Note: This post is wrong on a matter of law. I am now of the understanding that the district court rules quoted may have been misinterpreted. The post should be read in this light. Either way, if you’re taking legal advice from this blog, report to your nearest health professional immediately. Also, if you’re taking medical advice from this blog… never mind.
Jacqueline Sperling again, in a comment on a previous thread, attempts to explain why her leaking of the decision is not against the law:
I am also not sure why when asked about the judgement after declaring victory she is saying it would be “contempt of court” to talk about it and that only the parties involved are privy to it.
The Herald on Sunday had a copy of the judgement before i even had it and Judge Harvey clearly states;
“I have given consideration to the exercise of my powers pursuant to s 39 pf the Harassment Act and make an order prohibiting publication of the names or information that may identify the applicants. I do not consider such an order justified. As i have said, both applicants have pute themselves in the public arena especially within the context of the internet. That they have undertaken this litigation has not only been mentioned in the blogosphere but in the mainstream media. As is so often the case with information that is on the internet, to make a non -publication order would now be an exercise in futility. Furthermore, there is no significant individual interest that trumps the public interest in the openness of the Court proceedings. There is no doubt that some of the material that features in this case is embarassing but Ms. Flannagan, as a lawyer, will be aware that often publicity follows cases involving people with a profile and this is certainly one of them.”
So the judge considered that a suppression order of the participants would have been a waste of time. That is what that sections says – read it again if you have to.
Not sure why Madeleine is lying about anyone who was not involved in the case being in contempt of court if they have read the judgement but then it doesn’t surprise me. I have gotten used to being on the receiving end of the effects of her dishonesty lately.
Let’s make that very clear.
Jacqueline Sperling is stating – in public – that Madeleine Flannagan is lying about it being illegal to read a court judgement, because there is no suppression order of the participants identities.
Yes, that is exactly as stupid as it sounds.
You can read the quoted paragraph again and again, and it won’t change anything. A discussion on supression orders doesn’t change the law:
District Court Rules 2009:
3.18.2 A person may not access a document, court file, judgment, or order that relates to a proceeding brought under an enactment specified in rule 3.18.3 unless—
(a) the person is a party to that proceeding; or
(b) the court permits the person to do so.
3.18.3 The enactments are as follows:
(j) Harassment Act 1997:Despite that – I am choosing to forgive and move on.
Given Madeleine was in court discussing this very section with the judge, and Jacqueline Sperling was not, I know which side I believe.
Despite that – I am choosing to forgive and move on.
It’s hard not to get emotional when someone is so willing to forgive and move on, isn’t it?
**This post has been edited to remove certain comments that detracted from the message.
This post is about Jacqueline (Jackie) Sperling, and is part of an ongoing series discussing her ongoing campaign of harassment and lies against lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Ms Brown, and The Narrative - the alternate reality she presents on her blog in which she pretends to be the victim of her targets. You can read a court decision that outlines her campaign and the court’s assessment of The Narrative here.
Please do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.