[BLURB]

David Butler, on 23 June 2014 - 09:46 PM, said:

oh dear Fran
worried little boy i see another post of slander and abuse
realized ya overstepped de mark and now cant handle the ending thats arriving]
why cant you publish facts instead of being an ABUSER
After all mate thats a why i here showing the folk just how ya act
If you consider that the Bomb Plot and Thomas and the tread of thomas content ,shouldnt been a subject in here then tell us instead of HIDING YOUR ASSOCIATION WITH Thomas the BOMBER
Thats what piss's ya off now otherwise yad not be the prat and abuser that you show yourself to be
Those post were removed prior to the case [and given to the police as they were published] as it was something that pre publicized the evidence and we cant have that now can we
well not from me but you miller weal hollis etc didnt seem to care whether the public trial was held on alan before the judge heard it all
dumb and dumber you lot

Dave

David

Due to the excessively large number of aggressive postings (slander, abuse, threats, intimidation, accusation and suchlike) by you that has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject matter of this ACCforum, you and those who interact with you were provided an exclusive environment where this can occur so as not to clutter up serious minded persons discussing grown up ACC related topics.

I remind members to use the "Multi-quote" feature next to the "Reply" feature at the bottom right corner which copies the irrelevant and offending interruptions to the otherwise meaningful ACCforum threads, then open up a response in the members only section of this ACCforum under the title "David Butler's Repository - This is a "Playpen" established to contain Dave's argy-bargy" and dump it in using the "Reply" button. At this point you may wish to make your response to the offending passage that you have just "transferred".

This will then keep all David Butler's argy-bargy material and open slander, abuse, threats, intimidation, accusation and suchlike out of the Public's view and into one (members only) thread in an easy to read coherent style. Also it makes it easier reading for our Legal representatives and any Court Official.

David Butler's Repository - This is a "Playpen" to contain Dave's Cyber Trolling argy-bargy
http://accforum.org/...ers-repository/

Have a great day.

Fran Van Helmond aka BLURB
acc-claimants.info

[Tomcat]

David Butler, on 24 June 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

Funny that is now KENNETH
THE EVIDENCE IS ALREADY IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICE Been there for a long time in your own writing plus the goods of fact to show what ya did
(must be all good then FOOL...)
As for what i have in addition-Some already there as well and the rest well ya dont know what it is so as usual you always try and tell others that you know what others do or have(you have 0 FOOL)

Your really just a WEE BOY RUNNING RIUND LIKE A SCRAED RAT(pussy cats eat rats)
HOPING IT WILL ALL GO AWAY INTIMIDATION TACTICS
They just DONT work against me Kenny... (sure looks like it is... FOOL) far to tough to be concerned about your threats />
You started something that has run amok on ya and ya cant manage ya own self made mess of DECIET and LIES
how sad for you

Dave

/>/>/>...LIAR...
Your delusional diarrhea is really boring... There no point in you ooozing your garbage all over this site as,
All you do is reinforce the opinion of all genuine members, that you are a full on nutter.

[David Butler]

Fran VAN HELMOND
YOUR POSTING IS NOT REALLY WORTH A RESPONSE
But a short one here for ya,
My data is always backed up by documentation -OTHERWISE I'D NOT STATE WHAT I DO Franny boy
so if you consider that against you to be slander etc then please sue me at once or run off to the police gain with a complaint
The MANY number of times you and your other many member names have been banned from posting in this forum would be the mark of who is the cyber troll
AND THAT earns you the name fran

Kenneth Miller
Please yourself
the documentation within here the courts and of course laudafinem shows otherwise
you are i some deluded sort of land of self believe that your a genuine member
IF YOU WERE
THEN YOUD NOT HAVE BEEN SACKED FROM THE TRUSTED POSITION OF A MODERATOR
That alone speaks volumes of your genuineness of NOTHING
Davey

[Rosey]

No body believes you.

