Sensible Sentencing Trust not the first victim?

Those upset about this case…

The Human Rights Commission plans to prosecute the Sensible Sentencing Trust for breaching a serial paedophile’s* privacy.

It stems from the trust printing the man’s name and details of his offending on its website. The commission says this breaches his privacy because the trust does not mention that he has name suppression.

However, neither the paedophile nor the commission have been able to supply a court record to prove he has name suppression.

…would do well to also note this one.

Robert Henderson is due to appear before the Human Rights Tribunal on November 30 for telling a nursing home one of its employees was a drug addict.

In 2003, Henderson rang the nursing home and told the charge nurse that a caregiver, who was on a methadone programme, had asked for opiates at his practice.

Earlier this year, the High Court at Wellington found Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff’ wrongly ruled against Henderson.

Shroff found the doctor could not provide adequate reasons for his actions and should have only told the home’s manager.

However, the judicial review found it was not up to Henderson to prove the threat and he had told the correct person.

He was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Perhaps a reporter could chase up with Dr Henderson?

I found this comment telling:

Dr Henderson said he was standing up for the rights of the elderly, even though he could walk away now with the settlement paid for by the Medical Protection Society.

“It is a matter of protecting the elderly and it is about their human rights,” Dr Henderson said.

There seems to be a consistent thread here where the HRC is standing against the rights of the public to be protected. I believe this earlier case is far worse, as it goes against the clear ruling of the courts. But the most recent case is very disturbing too, as you have a lack of evidence seen as grounds to prosecute where it should have killed the case from the start – especially given all that’s left is the word of a known liar and pedophile.

* This characterization has been disputed.

Update: The decision  on Dr Henderson is here. He was cleared by two of the 3 “judges”, with the third taking offense with his view that drug addicts were not to be trusted to the point where she wrote a minority report. Even the majority report takes pains to clarify that they had no love for the man they cleared:

[71] There is, however, a postscript. It does not follow from the fact that we have found that Dr Henderson had reasonable grounds to believe that there was a serious and imminent threat to patients at the nursing home, that we accept and agree with all of the evidence he gave, or the matters that he regarded as being important. We did not. At several points in his evidence Dr Henderson referred to other situations he regarded as being relevant, and gave some surprising evidence to the effect that a threat of contracting the HIV might not be so serious. The complainant is entitled to know that we have reached our conclusion despite these aspects of Dr Henderson’s evidence, not because of them. The reasons for our conclusions go no further than those we have set out in this decision.

Update 2: It can’t be emphasised enough: the doctor in this case was persecuted because he rang a rest home to tell them they unknowingly had a drug addict working for them. In an organisation that’s keeping drugs on site, that’s a biggie and it boggles the mind that she was not instantly fired – not for being a drug addict, but for the blatant lie. That sort of information is not something you would withhold in such a situation.

Police Chases

In the news:

There are calls for a review of police pursuit policy following a high speed chase that ended with two men in hospital.

Speeds of 180 kilometres an hour were reached in a pursuit near Hamilton last night, moments before the fleeing car crashed.

Suspects John Koteka, 34,  and Alex Tereora, 31, are currently in Waikato Hospital under police guard.

Both men were wanted on warrants following three aggravated robberies on February 17 at the Auckland Domain and Mt Eden.

Now, I heard the other day (but can’t find the story) that any such review would be the 6th such review since 1995. Certainly this 2010 review states it is the 4th in 6 years. What’s that quote again?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

Smart guy, that Einstein.

But seriously, is it any wonder why people are killing themselves, when we tell them so often that if they can just go fast enough for long enough, the police will give up?

And why on earth do we persecute the police when criminals kill themselves and put others in harm’s way in the act of breaking the law?

See also: Keeping Stock’s take.

Fishing will no longer be tolerated

Fishing will no longer be tolerated.

No charges will be laid after two eels were killed near the Willowbank Wildlife Reserve.

The reserve called police in October after it was alerted to a picture on Facebook apparently showing two youths on the reserve grounds holding two dead longfin eels, believed to be about 70 years old….

“No offence has been committed, therefore it is not possible for police to lay charges”.

No offense. They killed unprotected wild animals, in a public space, away from anyone who might be offended. In fact, the only offense was ever going to be that they broke into the reserve – but that was always a mere assumption on the part of the staff there.

