Where is Cameron Slater?

Written By: - Date published: 7:55 am, January 21st, 2015 - 142 comments
Categories: blogs - Tags: , , , , ,

Yesterday I got contacted about Cameron Slater’s current address. Apparently the arsehole of the kiwi blogosphere hasn’t been paying his court ordered judgements against him that have been incurred in recent years. The person who contacted me wanted to serve a notice to bankrupt him.

However the miscreant has gone to ground and apparently has no known address. So I urge Cameron Slater to do the thing that he so eloquently raves that other debtors should do – pay his debts. As usual his lack of personal responsibility and general inadequacy just hurts all of those who are around him. Just ask Judith Collins or John Key.

But I managed to get a image of the front page. If you run into the cowering fugitive, don’t hesitate to point it out to him. Remind him that a bankruptcy hearing will be taking place with or without him.

 

Bankruptcy-for-slater-e1421778562425-465x620 - NO ADDRESS-new

 

Apparently this has to do with the long running Blomfield defamation case. It has to do with court ordered judgements unrelated to his Slater’s current rather forlorn appeals as he continues to waste the time of the courts. Both in the court of appeal on the defamation and the privacy court about accessing dubiously obtained (probably stolen) private information to write the Blomfield posts.

Eventually the Slater attempts to use the cloak of being a journalist to say that he isn’t responsible for what he writes will be resolved. Probably stating that even if he is technically a journalist, he is still responsible for his despicable actions and what he wrote back in 2012.

142 comments on “Where is Cameron Slater? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Kevin 1
    21 January 2015 at 8:11 am

    Probably holidaying with his mates in Hawaii…

  2. Chooky 2
    21 January 2015 at 8:20 am

    lol,…things have come to a pretty pass when the courts ask Lprent and the Standard where Cameron Slater is….I think this should be taken as a compliment

    • Murray Rawshark 2.1
      21 January 2015 at 7:47 pm

      It wasn’t the court who asked Lprent. It was someone acting for Matthew Blomfield, as you can see in the photo.

  3. vto 3
    21 January 2015 at 8:25 am

    scum feral arsehole

    he better not be hiding out on the West Coast or all hell will break loose – c&%t

  4. Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 4
    21 January 2015 at 8:29 am

    How to contact him?

    Well, there’s always his number on the mobile phone of a certain twit who sends texts between the two of them.

    • Tracey 4.1
      21 January 2015 at 8:41 am

      The PM would want to help the needs of justice be served of course.

      • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 4.1.1
        21 January 2015 at 8:53 am

        Quite.

        And there is also, until next month, the PM’s school friend that the PM had appointed as spy boss who should know right away from tracking Slater’s mobile phone and digital communication as to the exact locations for the nincompoop.

      • disturbed 4.1.2
        21 January 2015 at 9:10 am

        Ha ha.

        Tracy; – Key does not stand on any ” principals of “needs of justice to be served”

        He runs a mile when he has to place his head in any chopping block on principals as this, because he is all about the future preservation of “Key incorporated” and nothing else at all.

        Key is a hollow man.

  5. Te Reo Putake 5
    21 January 2015 at 8:49 am

    If I can be the voice of reason for a moment, I hope that Standardistas won’t gloat over this news, after all innocent until proven guilty and just because he’s a hypocritical bullying piece of shit doesn’t mean that, ha … stop it, musn’t laugh … ha, ha, ha … no, really … ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, oh lordy this is too good , ha ha ha ha, not able to be company director if bankrupt, ha ha ha, Freed dead in the water ha ha ha ha …. sorry, I’ll be back when I’ve composed myself. Now, what was I saying?

    • Kiwiri - Raided of the Last Shark 5.1
      21 January 2015 at 8:55 am

      I am actually not gloating nor happy but really annoyed and furious.

    • Paul Campbell 5.2
      21 January 2015 at 1:00 pm

      surely the point here is that he has already been proven guilty and is now avoiding court mandated fines and costs ….

  6. les 6
    21 January 2015 at 8:58 am

    he now qualifies as a member of his own ‘Ratbags Club’.

  7. One Anonymous Bloke 7
    21 January 2015 at 9:05 am

    Crowd-sourced process service 😈

    What is he hiding from? Having to reveal his sources of income?

    • weka 7.1
      21 January 2015 at 9:28 am

      “Crowd-sourced process service :twisted:”

      lol. I wouldn’t ever want to get on the wrong side of Lynn Prentice,

      • lprent 7.1.1
        21 January 2015 at 11:28 am

        Outside of the blogs, I am always very polite and even ‘nice’ as I get my tasks done (unless I get in a spirited discussion). But I have considerably more tools in the real world from body language to code to make my points.

        Inside the blog the toolset is somewhat more constrained. So I have to use certain tools with more efficacy and rather less subtlety than I’d usually do. I have found that certain types of actions as a moderator work better than others for changing behaviours. I use them ruthlessly in pursuit of my moderation tasks.

        Many of them involve emulating and improving on my target’s techniques and personally directing it at them to see how they like their own behaviours directed at them. Because this is backed by a known local policy I can use them with reasonable degrees of latitude.

        When it comes for interblog conversations about behaviour. I find it pays to use a large exaggerated emulation club to get some people to take my polite requests to consider moderating their behaviour. So I write posts like this one in the “whaleoil expose smear” style for cameron, the “bitchy rant” style for bomber, the “pontificating fool” style for several bloggers.

        It is all rather deliberate

    • lprent 7.2
      21 January 2015 at 9:43 am

      If he tries to plead poverty to avoid paying his court ordered debts, then that is exactly what he would have to do.

  8. appleboy 8
    21 January 2015 at 9:08 am

    And when can we expect to read about this in the Herald? Turning up the heat with some high profile attention would be great. maybe I will send this link to them now….

  9. Poor Matt 9
    21 January 2015 at 9:09 am

    God Blomfield is a [r0b: I’m going to more actively moderate sexist epithets where I notice them]. Just for once, can Blomfield please supply all the material that disproves what Slater has written & said ! Then we will be able to judge who is in the right and who is the wrong. Its one thing to sue for defamation, or anything for that matter with just a simple denial, or saying its lies – its quite something else to provide real evidence to prove what was said about Blomfield was in fact wrong.

