Slater sued

Written By: - Date published: 8:49 pm, October 28th, 2014 - 53 comments
Categories: law - Tags: , ,

Radio NZ has a post up “Tribunal hears blogger privacy case“. It is about the prosecution of Cameron Slater being sued4 under the Privacy Act for breaching Matthew Blomfields privacy.

Simon Judd, the lawyer for the Director of Human Rights, said Mr Slater had published 46 documents online – and that was not the actions of a news gatherer.

Mr Judd said the documents included private emails between the man and his business partners, as well as confidential and privileged information between the man and his lawyer.

He wanted the tribunal to order disclosure of how the documents came to be in Mr Slater’s possession, damages and that Mr Slater be ordered to attend a privacy workshop.

The documents published included bank statements, letters between Mr Blomfield and his business associates, as well as legally privileged letters between Mr Blomfield and his lawyers.

That last requirement would be a hoot. Since the release of “Dirty Politics”, Cameron Slater has been whining and crying about having his (then1) horribly insecure site accessed, data copied, and then published by a third party – Nicky Hager.

The difference was that Nicky went to great lengths to check what of the material was accurate. Cameron Slater, probably driven by an insatiable need to make money3, was not and in my view he indiscriminately both published and make up untrue stories about Mr Blomfield.

Reading between the fact only lines of the Radio NZ report, it rather sounds like I am missing a treat. Cameron Slater has been attempting to act like his own defense counsel. Knowing him it will consist of melodrama prancing around like a actor in the TV drama rather than relying on sound legal principle and the facts. Amusing to watch a foolish man-child, but hardly law.

The postings by Mr Slater amounted to a bizarre and personal six-month-long attack which was not journalism; the items included a video of Mr Blomfield at a gym and was put online for people to laugh at.

Mr Blomfield said the video was filmed by a business associate and showed him being beaten in a boxing match by a 19-year-old.

“It’s quite embarrassing. I look like a muppet.”

He said his boxing moves proved better when a man armed with a shotgun showed up at his house as he was having a cup of milo on his deck.

He confronted the man, who shot him under the arm before leaving with a bloody nose.

Mr Blomfield said it was the bloody nose that led police to make an arrest, and the man was before the courts.

The interesting point about that was that Cameron Slater seemed to take a great delight in publishing Mr Blomfield’s address while slinging  what are to me, quite defamatory posts made up of a weird mix of private information and outright lies. Quite simply he was painting a large target on Mr Blomfield.

This wasn’t the first time. Our about was written in 2007 and specifically references Cameron Slater and his pack of vindictive fanboys deliberately targeting anyone who disagreed with them.

It is why we actively support the use of pseudonyms on the net. The pious and pompous gits in the press and parts of the political spectrum who moan about that have powerful organisations backing them. Activists like the authors on this site, John Minto or Matthew Blomfield do not. There hasn’t been a noticeable whiff of dirty politics from pseudonyms. It appears to be the prerogative of people using their names and backers as a weapon – just like Cameron Slater.

Information gleaned from the DNS registry and specifically excluded for the use in any other purpose has been published about me on Cameron Slaters site. For that matter the same happened on David Farrar’s site as well, and he was a InternetNZ director who should have known better. Similar misuse of other public information has been used to target other individuals.

Mr Blomfield told the tribunal his wife no longer took photos of their children because she was afraid they could one day be published online.

That is why I have never allowed photos to be taken of me and published on the net. Of course that hasn’t stopped the lawless right like the the scamboys of Laura Finem taking photos of me and Blomfield in the high court in session without the permission of the Justice.

There are a lot of us cheering Matthew Blomfield for taking this case. There are a few more days of the case. I’m sorry I am missing it.

 

 

  1. I rather suspect that PB has probably secured it now. He always was a bit of a security hound. For most of the last seven years I have been refusing to publish material that has fallen off Camerons site and offered to us to publish2. We don’t do it like we don’t write about spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, kids, and dubious financial histories – unless it is related to politics. 
  2. No for the record (and the ever curious journos), I have never hacked Cameron’s system nor that of his website. I last did some intrusive hacking back in 1979-80. The only hacking I have done since has been trying to break my own systems or those of my employers at their request. Hacking a system is usually a lot of work and I have always had better things to spend my time on.
  3. As documented in “Dirty Politics”. The question that I still want to know is if the IRD are aware of what appear to be quite extensive income streams, and were they declared and tax paid on the income. 
  4. According to Graeme Edgler, the correct work is not prosecuted, it is sued.


