNZ? Could be an alternate outlet there or even an overseas newspaper or two.
    Wonder how many others will line up to be heard by the court as a matter of major public interest. If they allow intervenors(?) personally I can see an absolute scrum of lawyers lining up (think Winebox if you are old enough) for all sorts of interested parties. Legal meter humming at the rate of $50 grand++ an hour. There has been plenty of notice set down. That many people and yes a two week reserved decision would be the thing.

    Would like to think that the public interest defence will hold? And maybe the judge will call for additional evidence? High risk strategy for the Nact’s?

  28. One Anonymous Bloke 28
    5 September 2014 at 8:56 am

    In the event that Slater gets a temporary injunction against Rawshark, what’s the likelihood of compliance?

    It presents the hacker with a choice: dump everything before any injunction is granted or keep calm and carry on.

    I cannot see them stopping.

  29. travellerev 29
    5 September 2014 at 9:01 am

    He is not the only one. Vinny Eastwoods Youtube channel was shut down yesterday after a 6 minute video about John Key’s banking career went viral!

    By the way Lprent, my blog will be available for dissemination of Whaledump files!

    • karol 29.1
      5 September 2014 at 9:13 am

      Vinnie’s website has the video, but I’m finding it a bit glitchy.

      Ah, it’s necessary to mute the live streaming of his radio show which plays automatically at same time as playing the video.

    • yeshe 29.2
      5 September 2014 at 9:24 am

      It also means they have temporarily silenced the video by Paul Carruthers via Vinny Eastwood’s youtube site of what really happened with SCF. If anyone has another link to that, please post, and I would hope everyone will be able to see it. Seen in the light of what we now know … it’s dynamite. ( sorry, off topic, but maybe important.)

  30. yeshe 30
    5 September 2014 at 10:06 am

    new dump at whaledump #2 one minute ago …

    • karol 30.1
      5 September 2014 at 10:12 am

      ?

      I only saw a TGIF comment and no dump.

    • veutoviper 30.2
      5 September 2014 at 10:14 am

      Original Whaledump is back up and running – the ‘#Whaledump’ at Whaledump2 appears to be a message to go back to the original.

      CORRECTION – reference is to #whaledump – not #Whaledump which is still suspended.

      #whaledump working and appears to have been for sometime.

    • yeshe 30.3
      5 September 2014 at 10:21 am

      hmmm .. only one thing I can see ? Am I missing something ? Anybody get more than the Jordan Williams not wanting to use office fax ??

      • weka 30.3.1
        5 September 2014 at 10:31 am

        can you please link. I can’t find it.

        • joe90 30.3.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 10:43 am

          The first file in the JW dump.

          edit: the WD2 account.

        • veutoviper 30.3.1.2
          5 September 2014 at 10:49 am

          Very confusing.

          The #whaledump I went to (and still have up) is this one which starts with a cut of a Jordan Williams/Slater exchange (taken from yesterday’s dump) but has a lot of other comments dating back several days. They are quite interesting and include Josie Pagini denying that she went hunting with Slater …

          Hoping this link works https://twitter.com/hashtag/whaledump?src=hash

          BUT the #whaledump that Karol’s link @ 31 below appears to be different.

  32. yeshe 32
    5 September 2014 at 10:44 am

    see my 31.2 edit weka … it is this morning … maybe no new dump (as yet!) but the tweet is recent .. maybe testing the currents and tides ?

    Whaledump2 @whaledump2 · 42m
    TGIF. #whaledump

  33. yeshe 33
    5 September 2014 at 11:38 am

    random thoughts while waiting for wd2 ….

    Short story #1:

    Ede will bleed
    exactly what we need
    til Key has peed, his pants on fire.

    “Oops, my bum got burned,” he cried as he drove away from the Beehive for the very last time, frail and huddling in his frangipani pink hawaiian shirt.

    • Markm 33.1
      5 September 2014 at 4:53 pm

      Oops

      Cunliffe dancing on pin saying Whaleoils emails should be released as in public interest but McCartens emails to Whaleoil should remain secret as they are not in public interest.

      Not a good day for the leader of third ranked party on top of being called on his IRD lies

  34. weka 34
    5 September 2014 at 12:12 pm

    Ok, I don’t know what all that confusion was about. I’m following @whaledump2 https://twitter.com/whaledump2

    #whaledump will contain all sorts of stuff, and will display differently depending on whether you choose top or all, and I guess depending on whether people delete things or not.

  35. yeshe 35
    5 September 2014 at 12:16 pm

    well, right now, it looks like whaledump2 is saying it’s over. i hope his/her life has not been threatened.