    • Truth Will Out 9.1
      21 January 2015 at 9:31 am

      That’s why the courts are for, or would you rather we just hang people from trees on your say so?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2
      21 January 2015 at 9:38 am

      😆

      You fuck goats. Now provide the material that disproves it.

    • lprent 9.3
      21 January 2015 at 9:41 am

      That is what the court is for. Obviously one of the defences against defamation is that the facts were true. Once it gets to court then that can be examined for the posts that are claimed to be defamatory. However so far Cameron appears to be desperately avoiding getting into examining the facts.

      Certainly his defence documents published to date do not appear to be using truth as his primary defence. They implicitly appear to concede that some of the posts in question were defamatory.

      Instead his defence documents for the defamation case appear to be trying to use his status as “journalist” to avoid revealing his sources and the facts about their motivations. In particular if the suppliers of the Blomfield’s private documents were being malicious and if their possession of those documents was lawful.

      That and always has been at the heart of this case. Can a blogger, journalist, or anyone else be able to defame someone with information supplied by others and then hide their malicious sources behind journalistic privilege.

      Is the blogosphere going to shift from being a space where people can express their honestly held opinions within the legal constraints of society, or is it a place where the malicious can hire a liar to defame others?

      It is pretty obvious which side I am on in this debate. It is important that this debate is held within the legal systems rather than the kind of lynch mob justice you appear to favour.

      • Poor Matt 9.3.1
        21 January 2015 at 10:17 am

        Looking at the Court docs to date it appears Slater has supplied all he has written and he has stated it was done with honest held belief and he also contacted, or was contacted by multiple aggrieved parties and researched the facts. Forget the dislike for a minute – and you are quite entitled to your opinion of anyone. From where i sit, Blomfield has not realised what he has got himself in for, and has now opened somewhat of a Pandoras box on bloggers, and media etc – all to which your space is now the benefactor in some way, shape or form, depending on how you like to represent yourself. Moving with the times shall we say. That is ultimately why the process has become bogged down. Blomfield was free to pursue his case in the DC for defamation while the HC arguments were being considered. Asher J pointed that out of several occasions. It was Blomfield who decided not to continue in the DC, and await the outcome of the HC decision – which as we know was a split decision to date. Under appeal of course. Blomfield has since decided to ask the DC case to be moved to the HC as it is better suited to hearing such a complex case.

        Now what i am simply saying, is this – Blomfield “claims” to have been defamed by the posts. (is Blomfield going to the NZH for the article they wrote about him over the Plan Z Liquidators report as based on Blomfields assertions that report was lies? I see as at today the report remains unchanged and the NZH have not printed a retraction or apology) So i am simply suggesting Blomfield compiles all his emails, his version of events, and then makes contact with those he dealt with (to date 99.9% seem to be highly aggrieved and often missing substantial sums of money) where he can obtain sworn affidavits from those who back his version of events and they can take the stand to be x examined on the points by both parties. Slater will of course be granted the same opportunity to use his witnesses. To date Blomfield has simply said its not true, he never did any of it, and its defamatory. Well we need evidence to prove this. In my honest held opinion none of what Blomfield states is true, and there seems to be a recurring theme with those who say they were scammed, defrauded, stolen from by Blomfield.

        The issue of the Hard Drive is another separate issue and to date the cops have looked, the IPCA have looked, and no charges have been laid. On that note it also appears Blomfield has perjured himself in the DC, HC, and the Human Rights Tribunal as he has stated different facts in each jurisdiction.

        One must also remember it was (and this is proven) that Blomfield engaged a very public war on Hell Pizza, and its Directors, fed the media, and brought much attention upon himself over the years – its a little rich for him to claim “Poor Matt” status when in fact he started it. Perhaps he hates the backfire its created for himself.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.1
          21 January 2015 at 10:24 am

          Stop fucking goats, goat-fucker.

          • Poor Matt 9.3.1.1.1
            21 January 2015 at 11:16 am

            takes one to know one. we should go on date

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.3.1.1.1.1
              21 January 2015 at 11:36 am

              Not until you supply all the material that disproves what I have written and said.

              • Poor Matt …
                21 January 2015 at 3:05 pm

                Funny you can call me goat fucker but i can’t say Blomfield is a whinging bitch ……… sigh

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  21 January 2015 at 3:07 pm

                  🙄

                  My calling you a goat fucker is exactly analogous to your remarks about Blomfield, eh hypocrite. How’s the view from the top of your flagpole?

                • Murray Rawshark …
                  21 January 2015 at 7:56 pm

                  You can say what you like about Blomfield. What you can’t do is change the workings of defamation law. Unless in fact you are FJK, which is sort of possible these days. You could log in from the Right Wing Bastards’ meeting and post in defence of your BFF.

        • lprent 9.3.1.2
          21 January 2015 at 10:32 am

          Most of that comment was irrelevant diversion. However the bits that were relevant are…

          Blomfield was free to pursue his case in the DC for defamation while the HC arguments were being considered. Asher J pointed that out of several occasions. It was Blomfield who decided not to continue in the DC, and await the outcome of the HC decision…

          If I was interested in who was feeding Slater with his material and why then I’d be interested in enjoining them to the defamation case as well. As far as I’m concerned they are just as liable. That is why the journalistic privilege in the evidence act contains that specific exclusion of privilege for malicious reasons.

          Since that point is what the appeals were about then I am not surprised that Blomfield is waiting to find out officially who he can enjoin to the defamation case.

          To date Blomfield has simply said its not true, he never did any of it, and its defamatory.

          And that is all that he has to do. Quite simply the posts on the face of it appear to any outside observer like myself or so far all judges to be defamatory. There is not even remotely enough in the posts to justify many of the statements made in the posts. There are several bits that I suspect are probably simply made up lies.

