Offending comment was made from Giltrap!

56 comments on “Offending comment was made from Giltrap! ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ropata 1

   5 December 2015 at 6:41 pm

   Great work LP. I hope you wore a hazmat suit during your investigations 🙂

   I did a little bit of poking around the RWNJ web to see what was going on but it was too murky and disgusting.

   The Daily Blog’s assessment of LF as worse than WO seems correct (although the rednecks lurking in other kiwi blogs are also pretty horrific, they aren’t actually sabotaging other bloggers)
2. Cricklewood 2

   5 December 2015 at 7:36 pm

   Excellent. Hopefully another piece in the puzzle that tightens the noose* on these shitheads.

   Not a death threat just a turn of phrase indicating I want them exposed for what they are…
3. Rich 3

   5 December 2015 at 7:46 pm

   Tariq Aziz? Saddam Hussein’s former sidekick is clearly not dead as widely reported but alive, kicking and a court official in New Zealand. Is Comical Ali also gainfully employed here, perhaps at Mediaworks?
4. r0b 4

   5 December 2015 at 7:58 pm

   Curiouser and curiouser.
   • lprent 4.1

     5 December 2015 at 8:03 pm

     It looks to me like when Marc Spring et al are short of evidence, then they just manufacture it. This appears to have been a particularly stupid instance of it happening.
     • Kev 4.1.1

       6 December 2015 at 8:36 am

       LF’s mode of operation is to mix facts with made up crap in the erroneous belief that they can’t be sued for defamation.

       PS. No need to moderate this comment. It’s a statement of honest opinion based on observable fact (just go visit the LF site). 🙂
       • lprent 4.1.1.1

         6 December 2015 at 2:52 pm

         Oh I agree.
5. dv 5

   5 December 2015 at 8:01 pm

   Well done
   Dont mess with the Pent.
6. BLiP 6

   5 December 2015 at 8:24 pm

   ‘

   Heh! Classic. I know its a hassle to mop after after troublesome yobs, and thank you for doing so, but I can’t stop laughing. This incident, I am sure, will become Kiwi internet folklore – a take down notice for a comment made by the person who obtained the take down notice – hahahahahahaahahaha!!!111!!!
   • weka 6.1

     5 December 2015 at 8:40 pm

     I had to read Lynn’s post 3 times to make sure I had understood right because it’s unbelievable.
     • BLiP 6.1.1

       5 December 2015 at 8:53 pm

       ‘

       I know. I thought I was reading a plot line from an old Beagle Boys’ comic.
     • Anne 6.1.2

       5 December 2015 at 9:42 pm

       I thought maybe lprent had been partaking of too many gins…

       Don’t these twats have anything better to do with their lives?

       So what’s going to happen now?
7. lprent 7

   5 December 2015 at 9:45 pm

   There was a hint. Tag was ” you couldn’t make this shit up”.

   But this really is pathetic. It makes Cameron Slater or Lusk look intelligent.
8. te reo putake 8

   5 December 2015 at 10:13 pm

   Fun fact! The Crimes Act has an entire section called “misleading justice”.

   Highlights include:

   113. Fabricating evidence

   Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.

   115. Conspiring to bring false accusation

   Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—
   (a)

   to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:
   (b)

   to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.

   116 Conspiring to defeat justice

   Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.
   • Draco T Bastard 8.1

     5 December 2015 at 11:58 pm

     Well then, I can assume they weren’t planning on a career as an MP.
     • te reo putake 8.1.1

       6 December 2015 at 9:10 am

       I’m not sure they could even spell MP, Draco. But as we know, criminal behaviour is no bar to standing for ACT.
   • Kev 8.2

     6 December 2015 at 9:21 am

     Doesn’t that just apply to criminal matters?
     • veutoviper 8.2.1

       6 December 2015 at 9:36 am

       Does not seem to apply only to criminal matters. In fact these provisions seem to apply to a very comprehensive range of judicial proceedings.

       Section 113 as quoted in TRP’s comment states that it applies to “any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies”.

       S.108(4) and (5) state:

       Every proceeding is judicial within the meaning of this section if it is held before any of the following tribunals, namely:
       (a) any court of justice:
       (b) the House of Representatives or any Committee of that House:
       (c) any arbitrator or umpire, or any person or body of persons authorised by law to make an inquiry and take evidence therein upon oath:
       (d) any legal tribunal by which any legal right or liability can be established:
       (e) any person acting as a court or tribunal having power to hold a judicial proceeding:
       (f) a disciplinary officer, the Summary Appeal Court of New Zealand, or the Court Martial of New Zealand acting under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971.
       (5) Every such proceeding is judicial within the meaning of this section whether the tribunal was duly constituted or appointed or not, and whether the proceeding was duly instituted or not, and whether the proceeding was invalid or not.