He said police “deplored” the actions of the eel captors and had spoken to the youths.

That they wasted good food is a pity. But we’ve gone way down the wrong road when fishing is considered deplorable by police.

…Willowbank manager Dale Hedgcock said staff were disappointed no charges would be laid.

“We are obviously a bit disappointed that these guys will have no consequences for what they’ve done, but there’s not a lot we can do,” he said.

They went fishing. Legally. No, there most certainly is not ”a lot we can do”. But here’s one thing: you can butt out and mind your own business!

“We really had to rely on the police and I believe they did all they could do. It’s just unfortunate that the eels had to suffer, the Willowbank staff had to suffer and the wider community has suffered too.”

Translation: When these wild animals were hunted, we tried to use the law to compensate for our hurt feelings. I do wonder myself if that attempt may land them in court.

There had been one positive outcome from the situation, Hedgcock said.

“We have been pleased by the support from the public who have said this sort of behaviour is not OK. People have realised these eels are not in abundance. They are a threatened species which need to be looked after.”

And that’s the problem. The Wildlife Reserve staff point to the eels being a threatened species. But in spite of that tag, it is legal to fish for them. Perhaps time would be better spent lobbying for legal protection, rather than persecuting those who act within the law, by using vague (and not so vague) implications that somehow they broke it.

The reserve was looking at installing security cameras.

“We will keep on this to make sure nothing similar happens again,” he said.

Note to those funding the Willowbank Wildlife Reserve. The people who receive your donations are going to install security cameras to stop people taking photos in their car park.

Wait, that makes no sense. Oh, I get it – they’re doing the whole “they’re evil criminals” thing again. Let me amend that.

Note to those funding the Willowbank Wildlife Reserve. The people who receive your donations are going to install security cameras as a PR stunt because their witch-hunt was unsuccessful.

Not to mention… well, it seems that they already have cameras. Or claim to.

.

The reserve was also working on a joint initiative with the Styx Living Laboratory Trust to develop an eel sanctuary.

“As well as that we also want people to think of Willowbank as a sanctuary itself. These eels are hand-reared and tame. They are in a sanctuary already as far as we’re concerned and should be treated that way,” Hedgcock said.

Of course, the problem here is that they tamed the eels, but left them in the wild. Meaning that the first fools who came along were able to kill them without effort.

I’m sickened by the campaign against these young men. There is no evidence, nor has there ever been any evidence, that they broke any law. They went fishing. They unknowingly caught a fish someone had been feeding. They put it on Facebook.

But the people who were feeding those fish contacted the Press, and made wild, unproven allegations that they had somehow broken the law. They had not. They implied that killing these animals was illegal. It was not.

Let’s call this what it is: a witch-hunt.

So let me leave you with question: what’s worse, going fishing or slander?

Why Binnie is wrong – from his own report

From page 22 of the report.

The only thing I can reiterate is that these five members of my family were my life. They were part of who I was. We were extremely close. We all loved each other dearly. The last thing that I could possibly have done is to take their lives. I find it difficult hurting an animal, but to take a person’s life, let alone my own family’s life is unimaginable and not only have I served 13 years in prison for doing this,

If that’s not David Bain spinning BS, I don’t know what is. First the nonsense about the loving family – when his defense was that it was anything but.

Then, it was his gun, and part of his defense was that he used it to kill animals. Yet here he is saying that he is such a gentle soul that he wouldn’t hurt a fly.

It’s incredible that he would make those statements to a judge sent to investigate, a judge that would know the facts of the case.

Even more incredible is that the judge actually put it in his report.

Law society rules Wonderful Now Posts are further Harassment of Lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and Simon Buckingham

A little bird tells me that the Law Society has dismissed complaints against  lawyer Madeleine Flannagan and lawyer Simon Buckingham.

Apparently, unlike some, the law society is able to read legal judgments and understand phrases like:

• “Ms Sperling’s assumption of the role of victim in this matter in my view cannot be justified. “
• “Lie No 4 was posted on 10 May 2012 all of which seems to point to an obsession that Ms Sperling has with Ms Brown rather than Ms Brown having an obsession with Ms Sperling as she stated in the comment “please leave me alone”. In fact it is Ms Brown who appears to have been the subject of continued attention  from Ms Sperling.”
• “Ms Sperling’s assertions that she did not intend to harass cannot be substantiated given the combative and aggressively critical tone of her blogs and given her awareness of the fact that Ms Brown and Ms Flannagan knew of the existence of the posts. That she continued to make further posts and indeed the number of posts increased in intensity once litigation had commenced is a further indication of my conclusion.”
• “At the same time I would counsel Ms Sperling to now leave Ms Brown and Ms Flannagan alone.”