David Butler, on 25 June 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Fran VAN HELMOND
YOUR POSTING IS NOT REALLY WORTH A RESPONSE
But a short one here for ya,
My data is always backed up by documentation -OTHERWISE I'D NOT STATE WHAT I DO Franny boy
so if you consider that against you to be slander etc then please sue me at once or run off to the police gain with a complaint
The MANY number of times you and your other many member names have been banned from posting in this forum would be the mark of who is the cyber troll
AND THAT earns you the name fran

Kenneth Miller
Please yourself
the documentation within here the courts and of course laudafinem shows otherwise
you are i some deluded sort of land of self believe that your a genuine member
IF YOU WERE
THEN YOUD NOT HAVE BEEN SACKED FROM THE TRUSTED POSITION OF A MODERATOR
That alone speaks volumes of your genuineness of NOTHING
Davey

David Butler gave Dermott Nottingham access to Privileged Information obtained in the Dislosure to Alan Thomas for his criminal court case. (Kenneth Miller's Criminal convictions) You're on a video giving Dermott Nottingham access to an account which contained a copy of priveledged information. That very info is subsequently posted on the Nottinghams fan site laudafinem.
Who gives out account details?

[Rosey]

No one believes your LIAR...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cQEX3xIg9js

Tomcat, on 24 June 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

LIAR...
Your delusional diarrhea is really boring... There no point in you ooozing your garbage all over this site as,
All you do is reinforce the opinion of all genuine members, that you are a full on nutter.

Head injuries can make people behave like that.

Cognitive and behavioral sequelae

Irritability and aggression are probably the most common behavioral consequences of TBI. However, it can be difficult to know the extent to which brain injury is a factor in aggressive behavior. Many patients who have sustained a TBI were prone to antisocial behavior before the injury. It is sometimes argued that because a behavior is sensitive to psychological cues, it is not the result of a brain injury; however, this is not correct. For example, just because extreme aggression is seen only in the context of the family and never at work does not necessarily mean that the aggressive behavior is unrelated to a brain injury.

Teasing out the role of brain injury can be difficult and usually relies on a good objective history of the behavior before and after the injury, along with an assessment of the likelihood of significant brain injury, which depends in part on the location of the injury. Cold, goal-directed aggression is seen in patients with psychopathic personality disorder, whereas the aggression of the brain-injured patient is usually impulsive and quite out of proportion to the trigger. The latter, when severe, may be described as episodic dyscontrol syndrome. But in practice, it is not easy to discern the origins of aggression (constitutional vs brain injury) from its phenomenology.

In patients with severe brain injury, a typical clinical picture consists of significant cognitive impairment, particularly in the domains of attention and concentration, psychomotor speed, memory, and executive function, as well as fatigue and problems with motivation. The patient is likely to be self-centered, thoughtless, and crude in social relationships. He or she may show disinhibited behavior that is often sexual. Agitation and repetitive purposeless behaviors may also be present. Lability of mood is common; patients are often described as childish or moody.

- See more at: http://www.psychiatr...h.x8bzsRlu.dpuf

[David Butler]

Rosey, on 25 June 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

No body believes you.






David Butler gave Dermott Nottingham access to Privileged Information obtained in the Dislosure to Alan Thomas for his criminal court case. (Kenneth Miller's Criminal convictions) You're on a video giving Dermott Nottingham access to an account which contained a copy of priveledged information. That very info is subsequently posted on the Nottinghams fan site laudafinem.
Who gives out account details?

and what ya gonna do about it

fuck all as ya no balls nuthin but fuken tossers
dave

[Tomcat]

David Butler, on 25 June 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

and what ya gonna do about it

fuck all as ya no balls nuthin but fuken tossers
dave

/>/>/>...  troll1.jpg (205.56K)
Number of downloads: 4

[jaffa]

Yes tomcat. That troll is talking about himself.