53 comments on “Slater sued ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mickysavage 1
    28 October 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Yep bring popcorn.

    Although in terms of the plethora of legal problems that Slater is facing the most significant I believe are the allegations that he and Cactus Kate, at the behest of Hotchin, tried to influence the SFO and FMA in its investigation of Hotchin and Hanover.

    There is a certain section of the Crimes Act that the authorities should be considering …

  2. ianmac 2
    28 October 2014 at 9:08 pm

    Mr Slater probably expects to enjoy the protection of Mr John Key.
    Otherwise there will be many of us hoping for a bit of poetic justice.
    Wonder who paid the big bikkies for Mr Slater’s last Court appearance but not this one?

    • lprent 2.1
      28 October 2014 at 9:15 pm

      Who is going to pay the costs of the lawyers for the media organisations?

      Slater got a temporary injunction to prepare a case for a permanent injunction and then didn’t proceed with one. That means he will almost certainly cop the costs of those lawyers.

      Unless of course they don’t ask for costs. In which case the news story will be to ask who are they bending over for?

  3. Paul 3
    28 October 2014 at 9:20 pm

    When are the media going to investigate Dirty Politics properly?
    Surely there are some journalists who are not compromised.

    • chris73 3.1
      28 October 2014 at 9:54 pm

      I agree with this, I would like to see all the emails released not just the ones cherry-picked by Hager

      • wekarawshark 3.1.1
        28 October 2014 at 9:58 pm

        why?

        • chris73 3.1.1.1
          28 October 2014 at 10:01 pm

          Because it’d be interesting to see all the journalists and all the politicians that’ve had dealings with him don’t you think

          • Pascals bookie 3.1.1.1.1
            29 October 2014 at 8:55 am

            Lol. What makes you think there is anything interesting? WO keeps saying there is, but he could release it at any time he likes. He keeps saying he will if people don’t leave him alooooone, but yeah nah eh.

            Seems likely to me the stuff that was left out was boring stuff about Cam’s personal life and weird vandettas againts private citizens of no public interest.

            • Tracey 3.1.1.1.1.1
              29 October 2014 at 12:27 pm

              anyone who knows even the minimum about slater must know if he had anything on left wing mps it would have appeared a long time ago, whether in the public interest or not.

            • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1.1.2
              29 October 2014 at 3:18 pm

              Hager said he deliberately did not publish anything about any journalists, except for Rachel Glucina because her involvement was so distasteful.

              I rather suspect that any dirt he might have on other journalists is benign or of minimal importance.

          • Tracey 3.1.1.1.2
            29 October 2014 at 12:26 pm

            why do you think hager would have withheld that… are you conveniently forgetting corngate and th public embarrassment to helen clark it caused. you have nothing to bse the oft spoken, never backed by evidence, assertion that hager does not hold labour mps to account.

      • lprent 3.1.2
        28 October 2014 at 10:17 pm

        And rawshark.

      • Murray Rawshark 3.1.3
        29 October 2014 at 2:10 am

        No. Hager left out stuff that he considered private and therefore not in the public interest. Given what we have seen, there is probably some pretty gross rubbish. I have no desire to sniff Blubber Boy’s sweaty knickers, nor read about any possible cybering with unethical lawyers. You probably don’t understand that, but on the left that’s how we roll.

        • chris73 3.1.3.1
          29 October 2014 at 7:00 am

          I’m sure he did leave some private stuff out but I’m also sure he left out some potentially damaging stuff for the left out as well

          • lprent 3.1.3.1.1
            29 October 2014 at 7:24 am

            I don’t think it is likely. But I am a person who says that you let the chips fall where they may. If any one was stupid enough from the left to deal with him outside of the usual bounds, then I prefer them to be exposed.

            However I suspect that rawshark wasn’t particularly interested in right or left. Their target was Slater.

            But I suspect that Slater prefers ineffectually threatening to doing. FFS how many more privacy and credibility issues does he want? As stupid as the arseho!e is, I think even he has to see the hole he is digging himself into.

            Nah, he will bluster to keep fools like you happy, and ineffectualy play the gossip card now that his sources on the right are avoiding him.

            • Tracey 3.1.3.1.1.1
              29 October 2014 at 12:30 pm

              it would make a great story to discredit hager if slater showed he favoured left wing mps… but slater hasnt produced a single shred of evidence relying on his word. odd when he must have the evidence if it exists.

              it seems nothing can lower slaters credibility in chris’ eyes.