Anyway, I’ve blogged about her post on Simon’s complaint – you can read that here. As I noted, she seemed in her complaint to be (among other things) seriously suggesting that it was unethical for a lawyer to be involved in a lawsuit. It must have also been a shocker to have point 5 dismissed…

Point 5, she argues that use of the “royal we” is intended to intimidate. Apparently, she’s intimidated by false plurals. I’m sure this will be immediately transferred to the “Grammar Police” subsection of the law society’s complaints board. I hear their powers are impressive, including “raising of the eyebrow” and “brisk tutting”.

It was very clear from her posts that she had no real grounds to complain.  Indeed, in the above linked post I concluded:

In short, her complaint appears to be an abuse of the professional complaints process.

And that’s apparently how the law society saw it. I’m told that the word “vexatious” was used to describe the complaint, and it was further described as a continuation of Sperlings campaign of abuse and harassment.

What a pity they can’t act on malicious complaints.

But speaking of which, I’ve hinted previously that Sperling’s online bullying is larger than just a couple of victims. There are other matters she is has been called to account for. Not sure what I should/can say but suffice to say, if she is jailed, I’ll let my readers know if I’m able to.

I’d just like to talk about a couple of other things before I conclude.

Sperling previously tried to pretend that her place of study was a state secret, even though it could easily be discovered by anyone. At the time I posted on it, I thought I’d not name her institution of learning since she seemed to consider it private. However, it’s pretty hard to believe someone wants something private when they post it on facebook for the world to see.

 

So if you have a problem with Weltech giving a recidivist online bully privileged access to vulnerable people, give ‘em a call and tell them (respectfully) that you find their ethical stance appalling. I certainly do.

But I will insert this warning. If you call WelTech you will be talking to someone who is not responsible for Sperling’s continued attendance at the school. Please be respectful to that person and stick to facts. We have all seen in recent days the results of people getting too worked up about someone appalling. It didn’t help in that situation and it certainly won’t help in this one.

Wonderful Now has been taken down for the moment. That’s a good thing. But she still presents a danger as she has never acknowledged her record of bullying, and has never said sorry to her victims.

One final thing.

I have no idea if the people at the Salvation Army Jackie attends see this. But if they do, I have this to say.

Please don’t give up on her.

 

—————————————————–

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 (her original target for harassment), 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, and a brief overview of the history of this case 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.

Voter ID debate – over.

For people who aren’t familiar, there is an ongoing debate in the US about presenting ID when voting.

The argument for is pretty straightforward: if you want to vote, you should be able to prove who you are in order to prevent fraud.

The counter-argument is less… calm and rational. Let’s let Idiot give a typical rendition with a local slant.

Which is of course the point. But it’s not just about reducing turnout generally, but about reducing turnout amongst those more likely to support the left. The blunt fact is that the poor are less likely than the rich to have the required forms of ID or be comfortable dealing with bureaucracy, and thus less likely to be able to vote under such a system. Which is exactly what National wants. This isn’t about preventing fraud – which is virtually nonexistent in New Zealand – but about disenfranchising the poor by stealth.

Get that? We shouldn’t do anything to prevent voter fraud because there is no voter fraud. But it’s not because we don’t do anything to prevent it.

The absurdity of this position has been pointed out before. For example, Project Veritas was able to walk into a voting booth and obtain Eric Holder’s voting paper, but the same people were not able to walk into a bar and get a beer without id. (And claims of racism didn’t get them very far towards inebriation.)

But this latest episode seals the deal.

Last week, opponents of voter ID laws — the easiest and most common-sense method to safeguard against identity theft at the ballot box — received a one-two punch in Pennsylvania that should put their crusade against the security measure down for the count.

On August 15, a Pennsylvania judge upheld the Commonwealth’s new law requiring one of a plethora of forms of identification — including a driver’s license, accredited school ID, government employee badge and a new voter-specific ID, among others — be used at a polling place to certify a voter is who they say they are.