       The full section on Misleading Justice in the Crimes Act is here.

       http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM328792
     • te reo putake 8.2.2

       6 December 2015 at 9:59 am

       Veutoviper is on to it. Spring (and presumably his dimwitted mates) have successfully conned a District Court judge. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what kind of case the Judge was dealing with at the time. If a person supplies information that they know is not legitimate to advance their case, and get caught, they are likely to face the sanctions in the ‘misleading justice’ provisions.

       There are a surprisingly high number of successful prosecutions:

       https://fyi.org.nz/request/perjury_statistics
       • Kev 8.2.2.1

         6 December 2015 at 11:12 am

         In that case I wouldn’t like to be Spring when the judge figures out that he’s been duped. You don’t get any smarter than a judge and when a judge finds out he’s been tricked, especially by a bunch of idiots, he’s going to be none to happy.
9. newsense 9

   5 December 2015 at 10:52 pm

   A version for dummies?
   • lprent 9.1

     6 December 2015 at 12:52 am

     I suspect that Marc Spring tried to manufacture “evidence” by writing a comment at YourNZ linking himself and the Giltrap group. However the comment was made from a internet address that was at Marc Spring’s workplace. Which is what this post is about.

     I also suspect that Marc Spring lied capriciously on his affidavit to get this court order. It appears that he presented this as a sworn statement in front of a judge. If I am correct that has a certain number of very painful consequences for him.

     On Monday, I will find out what Giltrap has to say about their part in this, and find out what information is available at the court. It will be interesting to find out all of the details.
     • Kev 9.1.1

       6 December 2015 at 8:40 am

       As someone who posts on and follows YourNZ I have to say I suspect exactly the same thing.
     • Sacha 9.1.2

       7 December 2015 at 6:06 pm

       Any progress today?
10. Wainwright 10

    5 December 2015 at 11:17 pm

    Fucking idiots don’t even understand the internet. Why bother to ban George from publishing stuff on YourNZ without limiting his ability to get it published elsewhere? Talk about Streisand effect.
    • lprent 10.1

      6 December 2015 at 12:44 am

      PG didn’t publish it. I asked him for the source materials and posted my conclusions.

      I’d have to say that it’d be damn hard to put in a court suppression order where there has not been either a charge or a case started.

      That is what Spring and his idiot adviser tried to imply, but it wasn’t what the court order covered. Without the affidavit or the request to the court, we can’t tell what they asked for. But with dimwit Nottingham involved (read the Court of Appeal judgement to see what I mean), you can guarantee it was both a crazed spin and showed no understanding of legal principles.
11. Ackell Ackenacker 11

    6 December 2015 at 7:42 am

    This whole story doesn’t make a lick of sense. Why would there be a problem with linking Spring and the Giltrap group when his job information is on his own Linked In page? Also, the “offending comment” reads to me to actually be supporting/defending Spring, not harming him. I can understand that comment having come from the Giltrap Group, but I can’t understand how it by itself could have possibly given rise to an order under the HDCA (even as poorly drafted as it is). Surely the subject of the application must have been some other alleged comments which, while perhaps not linking Spring and Giltrap, were actually derogatory of one or both?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 11.1

      6 December 2015 at 9:12 am

      Surely.

      😆 or perhaps it’s what it looks like as outlined in the OP. I hope Lprent is right, and that trash face the consequences.
    • Kev 11.2

      6 December 2015 at 1:44 pm

      Spring has been mentioned several times on the site in not so nice terms (although not defamatory in my opinion). It would appear that Spring has tried to set up PG by making comments on his site and then complaining to the court about those comments, even though he’s the one who made them!
      • lprent 11.2.1

        6 December 2015 at 2:22 pm

        There is quite a lot of history with Spring that I’m aware of. But posts and comments here tend to concentrate on issues that are political, legal, or focus on societal themes or the blogs.

        Most of his issues appear to be personal.
    • lprent 11.3

      6 December 2015 at 3:09 pm

      That was the only comment on your NZ linking Spring and Giltrap.

      It can’t have been a decision under the HDCA because that act only allows for court orders done by an approved agency that hasn’t been set up yet. That link to the HDCA is pure fantasy by a legal idiot Dimwit Nottingham.