          Defamation law is quite clear on this. It is not up to accuser to prove that the facts they are alleging are defamation are false. It is up to the accused to prove that what they said conforms to the facts or is honestly held opinion. The burden of proof is almost entirely on the person making the alleged defamation.

          Your attempts to try and reverse that centuries old legal basis are probably a bit futile. They are certainly irrelevant. This is what Cameron has been finding out in court…

        • greywarshark 9.3.1.3
          21 January 2015 at 11:38 am

          @ Poor Matt
          Your comment brings up many points. Court is the place to decide them and presumably all the data you want brought forward is what the Court will demand. Don’t you think much of our legal system? It has some faults, but there is one so let them get on with it. There are usually appeals allowed – though whether this still applies after the RW have super-courted, super-shorted the system I’m not sure.

    • Tracey 9.4
      21 January 2015 at 3:03 pm

      are you saying the costs award is wrong, otherwise you are just a ra ra idiot

      • Poor Matt 9.4.1
        21 January 2015 at 3:19 pm

        yes i do think the cost award at this stage is wrong. this case has just jumped from one court to another, and to date Blomfield has not been successful at proving he is innocent and was therefore defamed. Slater has, as his right used all that is available to him to defend his position. That is the Court system and its process. NZ is a democracy…… That said if they are placed in a Trust Account pending a review / appeal then i see no problem with them not being paid out, and it proves the person is actually in funds and has not committed any act of bankruptcy. One must remember this is not a business deal where the usual rules apply on solvency etc”i did work for you and you agreed to my quote so you owe me the money” I know of a similar type deal where $400K is sitting in a Trust Account and that has just entered year 3 of the Court filings and multiple appeals – so Blomfield trying to bankrupt over $5K is hardly a big deal.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 9.4.1.1
          21 January 2015 at 3:29 pm

          proving he is innocent

          Bzzt! Wrong!

          8Truth
          (1)In proceedings for defamation, the defence known before the commencement of this Act as the defence of justification shall, after the commencement of this Act, be known as the defence of truth.
          (2)In proceedings for defamation based on only some of the matter contained in a publication, the defendant may allege and prove any facts contained in the whole of the publication.
          (3)In proceedings for defamation, a defence of truth shall succeed if—
          (a)the defendant proves that the imputations contained in the matter that is the subject of the proceedings were true, or not materially different from the truth; or
          (b)where the proceedings are based on all or any of the matter contained in a publication, the defendant proves that the publication taken as a whole was in substance true, or was in substance not materially different from the truth.

          All the onus of proof is upon Slater.

          • Poor Matt 9.4.1.1.1
            21 January 2015 at 4:10 pm

            i am sure Slater will have his turn to show his wares – until then you can keep up the Slater hater activities

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.4.1.1.1.1
              21 January 2015 at 7:53 pm

              Choke on it.

            • tracey 9.4.1.1.1.2
              21 January 2015 at 8:18 pm

              why do you say blomfield has to prove he is innocent when the law is clear slater must prove he wrote the truth. are you trying to set a precedent by over turning established defamation law? if yes, on what basis

        • tracey 9.4.1.2
          21 January 2015 at 8:16 pm

          how has the appeal against costs gone?

        • Once was Pete 9.4.1.3
          22 January 2015 at 3:15 pm

          This sounds like a Security for Costs award to me. In effect one party to a proceeding makes an application to the court saying that they are concerned the other party may not have the substance to pay costs if the court finds against them. In such a case the court may decide that a nominated sum is to be put aside and held in effect by the court until the outcome is decided. There is no relationship to outcome in this process. Such decisions are often made in chambers.
          I was on the litigation committee for a very large case where there was real concern that the plaintiff was engaging in malicious prosecution and may have insufficient funds. In this case the court ordered a nearly seven figure sum be set aside. When the plaintiff ran out of steam before the trial ended the costs automatically flowed to the defendants even though no verdict was delivered.
          The bankruptcy stuff is not really relevant. It has the appearance of a tactic to harass and distract, and also put the defendant in a poor light. No court would allow this to proceed whilst an action was still in process.

    • Brutus Iscariot 9.5
      21 January 2015 at 4:29 pm

      @r0b

      For consistency, hope you edit out the following too:

      Prick
      Dick
      Wanker
      Cock

      All male specific derogatory terms.

      • Murray Rawshark 9.5.1
        21 January 2015 at 8:27 pm

        All male specific, and totally descriptive of you. I’ll add stupid and ignorant as well. There is a reason why these terms are allowed and others aren’t, but never mind. It’s really hard to understand.

    • Murray Rawshark 9.6
      21 January 2015 at 7:51 pm

      You don’t understand how these things work at all. If you publish crap about someone, the onus of proof is on you. Now run along and tell Blubber Boy, he doesn’t seem to have realised either.

  10. ianmac 10
    21 January 2015 at 9:13 am

    No doubt a sum of money will suddenly miraculously appear in Cameron’s bank account sent anonymously from you know who.

  11. Dave 11
    21 January 2015 at 9:13 am

    There are lots of us who read the standard where can we email slug boys location to if we spot him
    This is a free service no bonny needed what come around goes around

  12. weka 12
    21 January 2015 at 9:25 am

    If Slater is bankrupted, does this mean that WhaleOil’s income generation will be used to recover debts?

  13. Truth Will Out 13
    21 January 2015 at 9:29 am

    Rumour has it Slater has been harpooned in the Southern Ocean and is on a “scientific research” ship on his way to Japan as you read this. Apparently John Key sent the navy ship ‘Wellington’, in a last ditch effort to try and rescue him last week, but it failed miserably when the captain and crew decided Slater wasn’t worth it. Reports from the crew of the Japanese research ship indicate that Slater can be heard blubbering.

    Of course, these reports could be wrong, in which case it could only be a matter of time before he is found beached and stranded on Farewell Spit or in Golden Bay, in which case I would strongly urge DOC staff to explode his carcass as a matter of urgency.