The next day, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit got the ID she needed to vote despite the alleged hurdles her ACLU lawyers said stood in her way.

Viviette Applewhite took two public buses to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation office on her own. In its filing on her behalf, the ACLU insisted the elderly civil rights movement veteran whose purse was stolen years ago and lacks a birth certificate “has been unable to obtain photo identification required by Pennsylvania’s photo ID law” and “will no longer be able to vote.”

Massive. Fail.

This episode should end all arguments that voter ID is voter suppression. Applewhite’s ability to easily get an ID card is a complete repudiation of the vicious campaign of deceit against voter ID that has seen ample plays of the race card (Applewhite is black) and the age card (she is 93 and uses a wheelchair), as well as the amplification of the left’s class-warfare strategy (she is poor).

So getting a photo ID is impossible… but a 93 year old poor black woman in a wheelchair who’s ID was stolen years ago can in fact get one without assistance!

But there’s another aspect to this. A rather odvious one to you and I perhaps, but one seemingly missed by those who have spent so much effort trying to deny common sense.

Viviette Applewhite didn’t need an army of ACLU lawyers to secure her vote — but she could have used a ride. Therein lies the inherent irresponsibility of liberal voter ID complaints.

Liberals appear adept at registering people to vote. The NAACP, for instance, has a website dedicated to helping people register. Groups such as the Voter Participation Center are sending out absentee ballots to seemingly every mailing list they can find with such zeal that family pets are receiving VPC’s partially completed requests for ballots. Similar groups are devoting significant resources to educating potential voters about liberal candidates and issues. And there will undoubtedly be massive get-out-the-vote efforts in November.

Yet there never seems to be a point where potential voters are asked: “Do you know you need proper ID to vote? Can we help you get that ID?”

Apparently it’s easier to launch an expensive lawsuit to claim that someone’s rights are being violated (when clearly they are not) than it is to offer help to people who might find the law less than convenient.

Anyone for a drink?

Simon Buckingham, Lawyer, vs. Jacqueline Sperling, Liar

 

I have noted previously [link] that Jacqueline Sperling tried (and continues to try) to ruin the life of lawyer Madeleine Flannagan, for having the temerity to request she stop harassing and defaming a rape victim in her spare time. But a few weeks ago, I realised that there was another player that I had not paid much attention to – the lawyer hired after Sperling went off the deep end. His name is Simon Buckingham, and he is a lawyer at Buckingham Law.

Before I wrote this, I did a quick google search. I came up with this.

Smith-Voorkamp was filmed by a television crew at a court sitting in the Christchurch Police Station watch house, and was described as “the face of looting”, before family revealed his mental disability.

Lawyer Simon Buckingham earlier said on the night of his arrest, Smith-Voorkamp was beaten by two officers and taunted by New Zealand Army personnel.

At his first appearance in court, Smith-Voorkamp had a black eye.

I think it speaks volumes about a man when he will stand up for someone the entire country has judged, at a time when the country is not interested in listening to facts that don’t fit. That’s a level of integrity that is lacking in this country. It’s a level of integrity that’s lacking in any country, at any time.

But it seems that Simon Buckingham has it.

Well, thanks to Jackie’s habit of posting bits on the internet, we now know just how nice a guy he is.

See, when he was handed this big fat mess, he thought he’d sit down and have a chat over a cup of coffee*.

Clearly a good idea in normal circumstances, but when Jackie Sperling is involved… well, let’s just say there’s a reason why the moniker “LMC” stuck so quickly even though I stopped using it here.

Here’s what she says about it.

Being a Christian – i found Mr. Buckingham bringing up my faith in God in a conversation regarding a threat of legal proceedings about to be brought against me to be using my faith in God against me. This came across as very unprofessional, insulting, and passive aggressive. I took this as a threat to my faith and that people would not believe that i am a Christian if i did not do whatever Mr Buckingham wanted, or agree to whatever he wanted. It is my view that Mr. Buckingham attempted to use my religious beliefs against me in order to gain a favourable resolution for his clients.

Mr Buckingham has ignored the fact that he sent me a separate letter asking me out for coffee to discuss what i should and shouldn’t be able to write about on my blog. A lawyer asking someone out that he has been hired to take to court is unprofessional and amounts to misconduct.

Let’s break this down.