      The issue from what I understand was that Marc Spring has been making defamatory comments on YourNZ and other sites (including this one) under many handles. Some of those comments traced back via the IP they were made from to a Giltrap company. A call was made to inform them of their employees behaviour on their networks.

      I do this in extreme cases and at least a couple of times a year. Most of the time I simply ban the person from commenting warning them that if I see them coming in again, I’ll start getting nasty. I often inform the IT people at a domain or ISP of the abuse of their systems, providing sufficient trace that they can identity their problem.

      As far as I am aware Marc Spring hasn’t returned to comment after his last permanent ban. That was caused by him persistently putting this site at risk by deliberately defaming Blomfield and others under a pseudonym. Basically Marc Spring has been and still is an internet pest.

      It wasn’t that YourNZ was unmoderated, it was that it was moderated that appears to have been at issue. However looking at the decision, it appears likely that Marc Spring simply lied about most of that in his affidavit.
      • Heartbleeding Liberal 11.3.1

        7 December 2015 at 1:54 pm

        Hi Lynn,

        How are you so sure that an “Approved Agency” has not been set up? I am not doubting your judgment (am just curious).
        • veutoviper 11.3.1.1

          7 December 2015 at 2:59 pm

          I can perhaps help on this. Not a lawyer but used to finding my way around legislation.

          The Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 2 July 2015; BUT under section 2 (Commencement) only some parts of the Act came into force on the following day, 3 July 2015; with the remainder of the Act not due to come into force until July 2017.

          Here is a link to the Act.
          http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/DLM5711810.html?search=ta_act_H_ac%40ainf%40anif_an%40bn%40rn_25_a&p=1

          Under S.2, Commencement, the provisions that came into effect on 3 July 2015 were sections 22 – 25 making certain actions deemed to cause harm through digital communications an offence under the Act and liability of online content hosts: and Part 2 of the Act covering amendments to other Acts concerning use of digital communications.

          Sections 7 – 10 cover “Approved Agency” and these provisions do not come into effect until 2017. As a consequence, no Approved Agency has yet been set up under these provisions.
          • veutoviper 11.3.1.1.1

            7 December 2015 at 3:16 pm

            Slight update which does not materially affect the above.
            On 27 November 2015, by an Order in Council issued under s.2(3) of the Act, sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 also came into effect. These sections cover the purpose of the Act, Interpretation, Act binds the Crown, and Communication principles.
        • lprent 11.3.1.2

          7 December 2015 at 7:42 pm

          S7 of the Act. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html#DLM6113500

          It hasn’t been gazetted. But that is a negative.

          How about the the FAQ from the Ministry of Justice

          Who will be the approved agency?
          The Act allows the Governor General to appoint, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, any organisation or government body as the approved agency.

          The Ministry of Justice has done preliminary work related to establishing the agency. Now the Act is in place, the Ministry will carry out more detailed work as part of the appointment process.
      • Grindlebottom 11.3.2

        8 December 2015 at 7:38 pm

        Posted today on Pete George’s blog:

        The court order Spring versus George was discharged today by Judge Harrison.

        …My order of 02.12.15 was made on the misapprehension that sections 18 & 19 of the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 are in force.

        It has been brought to my attention that is not so, and my order was made without jursidiction.

        The interim order is therefore discharged pursuant to clause 5 of the order, and is of no effect.
12. jpwood 12

    6 December 2015 at 11:07 am

    If you are curious rule 3.3 (subject to the restrictions of rule 3.8) of eth District Court Rules provides a general right to inspect a Court file. PG of course as a party has an absolute right to inspect or direct his legal representative to inspect the file.

    The downside is that the DC registry, inspite of the clear direction in this rule and the intent of the rules committee when it was introduced usually resist and do not understand that this is not their information to protect, but our information to view. I have even had to argue to see my own client’s files.
    • veutoviper 12.1

      6 December 2015 at 1:31 pm

      For anyone who is interested, here is a link to S.3 of the District Court Rules.
      http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2014/0179/11.0/link.aspx?id=DLM6124947
13. Hally 13

    6 December 2015 at 12:26 pm

    Everyone also seems to have missed the news of the week.

    The Nation reported yesterday that the Cops had “finalised” their investigation into Slater backing The Standard and the file is now with Crown law for their assessment as to whether charges will be laid.
    • lprent 13.1

      6 December 2015 at 1:00 pm

      I’ve been aware of that for weeks.

      I’m not particularly hopeful because there appears to be a level of protection of friends and attacks on perceived foes of this government inside the police. I am slightly more hopeful because it went to crown law. But I’m not expecting to get any decision until about April.
14. Alan Wilkinson 14

    6 December 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Congratulations on this excellent investigation that should give some pretty nasty folk the proper reward for their offending.