  14. Dave 14
    21 January 2015 at 9:38 am

    Oh such good news someone just has to put out a wanted poster on this
    Want alive oh its going to be fun fun fun I don’t like human misery but this is a special case- come out come where ever you are can hahahahahaahahah

  15. saveNZ 15
    21 January 2015 at 9:42 am

    What a scum bag. I guess he feels he doesn’t have to pay being BFF with Collins and Key. The exJustice minister will get him off….

  16. Marty 16
    21 January 2015 at 9:42 am

    I realise the enemy of our enemy is The Standard’s friend, but I’d be terribly careful snuggling up to Blomfield. His portrayal as a random drive by shooting victim of Slater is going to end up in tears. The man is, at best, no better than blubberboy.

    As for publishing his home address on the Internet… wtf?

    I don’t know anything about money, but going for bankruptcy when there isn’t a clear indication that the person is indeed bankrupt and is instead stalling on paying a debt, isn’t that just being a total prick for the sake of being a prick?

    Anyway. Don’t let your hatred for Slater blind you to this man. He’s a P.O.S. himself, and you’re being used.

    [Stephanie: The image has been amended to obscure the addresses of both Blomfield and Slater.]

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1
      21 January 2015 at 9:54 am

      🙄

      Don’t let your hatred of Blomfield blind you to the company Slater keeps.

      • Marty 16.1.1
        21 January 2015 at 11:31 am

        I have no personal beef with Blomfield. My concern is about this blog and who it cuddles up to. I just don’t want to see The Standard get covered in gore when (not if) all this goes tits up. Blomfield is beyond “not being saint”. We need to keep a little perspective here – Slater wrote something that has hurt Blomfield’s feelings, and is looking for a court to agree with him.

        We’re all treating slater as if he raped one of Blomfield’s kids. Some perspective would be nice.

        I know it will be against the rules to discuss it here, so I won’t, but Blomfield’s true nature and true involvement in things outside the law have so far been carefully suppressed by everyone who knows better, because it doesn’t suit the Slater-must-be-silenced campaign.

        ALL I am saying is for lprent and The Standard not to to be seen as part of Blomfield’s fan club. There will be a time when that’s going to have some unwanted blowback. The last thing I want is for The Standard to join Bradbury as a source of justified ridicule.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.1
          21 January 2015 at 11:39 am

          Your concern is touching. And so sincere. No, wait, this just in: you just wasted four paragraphs making yourself look like a total wanker.

          • Marty 16.1.1.1.1
            21 January 2015 at 11:51 am

            Total? As in perfect? No room for improvement? The ultimate in wankerness? Wow. Never thought I’d be that good at anything. Thanks.

            It’s people like you that damage what this blog is trying to achieve. But, you know, good on ya.

        • r0b 16.1.1.2
          21 January 2015 at 12:11 pm

          I wouldn’t be as quick as OAB to dismiss the the warnings made by Marty. None of us here know the full facts, and in such situations I prefer to step carefully.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.2.1
            21 January 2015 at 12:20 pm

            Marty warns The Standard will be covered in gore. It is Marty et al that will be spraying the gore* around.

            A false narrative concocted by a false friend.

            *“…seen as part of Blomfield’s fan club”. Oh yeah? By whom?

          • Poor Matt 16.1.1.2.2
            21 January 2015 at 2:53 pm

            you need to know Blomfield, his MO, and his ways – once you understand and grasp how the guy works, then you see a very different way in which this will play out. He dislikes being taken to task, he hates it when his bully boy ways don’t get the desired result. His claims of connections in all the wrong places. He looks for angles to further his cause, he will stoop lower then any man, he will attack innocents to cause stress, and grief to others. When he works with people he gets into their families, their lives and makes it so nobody has wriggle room. If he has information on you he will use it to further himself – and doing that illegally is of no consequence. This case will expose those very dealings.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.2.2.1
              21 January 2015 at 2:57 pm

              He sounds just like the Prime Minister. Of course, the PM has Cameron Slater to hide behind.

              • McFlock …
                21 January 2015 at 3:13 pm

                Actually, it sounded to me just like slater himself. Literally. I honestly had to double-check to make sure matt wasn’t describing Slater:

                He dislikes being taken to task,
                apparently so

                he hates it when his bully boy ways don’t get the desired result.
                slater loves to swag and brag

                His claims of connections in all the wrong places.
                like the current government

                He looks for angles to further his cause,
                indeed, pays prostitutes to look for blackmail material, if I recall the allegation correctly

                he will stoop lower then any man,
                see above

                he will attack innocents to cause stress, and grief to others.
                The entire Len Brown thing

                If he has information on you he will use it to further himself – and doing that illegally is of no consequence.
                Hasn’t he violated suppression orders, for example?

                I have no idea about Blomfield, but it’s slater to a tee.

            • tracey 16.1.1.2.2.2
              21 January 2015 at 8:21 pm

              sounds like he and slater might be twins…. at the least they may expose each other.

            • Murray Rawshark 16.1.1.2.2.3
              21 January 2015 at 8:35 pm

              you need to know Slater, his MO, and his ways – once you understand and grasp how the guy works, then you see a very different way in which this will play out. He dislikes being taken to task, he hates it when his bully boy ways don’t get the desired result. His claims of connections in all the wrong places. He looks for angles to further his cause, he will stoop lower then any man, he will attack innocents to cause stress, and grief to others. When he works with people he gets into their families, their lives and makes it so nobody has wriggle room. If he has information on you he will use it to further himself – and doing that illegally is of no consequence. This case will expose those very dealings.

              FIFY

        • lprent 16.1.1.3
          21 January 2015 at 12:15 pm

          Blomfield’s true nature and true involvement in things outside the law have so far been carefully suppressed by everyone who knows better, because it doesn’t suit the Slater-must-be-silenced campaign.

          Nope. We just insist that people follow the legal codes and don’t get this site offside with the courts.

          Some of the accusations I have heard are things that, if true, should have been raised as complaints with the police. I understand that some were, and were rejected by them because of insufficient or no real evidence. Similarly I have never seen anything to indicate any are more than malicious lies invented to smear. But feel free to raise a complaint with the police or courts. That is what they are there for.