              🙄

              • ghostwhowalksnz …
                29 October 2014 at 12:46 pm

                Dont ever, ever believe a word of what Slater claims.

                What sort of personal track record does he have.

                Security Business: failed
                Editor of Truth : went bust
                sickness beneficiary: busted by insurer Fidelity Life for working while claiming he couldnt work due to sickness.
                Being paid for stories in his blog: denied it saying it was for social media consulting ( a futile word play as his business name is “Social Media Consulting”)

                You could go through all the rawshark files to see example after example of bullshit.

              • lprent …
                29 October 2014 at 5:12 pm

                Yeah. Cameron the Blusterer…

      • Tracey 3.1.4
        29 October 2014 at 12:24 pm

        including the ones about his medical condition, wife and family, finances etc… which hager specifically withheld, something that “journalisr” slater doesnt accord others

    • ropata 3.2
      28 October 2014 at 10:49 pm

      Helluva lot of material. The media could probably drip feed Dirty Politics chapter by chapter for the next 3 years before doing any research themselves.

      I understand their reluctance, as the book could easily be re-titled Muddy Media.

  4. Anne 4
    28 October 2014 at 9:49 pm

    Revenge is so very sweet…

    Surely this development makes the police look rather silly? Jumping in so swiftly to search Nicky Hager’s home for 10 hours which, in my book, amounted to serious harassment of Hager’s family.

  5. Ian 5
    28 October 2014 at 10:05 pm

    And you fuckwits wonder why Mr Slater is winning the media war. The Muppets knew more than you lot.

    • lprent 5.1
      28 October 2014 at 10:19 pm

      As usual one of the trolls vaguely hinting at their power, and then failing to raise more than a limp deflated response.

      Look over there — Don’t look at the lack of detail of how spongy the lying is…

      • Ian 5.1.1
        28 October 2014 at 10:33 pm

        I’m no troll . I just think your a dork that has destroyed the labour party,along with your other drongo believers . Best get back to conveyancing or whatever broken arse lawyers do to pay their bills.

        • lprent 5.1.1.1
          28 October 2014 at 10:47 pm

          Why would I want to be a lawyer? My ex was a lawyer. I suffered through her law degree with her.

          You don’t see that many lawyers writing code for the export trade. They usually confine themselves to imprecise slithering words for people rather than words for finicky dumb machines.

          I mostly write computer programs.

          Since you know nothing about Labour, it probably explains why you don’t understand what is going on inside it at present. It is pretty interesting.

          • ropata 5.1.1.1.1
            28 October 2014 at 10:53 pm

            Some people really don’t get democracy, and prefer their leader to be pre-selected or purchased.

            Some people seem to be ‘programmed’ for rule by uncaring elites.

        • the pigman 5.1.1.2
          29 October 2014 at 12:48 am

          Ian, as amusing as it is to watch you flail around like an aquatic mammal out of water, next time you choose to act on some dumbfuck comment regurgitated in an MSM comment section, try fact-checking it beforehand.

          That you have mixed up lprent and mickysavage in your imagined Standard narrative is really the least of your problems.

          BTW, you’re going to have to learn the difference between “your” and “you’re” sometime.. if you can master that today, you will have done something more meaningful with your day than merely stealing bandwidth (and oxygen) from the rest of us.

          • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 5.1.1.2.1
            29 October 2014 at 9:23 am

            The difference?

            Possessive pron. or contraction 🙂

          • JanM 5.1.1.2.2
            29 October 2014 at 10:20 am

            Isn’t it funny how so many of these ‘nasties’ have such poor grammar and spelling?

            • Tracey 5.1.1.2.2.1
              29 October 2014 at 12:33 pm

              and reading comprehension. i think its why they want to force ns on everyone else, to hide their own failings

    • ropata 5.2
      28 October 2014 at 11:02 pm

      So much stupid in so few words:

      “Mr Slater” – – who’s that? whale’s dad perhaps?

      “Winning” – – getting sued, persona non grata with Key, name in the mud, yup “winning”

      “Media war” – – a propaganda campaign, which has no bearing on reporting facts to the public

      “Muppets” – – who exactly is a political puppet and a public fool here?

  6. adam 6
    28 October 2014 at 11:24 pm

    Thanks Iprent – Illuminating as always. I do wonder if/when Slatter losses, if others will then get the courage to follow Mr Blomfields lead.

    I’ve heard more than a few people are watching this case with for any political interference – is this true or just gossip?