[Campy]

Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists
A new study shows that internet trolls really are just terrible human beings. Published on September 18, 2014 by Jennifer Golbeck, Ph.D. in Your Online Secrets



Mila Supinskaya/ShutterstockIn this month's issue of Personality and Individual Differences, a study was published that confirms what we all suspected: Internet trolls are horrible people.

Let's start by getting our definitions straight: An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.

What kind of person would do this? Some Canadian researchers decided to find out.


Related Links

• Are You an Internet Troll?
• Beware of the Trolls
• Your First Amendment Right to be Mean
• Russell Banks' New Novel Explores Sex Offender Banishment
• Deleting the Blog Bully

They conducted two online studies with over 1,200 people, giving personality tests to each subject along with a survey about their Internet commenting behavior. They were looking for evidence that linked trolling with the "Dark Tetrad" of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism.

They found that Dark Tetrad scores were highest among people who said trolling was their favorite Internet activity. To get an idea of how much more prevalent these traits were among Internet trolls, see this figure from the paper:







Look at how low the Dark Tetrad scores are for everyone except the trolls! Their scores for all four traits soar on the chart. The relationship between trolling and the Dark Tetrad is so significant that the authors write in their paper:

"... the associations between sadism and GAIT (Global Assessment of Internet Trolling) scores were so strong that it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists." [emphasis added]

Trolls truly enjoy making you feel bad. To quote the authors once more (because this is a truly quotable article): "Both trolls and sadists feel sadistic glee at the distress of others. Sadists just want to have fun ... and the Internet is their playground!"

The next time you encounter a troll online, remember:

• These trolls are some truly difficult people.
• It is your suffering that brings them pleasure, so the best thing you can do is ignore them.

not their victim, on 31 May 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

been reported on several occasions...

so whoever the admin currently is.....

is not keeping up with, or ignoring genuine complaints.....

and will not tweak my settings to be able to post up valuable documents!

[David Butler]

Rosey, on 25 June 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

David Butler gave Dermott Nottingham access to Privileged Information obtained in the Dislosure to Alan Thomas for his criminal court case. (Kenneth Miller's Criminal convictions) You're on a video giving Dermott Nottingham access to an account which contained a copy of priveledged information. That very info is subsequently posted on the Nottinghams fan site laudafinem.
Who gives out account details?


'David Butler' timestamp='1403690282' post='185298']

and what ya gonna do about it

fuck all as ya no balls nuthin but fuken tossers
dave

STILL Having problems there Rosey
So what ya gonna do about it then>>>>>>>
there is fuk all ya can do.
get with the program rosey
youve LOST

davey

[Rosey]

Now we know who the trolls are.