          We need to keep a little perspective here – Slater wrote something that has hurt Blomfield’s feelings, and is looking for a court to agree with him.

          So you are arguing that defamation law has no place in modern society? Because that is precisely what defamation law is designed to do. It was meant to limit the extent that people could simply lie about others.

          But I suspect you are conflating it with the questions of judgement which then look at damages. We should probably let a judge and/or jury deal with both of those.

          The last thing I want is for The Standard to join Bradbury as a source of justified ridicule.

          At issue is the legal extent that blogs (like newspapers before them) are able to make up posts about people and organisations with little or no facts supporting them.

          I run this blog on a day to day basis and have a keen interest in this particular subject as a result. I don’t want to be sued. The Blomfield case is a clear boundary case.

          So far it has provided considerable information about the way that the courts perceive me and those like me as journalists. The post above is clearly a work of a journalist for instance.

          It has then defined the degree to which such a journalist can shield their sources and what the “public interest” means. That is going to appeal.

          His inept handling of the case appears to be doing a lot to the body of law about evidence and defamation in NZ

          But unlike you I look at what was in the claims that Slater was making about Blomfield and are subject to this defamation action. That is what Slater will eventually have to defend and to date he appears to be doing a piss-poor job on that. Trying to pull in claims and areas extrinsic to that are as unlikely to sway me as they would a court. We don’t allow deliberate campaigns of smearing on this site. That is why you have limits on what you can do. I don’t want to waste my time in court in the way that Cameron obviously likes doing.

          Like a number of other blogs, I’m reporting on this case mainly because it is of considerable public interest to the people involved in blogs.

        • Treetop 16.1.1.4
          21 January 2015 at 12:38 pm

          “Some perspective would be nice.”

          It is only a matter of time that Slater gets done for libel or defamation. For all I know there maybe some people waiting to see what the outcome of the Blomfield case is.

        • Murray Rawshark 16.1.1.5
          21 January 2015 at 8:33 pm

          “We’re all treating slater as if he raped one of Blomfield’s kids.”

          No. We’re treating Blubber Boy like someone who publishes hate filled and racist rubbish on an attack blog. Like someone who gloats over the death of a young guy on the West Coast, someone who mounts a campaign against the victim of a sexual assault, saying she provoked it all because she likes the environment, like someone who supplies Nicky Hager’s address to a slimy cactus, someone who wants an autistic kid gut shot and left to die in agony, ….

          Nothing to do with liking Blomfield at all.

    • Juana 16.2
      21 January 2015 at 10:07 am

      I realise your blind hatred of Cam prevents you from looking too closely at the hand that feeds you the info ( Matt ) but sorry to burst your bubble but he has neglected to tell you some pertinent facts.
      1. The court costs are in a Trust account and will be released when the Appeal process is complete IF Matt wins. If he doesn’t Matt will owe Cam court costs.
      2. Cam has the money but has no legal obligation to pay the money until the appeal has been completed and Matt knows this.
      3. Matt is trying to serve papers as part of his ongoing campaign of harassment.Something I know you all enjoy as you are his mate but nevertheless harassment is what it is.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.1
        21 January 2015 at 10:21 am

        If that’s true, the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice under Section 17 of the Insolvency Act will succeed, and that would be a little victory for Slater, eh.

        If that’s true.

      • mickysavage 16.2.2
        21 January 2015 at 10:30 am

        So Juana are you able to say if Matt was told the money was being held in trust?

      • lprent 16.2.3
        21 January 2015 at 10:50 am

        Hi Juana, I already answered Marty about the “hate” bit.

        But I will repeat it for your benefit. I think your guy is a irresponsible arsehole who brings the rest of the blogging communities into disrepute. I intensely dislike being tarred with the same label as him because there are very few of us who act like such a complete scumbag. Perhaps you should consider that before trying to smear me.

        I don’t “hate” him (never met him for that matter). I dislike his actions and how they reflect on me. I wish he would desist from doing posts like those he did about Blomfield and many others. I’m prepared to exert some effort to help that to happen.

        //===

        However if what you say is correct and the high court had already agreed with this (it isn’t as automatic as you say), then it would have been unlikely that the court would have accepted the bankruptcy request. It is unlikely that Blomfield’s lawyers (if they knew about it) would have bothered requesting it.

        I suspect it is more likely that Cameron has been his usual inadequate story telling self again and been bullshitting again. He may have intended that, but failed to actually do the formal processes that the courts demand.

        Ask to see the paperwork…

        • Poor Matt 16.2.3.1
          21 January 2015 at 11:15 am

          As with Blomfields many enablers IE the lawyers – there is always so much more going on in the background ……… you get he drift

        • Tom Jackson 16.2.3.2
          21 January 2015 at 11:38 am

          I think your guy is a irresponsible arsehole

          There’s really no need to resort to euphemisms, lprent.

          • lprent 16.2.3.2.1
            21 January 2015 at 11:49 am

            The english language is so clumsy when it comes to describing a inept artless maladroit bumbling klutzy lumbering gibbering buffoonish nincompoop like Cameron Slater. When you find the right word(s) to describe how you feel about their antics, you find that few others understand them.

            So I tend to go for those easy to understand euphemisms

            😈

    • lprent 16.3
      21 January 2015 at 10:09 am

      As for publishing his home address on the Internet… wtf?

      Cameon Slater has never had any compunction about doing that. He has published my address and phone numbers (unlawfully used from the DNS records), John Mintos, and numerous others.

      However I never asked for his address in my post. Perhaps you shouldn’t lie about my post. I get picky about it.

      Don’t let your hatred for Slater blind you to this man. He’s a P.O.S. himself, and you’re being used.

      I don’t “hate” him. I want him out of blogging because he acts like a irresponsible arsehole who doesn’t obey the laws about what you may or may not do when writing in public spaces.

      Don’t worry I have already checked long ago. When I started writing about this case back in 2013 it was done for a quite specific reason. That was the behaviour of Cameron Slater on blogs where he was clearly running paid for campaigns against individuals and organisations where he wasn’t concerned with facts or even presenting his own viewpoint. A kind of a “arsehole for hire” that I intensely dislike.

      That he was deliberately doing this for pay and at quite a scale was made clear in Dirty Politics.

      I looked at the statements made about Matthew Blomfield in Cameron’s posts that are the subject of the court case. In my view even at the face of it and using the ‘facts’ presented in the posts, they were quite clearly defamatory and used a mixture of facts, embellishment of facts far beyond that any reasonable person would take them to and some outright lying about “facts”.

      Sure Matthew Blomfield isn’t exactly a saint. Few of us are. However he isn’t trying to be made a saint in his claim of defamation in front of the court. He is seeking damages from Cameron Slater and probably those providing Slater with the outrageous bullshit that he published for the defamation and lying about facts about him.

      Everyone who isn’t interested in the likes of arsehole scumbags like Cameron Slater attacking them in public and getting paid for it should also be interested in it. Since that kind of arsehole behaviour happens to be what I am interested in not spreading across our local blogs, I keep reporting on aspects of this long running case.

      Cameron Slater is clearly aware of exactly how much he screwed up because he is spending an awful lot of time trying to avoid justifying what he wrote in those posts and protecting his sources (and probably his paying clients).

      This will be a landmark case for bloggers in NZ. That is my interest in it.

      • Marty 16.3.1
        21 January 2015 at 11:20 am

        Just for the record, I meant Blomfield’s address. But the “he does it too” explanation is below you lprent. Unless you are genuinely an eye for an eye kind of person, in which case you must not worry about murdering murderers for example.

        Can we call it an “obsession” then, if not hatred?

        • lprent 16.3.1.1
          21 January 2015 at 12:31 pm

          I already asked Blomfield when I looked. He doesn’t care. It is the same address that Slater published. It is the same address that some nut went to and attacked Blomfield in front of his family with a gun.

          Kind of pointless getting precious about it now eh?

          • Poor Matt 16.3.1.1.1
            21 January 2015 at 2:40 pm

            funny you mention the gun – i see its never made headlines again. Only the arrest of one guy. No connections to anyone Blomfield claimed it was with all the Police visits he arranged with his false accusations on multiple people. Only Blomfield knows the truth about that night, and given his life long love of telling fibs no doubt it will stay that way.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 16.3.1.1.1.1
              21 January 2015 at 2:55 pm

              Oh look, a wingnut making light of home invasion and assault. These so-called law ‘n’ order types certainly show their true colours when it’s one of their own in the dock, eh.

              • Poor Matt …
                21 January 2015 at 3:25 pm

                as i have said many times before – only Blomfield knows the real reasons behind what happened to him. Blomfield made a claim he “knew exactly” who did it and “he can 100% prove it” to date that person has been interviewed by the NZ Police and the NZ Police openly admitted they did NOT believe Blomfields version of events. The defamatory claims and statements made by Blomfield may just see himself the subject of a defamation case at some point. NO home invasion of any type would be wanted by anyone – especially with a wife and kids present. A horrible experience. But that leaves the question – who would ever get in a position where you would expose your family to that. I say again – the person arrested and Blomfield know the answers

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  21 January 2015 at 3:35 pm

                  Cameron Slater is of interest because of his close links with the National Party, and the toxic behaviours they share.

                  You seem very animated about Blomfield. Me, not so much. Don’t get too invested, eh. No, wait, I don’t really mean that: invest heavily. Make it your teeny tiny little life’s greatest work. I can always use more material.

    • Lanthanide 16.4
      21 January 2015 at 11:22 am

      @lprent the old image with the addresses is still available on the server.

      • r0b 16.4.1
        21 January 2015 at 12:09 pm

        Thanks, deleted.

      • lprent 16.4.2
        21 January 2015 at 12:26 pm

        They are probably cached. They don’t appear to be on the disk at the server.

        However apparently that was Slater’s old address and Blomfield’s address was been extensively published by Slater (and he doesn’t care) before the nutter came to have a shoot at Blomfield.

        Moreover this is a public document accessible to anyone where the addresses may be used by a process server or anyone else for everything up to and including advertising in newspapers and TV.

        There is a considerable “privacy” latitude given to this type of legal document in legislation and case law.

        • veutoviper 16.4.2.1
          21 January 2015 at 1:24 pm

          lprent – sent you an email to your sysop address. If info is up to date, then it is also in the public domain due to the source.

          • lprent 16.4.2.1.1
            21 January 2015 at 1:50 pm

            Thanks.. I will pass that on.

            • Marty 16.4.2.1.1.1
              21 January 2015 at 4:44 pm

              Well, I didn’t want to be helpful to Blomfield, as he’s at least as despicable as Slater, and they deserve each other, but how hard is it to find Slater’s current address? Seriously? Which makes me go back to my previous point – you are allowing yourself / the blog to be used by this guy, and two wrongs don’t make a right.

              If you think that “bankruptcy” will silence Slater, I need to confess I don’t understand your thought process.

              You are allowing yourself and the blog to be used for someone’s personal harassment, and you are using your long term goal of ridding the world of Cameron Slater as your justification.

              Come on lprent, take a deep breath, walk away. We have more important things to achieve rather than help Blomfield out with his personal vendettas.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                21 January 2015 at 5:04 pm

                Are you very very dense much?

                Blomfield’s legal action is useful because it provides yet another way to highlight the Prime Minister’s gutter associations, and shine a stronger light upon his low character.

                Please tell me you’re being mendacious rather than failing to grasp that; it’s better to be a liar than a cretin.

              • Rawsharkosaurus …
                21 January 2015 at 6:13 pm

                “at least as despicable as Slater”? Slater, just in the last few years, has ghoulishly harassed a grieving mother, and hacked into a web site and made off with a bunch of credit card details. If you know of anything comparable that Blomfield has done, then you’d be better off reporting it to the Police rather than whining about it on a blog.

              • travellerev …
                22 January 2015 at 10:18 am

                I have to say I agree with Marty!

    • Tracey 16.5
      21 January 2015 at 3:17 pm

      thanks for your concern. slater clearly didnt appeal the costs award or if he did he lost. it is perfectly normal legal strategy to apply for bankruptcy if a litigant isnt paying an award.

  17. ropata:rorschach 17
    21 January 2015 at 9:46 am

    Mr. Slater is a fine upstanding citizen, no doubt it was all a terrible misunderstanding, and he will restore honour and chivalry to the blogosphere in short order.

    Thought-leaders like Cameron sometimes require privacy in order to seek inspiration. Perhaps he’s retreated to a monastery to rest from the heavy burden of spreading the message of Slaterism to the masses.

    🙄 :mrgreen: 😯 😳

    • greywarshark 17.1
      21 January 2015 at 11:52 am

      Or perhaps like Jim Jones he is planning to take his faithful with him to an isolated location where they will work the land eat only vegs and he will reappear slimmer, and with a long beard and a message that is broadcast every Easter.

      By the way I like the morphing image of yek and macaroon. Clever

  18. Te Reo Putake 18
    21 January 2015 at 9:50 am

    Just for clarification, does anybody know the law around bankruptcy? LP has sort of outlined it in the OP, and though it’s not my area of expertise, but I have a vague feeling that a bankruptcy notice follows an actual bankruptcy. ie. I think Slater has already been adjudged to be bankrupt in the court, but has kept that news to himself.

    Or, as LP suggests, this could be the forerunner to the actual bankruptcy. I’d be grateful to anyone who can clarify the sequence. Cheers.

      • Poor Matt 18.1.1
        21 January 2015 at 10:24 am

        As a comment says above the funds are in a Trust Account. That being the case, and the amount being nominal in the scheme of things i would doubt any bankruptcy action would be initiated – other than the claim of Blomfield. Its in Blomfields nature to serve such paperwork – its his MO, always has been, always will be. He prides himself on serving Stat Demands, and he prides himself on taking people to Court who serve him. Its all just part of the brinkmanship that goes with the territory

        Making someone bankrupt really is a very last resort type of action by the Courts

    • mickysavage 18.2
      21 January 2015 at 10:20 am

      You serve the notice and if the debt is not paid it is deemed to be an act of bankruptcy and the creditor can then apply to the High Court for an order adjudicating the debtor bankrupt.

      The whole process can take a little while. Cameron will have two weeks to pay the debt in the bankruptcy notice and if he does not then the application can be filed. It will need to be served and he can apply to hold it up.

      • Poor Matt 18.2.1
        21 January 2015 at 10:48 am

        Unless of course the debt is disputed on in dispute – i suspect that is the case here. Blomfield has some hoops to skip thru yet to get his day in Court on the bankruptcy issue – with funds in a Trust Account most likely outcome is to have it set aside

        • lprent 18.2.1.1
          21 January 2015 at 11:03 am

          From what I understand, these were court ordered costs by the High Court against the person making the appeal to the High Court (ie Cameron). For them to be “disputed”, Cameron would have had to have already launched an appeal against them to the Court of Appeal.

          I haven’t heard that has happened or that the high court has heard that? Especially since the high court has apparently received and accepted the bankruptcy application. It seems pretty obvious in the photo that they have.

          Has Cameron been too “important” (probably too sloppy) to follow legal process again?

          • Poor Matt 18.2.1.1.1
            21 January 2015 at 11:13 am

            I understand the Court of Appeal application was made prior

            • lprent 18.2.1.1.1.1
              21 January 2015 at 12:34 pm

              There is nothing stopping a separate and possibly joined appeal if leave was asked for and granted by the court?

              In the absence of the Court Of Appeal accepting the appeal, the high court will uphold their own judgement unless they hear a valid reason not to. Don’t Cameron or his lawyers ever read the documents sent out by the court? It usually pays to do so.

            • tracey 18.2.1.1.1.2
              21 January 2015 at 8:32 pm

              it makes no sense to file a bankruptcy notice on a cost award before the appellate court. it sounds to me as though IF an appeal was made of the award it must have been lost. having funds in trust to be disbursed at a later date does NOT satisfy a cost award unless the owed and the court agree. poor matt may be being a loyal friend but i dont think he has been told the full story

      • Skinny 18.2.2
        21 January 2015 at 11:27 am

        I would be keeping Labour well clear of such action or the MSM will turn this against Labour and the deep pocket rightwing fantic’s will feel compelled to come to Slaters aid. My advice is wait and see what unfolds, do not give him an easy out.

        [lprent: What does this post have to do with “Labour”? FFS I’m not even a member of the Labour party any more. Banned 1 month. Read the policy about trying to imply control from other groups. ]

        • mickysavage 18.2.2.1
          21 January 2015 at 11:35 am

          If your comment was addressed to me my response was only to outline the procedure not to advocate for any particular action to be taken. This clearly has nothing to do with the Labour Party

          • Skinny 18.2.2.1.1
            21 January 2015 at 1:36 pm

            Thank yes it was a reply directed at yourself thanks for clarifying the position your taking is an opinion based on due process and independent of Labour.

            Iprent I’m well aware your not a member of Labour, as am I. Apologise for any confusion. Slaters dirty tactic’s towards you are deplorable and he deserves being called out for that alone.

            [lprent: The inept bugger has never actually managed to land anything on me. I didn’t seriously get irritated with him until I saw his callous comments on Whaleoil about my heart attack and then saw his orchestrated and probably paid for attack on workers at the Auckland docks in 2012. Then I decided that I didn’t want need such an arsehole around especially calling themselves “bloggers”.

            Anyway, lets try again. Ban rescinded with the explanation. ]

            • Skinny 18.2.2.1.1.1
              21 January 2015 at 5:06 pm

              Cheers Iprent I should have included Mickey’s name. Speaking of the Auckland dock workers looking forward to giving their Unions president a good send off locally, he has done a bloody good job over 30 years.

        • greywarshark 18.2.2.2
          21 January 2015 at 12:00 pm

          This could go on and on – appeal and counter appeal. Charles Dickens could have written a never-ending serial about it called Bleaker House.