    I look forward to the outcome.

    I also think 2 year olds who pretend to be journalist should be actively discouraged, and I hope the judge send a clear message to the 2 year old inside all of these propagandist – grow up and try civility some time.

    • lprent 6.1
      29 October 2014 at 7:30 am

      I suspect that there are a number of people and groups quietly moving against Slater. He is the meat between them and whoever funded Slaters attacks.

  7. Jrobin 7
    29 October 2014 at 12:12 am

    Ian, which media war is Slater winning? Only the one in his dreary gossip rag. Not media in any sense, as Judd noted, just a combination of tittle tattle, nastiness and exaggeration. And as regards the Labour Party, you may not have noticed but Labour Parties world wide are struggling to adapt to radical changes in working conditions and use of technology. This can hardly be blamed on this site or lprent. You need to look outside the small NZ context, the working class has all but been eliminated so of course the Labour movement needs to be redefined. This blog raises these issues and tries to get readers thinking. If you enjoy Slaters approach then he needs support so off you go…..

  8. Rodel 8
    29 October 2014 at 7:24 am

    Mr Judd the lawyer should refer to Slater’s website as, ‘Whale Oil Beef Hooked’ said quickly as Slater intended.
    I’m sure the judge would be impressed with Slater’s sophisticated “sense of humour”.(Sarc)

  9. Tom Jackson 9
    29 October 2014 at 9:42 am

    Does anyone know why Slater targeted Blomfield? I’m still intrigued about Blomfield’s brother possibly being the prisoner mentioned in DP that Slater tried to have moved.

    The obvious story is that someone hired Slater to go after MB, but it does seem more personal.

    • anon 9.1
      29 October 2014 at 5:28 pm

      The prisoner was no relation whatsoever to Blomfield.

      The prisoner is currently serving 9 years for rape and sodomy. He is not a nice person; for once Slater picked on someone who deserved it.

      Certain members of the media already know exactly who it is, who requested his transfer, and Slater’s motivation in helping her.

      • Murray Rawshark 9.1.1
        29 October 2014 at 9:32 pm

        No prisoner, whatever they have done, deserves to be treated in any way not specified in the Penal Institutions Act. Abuse of power is not ok when it’s against someone you don’t like.

  10. greywarshark 10
    29 October 2014 at 9:48 am

    Two animals in the photograph, one a clever monkey in a monkey suit, the other his jester in his plain working attire, which unlike normal jesters is black and white. This jester doesn’t have to look colourful and wear a bell, he just produces colourful stories for the delectation of His Masters Voice.

    It is unfortunate that we can’t have the full dress-up colour treatment from Cameron Slater. And the jokes are on us. The black and white he wears is unfortunately the colour fixation of the new puritans of economy in the new lib-free market cult. Our lieber leiter even prefers the shades of black and white for our flag – not so jolly roger-style.

    Life might have been short and brutish in the medieval days but we might end up living longer and having less to be amused about ending life as decaying beggars pimping for wealthy aged-care companies.

    Jesters in Wikipedia –
    Jesters in medieval times are often thought to have worn brightly coloured clothes and eccentric hats in a motley pattern and their modern counterparts usually mimic this costume.
    In medieval times jesters entertained with a wide variety of skills which could include songs, music, storytelling, acrobatics, juggling, and magic. Much of the entertainment was performed in a comic style and many jesters made contemporary jokes in word or song about people or events well known to their audiences.

  11. Morrissey 11
    29 October 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Jail time for Blubberguts?

    • The Al1en 11.1
      29 October 2014 at 5:50 pm

      I reckon he’d dope on a rope first, but I hope so.

      Never would a cell (or for poetic justice – One of judith’s containers) be more deservedly occupied.

  12. Northland 12
    29 October 2014 at 5:50 pm

    I think this case marks the beginning of the end for Mr Slater.

    Matt Blomfield may well have gone spectacularly bust, but no-one has suggested that he lacks talent or single minded endeavour. Successfully dealing with the half dozen government agencies put on to him by Slater and Co gave him a sufficient grounding to begin the fight back. Since then he has become an accomplished lay litigant. Whilst he has heavyweight legal support, I don’t believe it is disrespectful to those lawyers to say that, half the time, they take his advice.

    The Director of Human Rights weighing in is a bit of a bonus, but the real action will be in the High Court.

    As things stand, Slater faces substantial damages from the Human Rights Tribunal and a costs award from the recent High Court case. These alone will likely be financially crippling and, if he can’t immediately meet them he faces a detailed examination of his affairs to establish why not.