    Double congratulations that you intervened on principle even though the victim of this offending has been your critic. Very well done.
    • lprent 14.1

      6 December 2015 at 2:16 pm

      Personally I tend to ignore criticism unless I think it is justified. If it gets too annoying then I tend to get a wee bit critical in return. That is part of the cost of having free speech.

      However I do strongly distinguish between those who criticise and disagree and the malicious liars who simply make shit up either false facts or invent ridiculous spin from a few facts. The separation between the traits tends in my view to be pretty stark and people who routinely do the latter tend to get on my shitlist.

      PG is often a pain in the arse. But he is honest.
      • Joe Bloggs 14.1.1

        7 December 2015 at 9:36 am

        A very gracious response Lyn, and good work on the investigative front too.
      • Kev 14.1.2

        7 December 2015 at 11:07 am

        Kudos from me as well. No blog owner should have their freedom of speech taken away but they should be held accountable when appropriate. That’s why I don’t think LF should be shut down but they should be held accountable for the defamatory statements and falsehoods that they publish. The best thing to happen to LF would be a successful defamation action against them and being forced to clean up their act.
15. adam 15

    7 December 2015 at 11:06 am

    This is so funny.

    This is why we need political satire on our TV’s again.

    So much good material.
16. ZTesh 16

    7 December 2015 at 3:35 pm

    The irony is that LF publishes a multitude of extremely defamatory, aggressive and threatening posts towards a large range of people.

    I know they hide behind the fact they aren’t registered, but if that was the case why would they be ‘blocked’ by New Zealand youtube from uploading videos?

    “This is the second time that YouTube has pulled this stunt; so we have cancelled Lauda Finem’s Account; A question for readers: why is New Zealand one of the only western Governments that YouTube has relinquished control to?”
17. Ratty 17

    7 December 2015 at 4:17 pm

    I believe the Court Order is a forgery …

    So many issues there that dont stack up
    • lprent 17.1

      7 December 2015 at 8:19 pm

      It’d be interesting if it was. The penalties for that misdeed would be horrendous.
    • weka 17.2

      7 December 2015 at 9:44 pm

      I wondered about it being a forgery too. Not sure why. I can’t imagine anyone being so stupid to do such a thing, but then…
18. Alan Wilkinson 18

    7 December 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Any progress with Giltrap and the police complaint? I’d like to find out if I should be making the complaint against them as well as Marc Spring.
    • lprent 18.1

      7 December 2015 at 9:07 pm

      Nothing from Giltrap via email today (I was out of time to visit them due to work). Police?

      I still have to go to the court to pick up copies of the affidavit and the request. I’m pretty sure that will provide ample material for the police to examine after I point out where they lied to a judge.
      • Alan Wilkinson 18.1.1

        7 December 2015 at 9:23 pm

        Yes, I am sure the judge will not be amused once he determines the facts.
    • Alan Wilkinson 18.2

      7 December 2015 at 9:25 pm

      That second sentence was not mine.
19. Redbaiter 19

    7 December 2015 at 11:52 pm

    A few people on here are saying PG is fundamentally honest.

    Based on my own personal engagement with PG and observing his engagement with others I would disagree strongly.

    Nevertheless, we’re all entitled to our own opinions.

    However, I would warn anyone deciding to get involved in this mess to be very very cautious about going out on any kind of limb for PG.
    • lprent 19.1

      8 December 2015 at 8:50 am

      Why? He is often a pain in the arse. I didn’t like the way that he made virtually any comment stream he entered into to be about him or that he wasted a lot of time trying to re litigate our policies. It works a lot better now he writes his own blog.

      But I’ve never had a problem with his basic honesty. I just think that his ideas are out of the ark, and he isn’t fond of rethinking them. But I could say the same of about a third of NZ adults – some of them being my relatives. Mind you I could say the same about you.

      Unlike Cameron Slater who appears to have all of the moral and operational hallmarks of being a sterling candidate for a concentration camp guard. Or the LF crowd who appear to be intent on expanding the extortion capabilities of online media like blogs.
20. Redbaiter 20

    8 December 2015 at 11:06 am

    OK, fair enough.

    I withdrew from this issue because I don’t think it involves the HDCA and I still think I am right about that.

    I can’t see any other reason to get involved really.

    Its a can of worms, and while you have made your view of PG clear enough here, lets see how that view stands up as this issue plays out.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS