International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Archive for the ‘Crime & Law’ Category

Zimmerman – “thank goodness someone caught that on video”

I missed this earlier. I really should spend more time reading PJ Media!

In one particularly brilliant line of questioning, O’Mara asked if there was anything in Zimmerman’s words that would suggest an uncaring attitude. Serino replied: “No.” O’Mara asked if Zimmerman, during his first interview with Serino at 12:05 a.m. on February 27, 2012, was ever “cavalier,” like: “Can I go home now? Are we done here?” Serino replied that Zimmerman was not.

This is particularly ironic in that Rachel Jeantel, upon learning she would need to return for a second day of testimony, behaved exactly that way and spoke words to that effect.

But remember, criticizing her is racist.

Serino acknowledged he was under great pressure to complete the investigation, and that it caused him to proceed more quickly than he liked. Surprisingly, he volunteered:

In this particular case, he [Zimmerman] could have been considered a victim too.

One of the week’s most destructive revelations for the prosecution occurred just before the court adjourned for the first day. In an attempt to trick Zimmerman, Serino suggested that Martin’s cellphone might have recorded video of everything that happened. He told Zimmerman: “If it’s there and you haven’t told us, it will be very bad for you.” The cell phone was dead, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. Zimmerman immediately replied:

Thank God. I was hoping someone videotaped it.

In a brilliant bit of timing, O’Mara’s last question of the day, the last thing the jury heard and would surely remember, was:

“Do you think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?”

Serino: “Yes.”

The latter statement was struck from the record the next day.


Zimmerman Trial Day 3

Just reading the day 3 report now.

Check this out for a credible witness:

More objectively, however, was testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case. On at least three separate occasions Sudyka referred to the “three shots” fired by Zimmerman–”pop, pop, pop”. No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.

She testified that it was while she was on the 911 call with police that the shot was fired, sticking to that assertion vigorously. In fact, the 911 recording was played in court–yes, every single 16 minutes of it–and no shot was audible.

She also described the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the moment the shot was fired as being such that the bullet could only have struck Martin in the back (that is, she describes him as laying face down on the ground at that moment, with Zimmerman above him). We know, of course, that Martin was shot in the center chest area, right over the heart, and the bullet did not over-penetrate.

You have to wonder why the state ever thought it was a good idea to put her on the stand. It sounds like they’ve done major damage to their case.

Things didn’t get better with the next witness.

The second line of attack is that her sudden ability to differentiate between the two people has emerged only today in court. In none of her prior statements, including one the evening of the attack, a later statement to investigators, and depositions to both the State and the defense, had she ever mentioned this ability to determine that it was Zimmerman who was on top. Her reason for not mentioning it previously? Nobody had ever asked her.

It seems that the media bias has actually helped the defense. The media portrayed Martin as a young lad, much smaller than the grown Zimmerman. But in actual fact, Martin was taller than Zimmerman, meaning that testimony has come from the government that the “bigger guy” was on top in the fight – which means, objectively speaking that the defense narrative is correct according to that witness.

Next up was Rachel Jeantel, of famed Dee-Dee fame, and the once-upon-a-time purported 16-year-old girlfriend of Trayvon Martin (but who turned out to be neither 16-years-old nor his girlfriend).

So how did she perform?

In summary, Jeantel testified that she was in communication with Martin in the minutes leading up to the confrontation. She testified that he described being under observation by Zimmerman, then being followed by Zimmerman, managing to break contact and then being under observation again, and finally a brief verbal exchange before the phone connection was lost.

Anyone familiar with the backstory of Dee-Dee knows there is more than adequate fuel for real fireworks on cross-examination, but West handled her more or less with kid gloves. It is my sense, however, that he is preparing to bore in more aggressively tomorrow when he continues her cross. This seems particularly likely because at the point the Court recessed for the day Jeantel had begun to resist acknowledging prior sworn statements and West was preparing to spool up the audio recordings of those interviews to use in cross.

As far as I can see, there’s not a single “off the street” witness who has much credibility. Which makes sense when you consider this is a trial that was initiated by a mob demand, not the facts from an objective investigation.

Not the statement of the Adam Morehu Family

Wouldn’t it be nice if family statements after shootings were more like this?

Update: If you’re the sort of person who thinks that families should attack the police after having one of their members caught red-handed and armed in commission of a crime, you really won’t like what I have to say here – at all.

I come from a background where, if you get caught, you recognise that you shouldn’t have committed the crime in the first place. And if your actions have consequences, you own those consequences.

I call that being an adult. But that’s just me.


Today, our family is grieving the loss of a con, father, partner, nephew, mokopuna and friend; Adam Te Rata Charles Morehu as a result of a police shooting.

We do not yet understand all the circumstances by which Adam has lost his life, and to that end we will be meeting with the police in the next couple of days to receive more information related to their on-going investigation.

However, some facts are clear.


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 herePlease 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.


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 herePlease do not place abusive comments on her blog, phone her, or approach her or her family as she will blame this on her victims.

Tag Cloud