Tomcat, on 26 June 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

... troll1.jpg

Speaking of losers: http://www.nzlii.org...C/2014/211.html

...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
AT AUCKLAND
UNDER
Decision No. [2014] NZACC 211
The Accident Compensation Act 2001
(the Act)
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under Section 151 of the Act
BETWEEN
AND
PBONNER
(ACR 711111 & 712/11)
Appellant
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION
CORPORATION
Respondent
Heard: At Wellington, 4 September 2014
Court: Judge J A Smith
Appearances: D G Nottingham for P Bonner
I McLachlan for the Corporation
Date: 11 September 2014
DECISION OF JUDGE J A SMITH
A. The Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the Corporation's letter of 23
May 2011.
B. The letter dated 18 August 2011 is not before this Court. Mr Nottingham
accepts that this should be proceeded with by a complaint under the
Code of Claimant's Rights (the Code) or potential review proceedings in
the High Court.
C. The Court notes its concerns about the issue of representation, but these
matters are intended to be addressed in the first instance through Code
complaints, and if necessary in superior courts.
D. In the circumstances the Court can make no orders for costs or require
the reviewer to do so (ACR712/11).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal to a decision of the Review Authority dated 24 October
2011 refusing jurisdiction in respect of a decision letter dated 23 May 2011, which
reads:
On 18th May 2011 ACC received your consent for Advantage Advocacy
Limited, its agents, assigns, and employees to act on your behalf.
This consent will be added to your file, however this letter is to advise you
that ACC will not be bound by this consent. If you would like an advocate to
act on your behalf you will need to confirm the advocate by name. The
consent received on 18th May 2011 is too broad.
[2] The question is whether one can review a letter under the Act. The appeal
alleges a breach of the Code and it is therefore justiciable by way of a complaint
under the Code procedure and then review to a review officer. Section 149(3)
explicitly provides that such decisions are not justiciable in the District Court.
The real issue
[3] The real issue that Mr Nottingham has is that the Corporation has refused to
allow him to represent Mr Bonner. When I look through the Corporation file I see
that a letter dated 18 August 2011 states inter alia, after listing all of the members of
Mr Nottingham's business:
As you are aware ACC do not recognise Mr Dermot Nottingham in the role
of advocate for ACC clients. This means that ACC will not be bound to this
consent for Mr Dermot Nottingham.
[4] Mr Nottingham tells me that that is his real complaint and that he considers
that the Corporation has restricted Mr Bonner's proper choice of advocate and that
this is a breach of the Code.
2
[5] The Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the letter of 23 May 2011. That
letter merely required the identification of the individual people acting. The letter of
18 August 2011 may be another matter, but it is not the subject of any application for
review. The proper course of action is for a complaint to be made under the Code
and then, if dissatisfied with the outcome of that complaint, a review can be made.
Commentary
[6] I do note the apparent attempt to restrict the public's choice of advocate in
this case. Mr Nottingham referred to the case of Jackson v ACe as to
circumstances where the Court might intervene. He acknowledges for current
purposes, this matter has not been raised in this review and the proper course is to
make a complaint under the Code and if necessary take the matter to review.
[7] One would have thought there is a right for a person to choose any advocate
they wish, unless constrained by the statutory provisions themselves. That matter
would probably only be remedial in a superior Court. Nevertheless, it appears that
the Corporation have provided the mechanism for resolution of such disputes through
the Code and complaints procedure.
OUTCOME
[8] Accordingly the Court finds it has no jurisdiction to detennine this appeal,
nor does it have the jurisdiction as to costs or to order the reviewer to make an order
for costs. That being the case, the proper course is to allow the real complaint, being
the letter of 26 August 2011, to proceed through the correct complaints procedure, if
Mr Nottingham wishes to do so.
Costs
[9] There can be no order for costs (ACR712/11).
SIGNED at AUCKLAND this day of September 2014
I AI 483/2
3

[Rosey]

David Butler, on 11 October 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

STILL Having problems there Rosey
So what ya gonna do about it then>>>>>>>
there is fuk all ya can do.
get with the program rosey
youve LOST

davey

[hukildaspida]

One and the same Robert/ Earle Mckinney?

Businessman tries to involve MPs in High Court case
6:50 PM Monday Apr 13, 2015

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11432020

Save
Like on Facebook
Twitter 0
Post on LinkedIn 0
+1 on Google+ 0

Banking
Commercial Property
Justice System
...
National
Property

Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. Photo / File Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. Photo / File

A real estate company owner in a dispute with an agent over use of a brand name has tried to have two Members of Parliament give evidence in the case.

The case between Dermot Nottingham and Auckland agent Martin Honey is currently under appeal to the High Court after Mr Nottingham's complaint to the Real Estate Agents Authority and subsequent appeal were dismissed.

The dispute arose after Mr Nottingham's company Property Bank Realtor Limited bought a Remax franchise in 2009 previously operated by Mr Honey.

Mr Nottingham claimed that Mr Honey continued to operate a website with Remax branding after the sale.

After he made complaint to the authority, Mr Honey made his own complaint about Mr Nottingham's conduct.

That prompted a complaint from Mr Nottingham, his brother Phillip Nottingham, and Property Bank Realtor director Robert McKinney, that Mr Honey's complaint was false and dishonest.

The authority's complaints assessment committee considered the complaints and decided to take no further action.

Mr Nottingham's appeal against that decision was also dismissed.

He has now appealed to the High Court, alleging the tribunal acted "corruptly, dishonestly, and immorally", and dishonestly misreported the evidence before it.

In an interlocutory judgement, Justice Edwin Wylie dealt with a number of applications by Mr Nottingham, including a request that a full bench of the High Court hear the appeal, which was rejected.

Mr Nottingham also sought to call MPs Nathan Guy and Jackie Blue to give evidence, claiming that Mr Honey had talked to Mrs Blue about the matter, who had in turn told Mr Guy, who appointed the members of the tribunal.

Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. "Whether or not Mr Honey spoke to Mrs Blue, and what actions Mrs Blue did or did not take, will simply not be relevant to the key issue on the appeal."

According to the earlier tribunal's appeal decision, Mr Honey said there had been no intention to trade off the Remax brand. The substantive appeal will be heard in June.

- NZME.

Email
Print

[MINI]

hukildaspida, on 28 April 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

One and the same Robert/ Earle Mckinney?

Businessman tries to involve MPs in High Court case
6:50 PM Monday Apr 13, 2015

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11432020

Save
Like on Facebook
Twitter 0
Post on LinkedIn 0
+1 on Google+ 0

Banking
Commercial Property
Justice System
...
National
Property

Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. Photo / File Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. Photo / File

A real estate company owner in a dispute with an agent over use of a brand name has tried to have two Members of Parliament give evidence in the case.

The case between Dermot Nottingham and Auckland agent Martin Honey is currently under appeal to the High Court after Mr Nottingham's complaint to the Real Estate Agents Authority and subsequent appeal were dismissed.

The dispute arose after Mr Nottingham's company Property Bank Realtor Limited bought a Remax franchise in 2009 previously operated by Mr Honey.

Mr Nottingham claimed that Mr Honey continued to operate a website with Remax branding after the sale.

After he made complaint to the authority, Mr Honey made his own complaint about Mr Nottingham's conduct.

That prompted a complaint from Mr Nottingham, his brother Phillip Nottingham, and Property Bank Realtor director Robert McKinney, that Mr Honey's complaint was false and dishonest.

The authority's complaints assessment committee considered the complaints and decided to take no further action.

Mr Nottingham's appeal against that decision was also dismissed.

He has now appealed to the High Court, alleging the tribunal acted "corruptly, dishonestly, and immorally", and dishonestly misreported the evidence before it.

In an interlocutory judgement, Justice Edwin Wylie dealt with a number of applications by Mr Nottingham, including a request that a full bench of the High Court hear the appeal, which was rejected.

Mr Nottingham also sought to call MPs Nathan Guy and Jackie Blue to give evidence, claiming that Mr Honey had talked to Mrs Blue about the matter, who had in turn told Mr Guy, who appointed the members of the tribunal.

Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. "Whether or not Mr Honey spoke to Mrs Blue, and what actions Mrs Blue did or did not take, will simply not be relevant to the key issue on the appeal."

According to the earlier tribunal's appeal decision, Mr Honey said there had been no intention to trade off the Remax brand. The substantive appeal will be heard in June.

- NZME.

Email
Print

Thanks for that Spider. It is a bit old newsy though isn't it? No doubt interesting all the same.

Cheers

Mini

[greg]

MINI, on 28 April 2015 - 05:06 PM, said:

Thanks for that Spider. It is a bit old newsy though isn't it? No doubt interesting all the same.

Cheers

Mini

There maybe a court case shortly around these claims . thanks Janice.

[hukildaspida]

Off topic here as per previous poster #155.

Have you had a name & gender change Greg now that you are signing yourself off as Janice?

greg, on 28 April 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:

There maybe a court case shortly around these claims . thanks Janice.