She considered bringing up her own, publically professed faith:

• “very unprofessional”
• “insulting”
• “passive aggressive”
• “a threat to my faith”
• a way of black-mailing her into doing Simon’s every whim
• a way of getting “favourable resolution for his clients”

Isn’t it horrible that a lawyer would try and get a favourable resolution for his clients? Or maybe that’s his job.

Isn’t it horrible that he’s suggesting she obeys the law as he requests? Or maybe she should obey the law regardless of who’s asking.

Isn’t it horrible that he made a threat to her faith? Except he didn’t ask (let alone demand) she abandon it, he asked her to embrace it by acting consistently with it.

Insane.

In a twist of irony, her ramblings are partially correct – the way she has acted towards Mr Buckingham has meant a lot of Christians are forced to severely doubt her claimed faith in Christ. But that is for her to live with – I am not going to dwell on the point today.

Part of her reaction to the case as a whole was to place a complaint before the Law Society regarding the conduct of all the lawyers involved. Reading between the lines, it seems that these complaints boil down to her trying to re-litigate the case before the law society, as well as complaining that lawyers did what lawyers do.

For example, staying up late preparing papers for court the next day. Apparently, sending emails in the middle of the night is a serious offence against humanity or something.

Anyway, after she placed her complaint, he replied to it, and she then blogged on that reply and made some denials.

You can read that post here.

It’s a silly post. Sperling has made a habit of posting edited material, but usually it’s tricky to tell it is edited. But in this case, she’s posted “Denial on Point x”, while the reader is left wondering what she is denying.

She has also posted various papers, which as a non-lawyer I’m guessing are not for public consumption (Law Society complaints are private). This is a long standing habit of hers, and I have no doubt that one day soon it’s going to bite her in the backside very, very hard. (Oh look, some of the emails actually state that they’re privileged.)

But one can guess what her complaints are, by her replies.

Points 1 & 2 appear to be complaints that he said he was acting when he wasn’t, and had filed proceedings when he hadn’t. Given the known integrity and legal knowledge of both parties, I’d say with some confidence she’s at best flogging a dead horse based because she doesn’t understand some details, and at worst she’s making the entire thing up.

Regardless, it strikes me as ridiculously pedantic even if is true.

Points 3 is dealt with above. Somehow I don’t think the law society is going to care that someone’s faith was mentioned by a lawyer.

Point 4, pretty much as points 1 & 2 but with the added bonus that she was upset(!!) around exams(!!) and scared(!!) she might actually be held to account by the courts.

Point 5, she argues that use of the “royal we” is intended to intimidate. Apparently, she’s intimidated by false plurals. I’m sure this will be immediately transferred to the “Grammar Police” subsection of the law society’s complaints board. I hear their powers are impressive, including “raising of the eyebrow” and “brisk tutting”.

Point 6 & 7, apparently a criminal complaint was put on the table at one point. She claims that this is really bad, because at the time she was pretending to offer a settlement. (Sadly, the police didn’t act.)

Point 8, she argues that “Their prolific amount of emails to me was distressing and for someone who has no idea regarding legal matters it was all consuming.” Apparently it’s really evil for a lawyer to email someone who’s being sued but refuses to hire a lawyer.

She concludes by whining that she won so she should get her way in all things, and that he tried to get her kicked off the internet. By the latter she means that he took her to court to stop her on-line bullying campaign.

Yes, she is seriously stating to the Law Society that it is professional misconduct for a Lawyer to be involved in a lawsuit.

Finally, she tries to gloss over the fact she tried to use the use this professional complaint to leverage her position during the period she pretended to offer a settlement.

In short, her complaint appears to be an abuse of the professional complaints process.

If anything, her own material shows Simon Buckingham to be exactly what I stated he was at first – a man of immense integrity, who has done nothing other than oppose one of this countries nastiest on-line bullies.

I rest my case.

* I’ve noticed that many people take the assumption that, because this situation blew up, the lawyers involved were somehow heavy handed and did not take all reasonable steps to try and sort it out, outside of the court room. I hope this post helps some people understand that this is not the case, and that Sperling’s usual response towards friendly offers of mediation was to viciously attack. Perhaps sometime I’ll be able to write a post examining that aspect more closely  - we’ll see.

———————————–

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, lawyer Simon Buckingham, and Ms Brown (her original target for harassment), as well as 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.