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/whaledump?src=hash

  36. yeshe 36
    5 September 2014 at 12:37 pm

    well, it took from 1973 to 2012 for Deep Throat to reveal himself …

    be safe out there whaledump; I will always remember your courage and humour.

    ps. please ask your media guys to give copies to Winston !

    • Anne 36.1
      5 September 2014 at 12:52 pm

      +1
      You deserve a knighthood rawshark although you probably wouldn’t accept it. The real heroes and heroines never receive knighthoods anyway.

      Go well, and I’m sure your efforts will not be in vain.

  37. Tracey 37
    5 September 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Could someone tell me if john billington qc was laughing when he made some of his submissions today, made me wonder if he has ever met his client BUT he is, imo, drawing some long bows in his comparrisons.

    ” “What we have, really for the first time in this country, is a person’s private information being taken illegally and in breach of the Crimes Act.”

    He compared what had happened to a thief breaking into someone’s bedroom and stealing personal information which then ended up on the front page of the paper.

    He acknowledged Justice John Fogarty must balance the public interest against the right to privacy but he said “the court can’t close its eyes to the fact the information was obtained by crimes”.

    “It’s also in the public interest upholding law and order,” Mr Billington said.

    The lawyer highlighted the FBI investigation sparked by the release of several photos of naked celebrities in the United States.

    In that case media outlets had refused to publish the images because they had been obtained by illegal means, he said.

    There was also mention of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal in the UK, which Mr Billington said was all about the media’s financial interests rather than the public’s right to know. .. “

    • karol 37.1
      5 September 2014 at 4:27 pm

      Yeah. That really is just so wide of the mark given the content of the WO blog and Slater’s past.

      • Tracey 37.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 4:59 pm

        there is no evidence the hacker did this for financial reward
        it wasnt for sexual titilation or celebrity crap

        this is more like a snowden etc shine light on govt shennanigans

        not saying the interim injunction wont be granted. prob is the full hearing wouldnt be til well after the election

    • yeshe 37.2
      5 September 2014 at 4:42 pm

      do you know who is there for Herald, Stuff and TV3 ? they surely have right of reply this afternoon, yes ?

  38. yeshe 38
    5 September 2014 at 5:03 pm

    thx .. herald not updating yet .. do u hv it frm somewhere else ?

    • karol 38.1
      5 September 2014 at 5:35 pm

      Have seen tweet that NBR’s Chris Keall is saying Slater lost re-injunction.

      • karol 38.1.1
        5 September 2014 at 5:37 pm

        On NBR’s front page

        http://www.nbr.co.nz/

        • yeshe 38.1.1.1
          5 September 2014 at 5:38 pm

          wonderful woman, thank you !

          • yeshe 38.1.1.1.1
            5 September 2014 at 5:40 pm

            YES YES YES !!!! someone has ministered some justice … brilliant for us all !

            paywalled of course, but headline is enough ! waiting for others to publish …

        • Tracey 38.1.1.2
          5 September 2014 at 5:46 pm

          in the public interest but have to be mindful of deterring hackers

        • yeshe 38.1.1.3
          5 September 2014 at 5:48 pm

          Julian Miles QC, lawyer representing the three media organisations, says the organisations are not interested in publishing the private details regarding Slater’s family, which he had been worried about.
          Media organisations were instead focused on the political implications of the emails.
          While the media did not know what was yet to be revealed, it would be a “significant and unprecedented gag” on the media to not be allowed to publish the material, particularly in an election period, he said.
          “To be told there are more of these [emails] out there and to be told this information should be withheld would be an extraordinary interference to the right of the public to be given this information and the media to disseminate it.”
          Slater could have filed for an injunction the day after Dirty Politics came out last month or when the subsequent emails were leaked, Mr Miles said. The information has been in the public arena for some time now.
          “The genie has escaped from this particular bottle,” he said.
          There had been an “extraordinary” effect following the release of the information including the launch of two inquiries and the resignation of Ms Collins.
          He says there is a “reasonable assumption” any further information would be as significant as what has already been published.
          “It would be a travesty that the responsible media are unable to talk about these future disclosures, whereas the wilder areas on the internet and the bloggers will undoubtedly be posting on them and commenting on them,” Mr Miles said.
          “You would have a world where the public is way worse off than they would have been otherwise. Informed comment is gone because it’s been gagged and uninformed comment becomes the means in which the public is informed.”

          Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/politics/slater-gets-temporary-injunction-against-hacker-2014090517#ixzz3CPwPhvYI

      • Tracey 38.1.2
        5 September 2014 at 5:40 pm

        OOooooooOOOOOOOOOO