[Rosey]

David Butler, on 21 June 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Basically says it all there Campy
Do you NOT have enough nouse or brain power to understand what your listening to there
Seems not which is why ya in the pickle jar ya been placed in

davey

Snoopy, hardwired etc is brain damaged

ROFLMAO

[Rosey]

Are you Janice?

greg, on 28 April 2015 - 05:12 PM, said:

There maybe a court case shortly around these claims . thanks Janice.

[Rosey]

Is Greg really Janice and not the Agent Orange deranged vietnam vet?

hukildaspida, on 28 April 2015 - 05:52 PM, said:

Off topic here as per previous poster #155.

Have you had a name & gender change Greg now that you are signing yourself off as Janice?

[Rosey]

Blogger on breaching name suppression charges gets name suppression
Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 11:54 am, April 10th, 2015 - 67 comments
Categories: blogs, crime, journalism, law, suppression orders, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: name suppression

You may have to read the headline twice. And whoever he is should hand in his blogger’s union card. From the Herald:

A blogger accused of breaching a high-profile name suppression has been granted name suppression himself.

The 51-year-old appeared in Auckland District Court today facing two charges of contravening suppression orders made by Justice Helen Winkelmann – the former chief High Court judge, newly appointed to the Court of Appeal.

The Auckland-based blogger, who writes about corruption in New Zealand, is also charged with five counts of criminal harassment.

The complainants include a politician, civil servants, a real estate agent and the former partner of an Auckland businessman – all of whom feature prominently on his website.

It is alleged that both in August and December last year, the defendant named and posted photographs of two teens involved in a high-profile attack that left another teenager dead.

Their names and images, which were specifically suppressed by Justice Winkelmann at sentencing in the High Court at Auckland, are still up on the blog.

hukildaspida, on 28 April 2015 - 04:20 PM, said:

One and the same Robert/ Earle Mckinney?

Businessman tries to involve MPs in High Court case
6:50 PM Monday Apr 13, 2015

http://www.nzherald....jectid=11432020

Save
Like on Facebook
Twitter 0
Post on LinkedIn 0
+1 on Google+ 0

Banking
Commercial Property
Justice System
...
National
Property

Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. Photo / File Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. Photo / File

A real estate company owner in a dispute with an agent over use of a brand name has tried to have two Members of Parliament give evidence in the case.

The case between Dermot Nottingham and Auckland agent Martin Honey is currently under appeal to the High Court after Mr Nottingham's complaint to the Real Estate Agents Authority and subsequent appeal were dismissed.

The dispute arose after Mr Nottingham's company Property Bank Realtor Limited bought a Remax franchise in 2009 previously operated by Mr Honey.

Mr Nottingham claimed that Mr Honey continued to operate a website with Remax branding after the sale.

After he made complaint to the authority, Mr Honey made his own complaint about Mr Nottingham's conduct.

That prompted a complaint from Mr Nottingham, his brother Phillip Nottingham, and Property Bank Realtor director Robert McKinney, that Mr Honey's complaint was false and dishonest.

The authority's complaints assessment committee considered the complaints and decided to take no further action.

Mr Nottingham's appeal against that decision was also dismissed.

He has now appealed to the High Court, alleging the tribunal acted "corruptly, dishonestly, and immorally", and dishonestly misreported the evidence before it.

In an interlocutory judgement, Justice Edwin Wylie dealt with a number of applications by Mr Nottingham, including a request that a full bench of the High Court hear the appeal, which was rejected.

Mr Nottingham also sought to call MPs Nathan Guy and Jackie Blue to give evidence, claiming that Mr Honey had talked to Mrs Blue about the matter, who had in turn told Mr Guy, who appointed the members of the tribunal.

Judge Wylie said no evidence from the MPs could be relevant to the matters before the court. "Whether or not Mr Honey spoke to Mrs Blue, and what actions Mrs Blue did or did not take, will simply not be relevant to the key issue on the appeal."

According to the earlier tribunal's appeal decision, Mr Honey said there had been no intention to trade off the Remax brand. The substantive appeal will be heard in June.

- NZME.

Email
Print