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.
@lprent prosecuted is for criminal offences. This is civil – go with "sued".
— Graeme Edgeler (@GraemeEdgeler) October 28, 2014