    His High Court case is a bit of a mess. It seems that he has (again) breached undertakings, his intended appeal is without merit and procedurally hopeless. The recent examination of Blomfield’s case by Asher J and Miles QC establishes that it is on good ground.

    Slater is flailing about hamstrung by his boast that he does not give up his sources (when he has privately done so). He is purporting to protect a person who was long on promises, short on deliveries and who has long since abandoned him. All that awaits him is approbation and penury.

    As Slater is a keen reader of this page, it might do him well to consider his position. He would be best to turn over his ill gotten gains (and any other assets at his disposal) to Blomfield with a full confession of claim, a sworn affidavit detailing the source of the hard drive, all discussions thereof, payment for his services (including travel), and seek redemption through the usual channels of apology and restitution. Otherwise this is going to turn into an embarrassing procession.

  13. Rob 13
    29 October 2014 at 7:06 pm

    I wonder if he has had this weeks phone call from his friend John yet?

    • karol 14.1
      29 October 2014 at 7:50 pm

      bwhahahah. Funny if it wasn’t so screwed up.

      from the RNZ article:

      Mr Slater told the tribunal he would rely on the judgement by Justice Asher which determined that Whale Oil was a news medium and so had some legal protection.

      The blogger added that he was quoted in mainstream media and had received media awards. He told the tribunal it would be a legal farce to ingore that and he was willing to wear the tribunal’s decision because the court of public opinion would back him.

      But the chair of the tribunal, Rodger Haines, said Cameron Slater had called no evidence and this was the first the tribunal had heard of the news articles.
      He adjourned the hearing to allow Mr Slater to file an affidavit with his evidence, but warned him that it was his third and final chance.

      [sic] The error is all RNZ, but interesting.

  15. ropata rorschach inkblot 15
    29 October 2014 at 10:45 pm

    I see that Canon has had their logo removed from Slater’s putrid blog

  16. Dave Thomas 16
    29 October 2014 at 11:48 pm

    This is a curious case. I can’t help pondering: did someone pay Slater to attack Mr Blomfield in this over the top manner? A disgruntled ex-business partner, perhaps? Slater’s victimising may be due to Slater being an unhinged individual, may be a commercial transaction with Slater working as a sustained campaign attack dog, or may be a blend of both. I trust the high court will drill deep to get into the ugly underbelly of this. To figure out the motivations and likely instigators behind these attacks may require analysis of Slater’s accounts to trace any hate campaign progress payments made.

    Slater’s rants about Goff’s memory was done with ammo provided as a result of OIA releases (which were granted suspiciously quickly); according to Hagers’ Dirty Politics research work (and subsequent journalists checking the facts), it was planned in a cold calculated manner – with Slater’s role public face of the attacks rather than an instigating cause. According to the email trails, that one seems to have been instigated by the Nats team and PR consultants.

    The analogy of a smiling assassin such as Dr Evil sending out the charm bracelet assassin to deal to Austin Powers when he was least prepared for it seems an apt one; the intent being to stop Austin in his tracks for interfering with others’ twisted self-serving plans. Dr Evil sits in his secret ivory tower, spouting self-aggrandising nonsense from on high and refusing to carry out his own dirty work, believing he is above it all and won’t be found out or held to account.

    Slater’s reputation was already dirty, so it may have been semi plausible – besides, would a little more mud matter if some got on the targets too? The issue with the Nats team appeared in the end to be that the Teflon Dons of NZ love to do things they know they should not do, so do them via proxies – to delude themselves that they will be cleansed of accountability. The NZ public have sensed the stench of such deviousness, much like an attempted silent-but-violent slow-release fart that mushroom clouds despite attempts to suppress it.

    In the Blomfeld case at least, it is time for the Slater to face the heat and reveal the truth. Let us hope that if there is a deceptive pattern, Slater cracks and squeals. According to documentaries, even the Sicilian mafia broke the code of silence, blabbing on each other en mass for lessened sentences after they’d lost the battle for public perception and got ratted in. NZ will be a much better place if vilifying campaign heads are held to account, particularly where it is a case of dirt done for dosh. If such information is uncovered in this law suit it would be an expose worthy of much media attention. Bringing the case must have cost Mr Blomfeld a lot. Many members of the public will watch the outcome of this with interest; many are offended by cyber bullying, the misuse of power, and desire to see any deceptions uncovered surrounding the MO for such hate campaigns.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.