Lawyers and Harassment

This really stood out in Aaron Worthing’s description of his recent hearing to remove an illegal (and utterly dishonest) restraining order:

Of course the highlight of the hearing came when my attorney sought to cross examine Kimberlin.  Of course he gave Kimberlin an epic cross-examination back on April 11, but today he was more focused but equally effective.  Interestingly, he didn’tgo through the entirety of Kimberlin’s criminal history, or indeed any of it.  But he did ask Kimberlin about when I was SWATted, about a week and a half ago and Kimberlin went into a rage at the suggestion.  He called it a “despicable” question, falsely claiming that I and others had blamed him for it “without a shred of evidence” (in fact when I wrote about the SWATting, and talked about it on the radio, I was careful not to blame him because I can’t prove he had anything to do with it).  But he was absolutely furious at even the simple question of whether or not he was involved in it, shaking his finger at my attorney in rage and saying to him, “You’re harassing me” by even asking the question.  That is, a lawyer asking a person a question in court is harassment, according to Kimberlin.

It’s interesting to compare and contract the two cases.

Both Kimberlin and Sperling:

• Furiously claim harassment when lawyers simply do their job
• Lash out at anyone else who gets involved
• Try to use the law to destroy other people
• Lie as readily as most people tell the truth
• Have previously been in trouble before the courts
• Have won court victories having presented false information to the court
• Present altered versions of reality to their supporters
• Made their name by defaming a famous person
• Are trying to destroy the carrers of ethical lawyers who have annoyed them

But they also contrast a lot too:

• Kimberlin wants people to stop telling the truth, Sperling wants the right to keep lying
• Kimberlin uses proxies and sock puppets, Sperling goes on the internet herself
• Kimberlin made his name when he lied about Quayle. Sperling came into the public eye when she threatened to tell the truth about her affair with Laws
• Kimberlin is trying to shut down free speech in a country that values it highly. Sperling is getting away with nasty lies in a country that is more measured about it.

Anyway, if you haven’t already go and have a read about Brett Kimberlin over at Aaron’s Blog.

Sperling’s Testable Claim – Part1?

Someone commented at Peter Aranyi’s blog:

Brown has been subjected to 18 months worth of intermittent blog posts, a total of just under 50 and countless comments, accusing her of stalking, making fake rape complaints, inviting rape, faking suicide, attempting suicide to get attention, acting like a bunny boiler, abusing police time, committing perjury, bringing vexatious law suits, being a poor employee. Her photo, private correspondence, links to her employer’s website, a hand-written note from her 10 year old daughter indicating her upset state at her mother’s suicide attempt, and an offer to anyone who emailed to be provided with her suicide note were published on Sperling’s blog.

Peter made a reply, and later appended it thus:

UPDATE: Jacqueline Sperling takes issue with the truthfulness of a number of the assertions in this anonymous comment, including (but not limited to) the description of the number of blog posts she is alleged to have authored about the plaintiffs and what those posts or comments contained.

I can’t see anywhere where Sperling herself said that, but there’s no reason to believe that it’s a lie.

Well! this means we have an objective claim to test now, doesn’t it? Of course the “countless comments” is hyperbole, but we can certainly count posts, and see if there are posts that contain the above.

Unfortunately, we don’t have an alternative number of posts that Sperling will admit to. But given the objection is to “just under 50″, it seems reasonable to assume that she would also object to 40, and probably even 35. I have no idea how many she thinks she has written, but even 20 would be more than the one written and MandM – which did not name Sperling, was carefully written and has since been removed.

I would just like to thank the judge and attack the lawyers he praised

I noticed this in the Brown v Sperling decision today.

[222] Some of those posts are distressing and are made knowing that their content would distress. [snip] In addition comments had been made of a derogatory nature regarding Ms Flannagan’s religious beliefs and her competence as a law practitioner which have no substance and are clearly designed to hurt. I am satisfied that the comments were made in such circumstances that the contents of them were clearly offensive.

Recall Sperling’s response the that same ruling?

Simon Buckingham and Madeleine Flannagan should hand in their LLBs and go back to Law school. This kind of abusive and vexatious litigation is not what our courts are for.

With Jackie Sperling, irony comes standard.

Oh, speaking of which:

If someone had accused me of murdering a family member – and i was innocent – nothing would keep me off that stand or from telling the world – and the court – the truth.

Funny what slips out, isn’t it?

———————————

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.