          • tracey 18.2.2.2.1
            21 January 2015 at 8:36 pm

            no. it has adn end point. the supreme court BUT no one files a bankruptcy notice against someone in the appeal process. poorcmatt does not seem to have been told all the facts

            • greywarshark 18.2.2.2.1.1
              22 January 2015 at 11:17 am

              @Tracey
              Thanks for the info. So delaying tactics can only last a finite time – Slater must front eventually

      • Te Reo Putake 18.2.3
        21 January 2015 at 3:20 pm

        Thanks, MS, all a lot clearer now.

  19. freedom 19
    21 January 2015 at 9:53 am

    a Whale hunt even the greens would support ?

  20. marty mars 20
    21 January 2015 at 10:02 am

    the PM should be asked quite pointedly to disclose the whereabouts of his mate or send him a bff textdy and ask him to come forth

  21. Morrissey 21
    21 January 2015 at 10:11 am

    Currently filming for The Biggest Loser. He’s just been voted off the island, apparently.

  22. ghostwhowalksnz 22
    21 January 2015 at 10:39 am

    There is allways the address of his office: 50 Stonedon Dr.

    He had moved from his rental home in Flat Bush area soon after the Dirty politics uproar and was complaining about the lack of cell phone coverage at his new lair.

    My guess is somewhere in the Brookby- Whiford area.

    • repateet 22.1
      21 January 2015 at 12:46 pm

      He’s probably in an area reasonably close to legal advice. Experienced legal advice. Senior legal advice. Are there any former justice folk reasonably handy to the Brookby- Whiford area?

  23. Dave 23
    21 January 2015 at 12:51 pm

    I am sure the posi of the pissed will smoke Cameron out of his rat hole

  24. travellerev 24
    21 January 2015 at 3:18 pm

    Maybe he had another invite to Tel Aviv to hang with his Likud mates. That’s were he was last time when shit blew up in his face!

    • BLiP 24.1
      21 January 2015 at 4:05 pm

      ‘

      I believe Slater was in Fiji supporting the despotic regime there when the shit first blew up. His trip to Israel to support the murderous illegal regime there was immediately afterwards. Wottaguy.

      Anyhow, fuck Cameron John Slater *and* Matthew John Blomfield. They both deserve each other which is why its so delicious to see them squabbling amongst themselves.

  25. Jackal 25
    21 January 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Wherever Cameron Slater is, I bet he’s squawking like a bantam as his chickens come home to roost.

  26. coaster 26
    21 January 2015 at 3:52 pm

    Doesnt he have a family and kids?. If this is the case, even though i dont like him people shouldnt be gloating, as his family will suffer also, which is none of there doing.

    • Te Reo Putake 26.1
      21 January 2015 at 4:02 pm

      It’s ok, they’re ferals.*

      *Just kidding, obviously. If I remember correctly, he’s seperated from his spouse, so there will be no effect. Other than further embarrassment, I suppose.

  27. ropata:rorschach 27
    21 January 2015 at 8:32 pm

    @lprent,
    Your claim that Slater is the “arsehole of the kiwi blogosphere” might hit a legal snag, because according to the disreputable lawyer who runs Imperator Fish, Slater is only the 3rd biggest arsehole of the year 2014.
    😉

  28. NZJester 28
    21 January 2015 at 9:35 pm

    Can they not find out his address from the OIA office?
    With all the documents that he requests from them they must have his current address that receives all those files.

  29. Dave 29
    22 January 2015 at 9:01 am

    Child suport payments are excluded from bankruptey he cant dodbe those but will list sources of income i wonder if ird will be in there to

  30. Pascals bookie 30
    22 January 2015 at 10:23 am

    Speaking of Whale, a certain German would-be politician who whale has been writing about is in the news again:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11390068

  31. One Anonymous Bloke 31
    22 January 2015 at 7:01 pm

    This week’s wingnut drivel is that any attention paid to Blomfield vs. Slater implies common cause with Blomfield.

    I can’t recall being accused of supporting Slater when his witless incompetence helped destroy Judith Collins’ career. I do recall being happy that the corrupt trash was damaged though.

    • Pete George 31.1
      22 January 2015 at 7:20 pm

      Working with Blomfield to publicise a bankruptcy notice is substantial ‘attention paid to Blomfield vs. Slater’, clearly on one side. And the post and comments make it very clear there is no common cause with Slater.

      This all more than implies common cause with Blomfield. And as a number of people have cautioned, it’s a very risky liaison.

      It’s too late for a minion to dampen the damage.

      • lprent 31.1.1
        22 January 2015 at 7:45 pm

        The bloated fool has made me a “journalist”. I just report the news (just like the real journalists..) with the same degree of impartiality and balance as someone like…. Guyon Espiner. Ummm…

        Ok I don’t report the news with the same level of impartiality and balance as (surely there must be an old school journo around……..) Ah ha – Colin James (christ he must be getting old)

        I’ve had a look over submissions about the Blomfield case. I literally can’t see how he could lose. For starter Slater called him a pedophile. Hah? How exactly is he going to be able to prove that to be true or even an honest opinion based on what he knew at the time. It isn’t something that he has a hope in hell of doing unless he can point to a conviction.

        This isn’t like a blog. This is defamation law. The complete onus is on Slater to prove his statements of fact one by one across 40 odd posts. If he fails even once he will be found guilty.

        BTW: there will be no discussion about the pedophile statement. It was only raised as an example of statements of specific fact.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 31.1.2
        22 January 2015 at 7:49 pm

        Speaking of corrupt trash, here’s Pete George, who knows his lines.

  32. h123 32
    22 January 2015 at 11:27 pm

    They can get Slaters address from the local police station. If he is complying….

    http://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/arms-code/your-duties-and-legal-requirements

    5b) Duties and obligations of firearm owners/users

    Arms Laws requirements.

    The Arms Laws require that you:

    “Notify the Police, within 30 days, of a change in your residential address. Forms for this purpose are included in the Arms Code and on the Police website. “