DEBATE---GENERAL
OWEN JENNINGS (ACT NZ): Let me read to this House from thedocument that was quoted by the Labour Party, because unfortunatelywhat was quoted is only part of what the Serious Fraud Office stated.``This office is very conscious of the fact that there is not acomprehensive database available to conclusively identify the quantumof odometer tampering, notwithstanding the data that we have nowmatched, which is, incidently, supportive of a large-scale problem.It would be unreliable to extrapolate these figures across allimports.'' In other words, the Serious Fraud Office did say there wasa problem, but it did not know how big the problem was. It is notcorrect for the Labour Party to quote that office in support ofLabour's position.
Let me say why I spoke out against Harry Duynhoven lodgingdocuments on the table of this House. The reason I did so was this. Ihave in my possession evidence that would suggest that the so-calledconclusive evidence being put forward by some persons includes namesof reputable, honest, hard-working dealers in Auckland and elsewherein New Zealand. The privilege of this House should not be used tomalign people, either by association or directly. I wrote to MrDuynhoven yesterday. I said I had such information. I questionedwhether he was proposing to take the action he did, and cautioned himagainst it.
Most of the evidence comes from one Nottingham and his brother,who have been active in this business for some time. Most of theevidence that I have seen, and most of the evidence that I know MrDuynhoven has, has come from those sources, has been aided andabetted by those two brothers. If that is the evidence being putbefore the House, I say it is absolutely questionable. Indeed, if itis the only evidence those members have, I have to say it is shonky.
Evidence is being brought to this House from somebody who in 1978was apprehended for theft, for unlawful interference, for burglary.In 1980 he was arrested for wilful damage. In 1983 he was arrestedfor fighting in a public place. In 1985 he was arrested for refusingto accompany an officer, using insulting language, and assaulting atraffic officer. He has been arrested for common assault and thedischarge of a firearm in a public place. The list goes on and on. Ifthe evidence comes from that person, then I have to say it is prettyquestionable. If that is the material being put before this House asconclusive evidence, I have to say those members ought to thinkagain. The Labour Party ought to think twice.
There is odometer fraud---there is absolutely no question aboutthat---but we had better
ask ourselves why it is being peddled outthere. Mr Dermot Nottingham is proposing to be part of a company setup to be in charge of all cars introduced into New Zealand, so thathe can have a financial stake. He wants to be the only person whointroduces those cars. He wants to have a cut. Members of the LabourParty are putting forward evidence from that gentleman. They areproposing that it is substantial and that this House ought to reflecton it. I have to say: ``Think again.''
A report from the company that proposes to do odometer checksstates: ``This report is for exclusive information and use, and noresponsibility is accepted to any third party for the whole or anypart of its contents. Neither the whole or any part of this reportmay be published in any way without prior written approval.'' Whatsort of evidence is that? The guy will not even stand by what he issaying. He will not even categorically say that he will allow otherpeople to use his evidence. Such is the evidence being put beforethis House.
I suggest that there is a real problem out there. If all of thesecars have been tampered with, where are the consumers? Where are the250,000 people who bought a car knowing it was a Japanese import?Where is the wave of anxiety? Where is the roar from the hills ofconsumers wanting something done about it? This is a ruse by theLabour Party. It is a ruse to get round Mr Kirton. Labour memberswant him to cross the floor and sit on that side of the House. Thatis the only reason they are peddling their wares in this House today.That sort of evidence ought to be denied the right to come on to thefloor of this House.
http://www.vdig.net/...&d=03&o=32&p=45
Is Dermot Nottingham Dodgy, on 06 November 2011 - 09:03 AM, said:
The person behind these blogs seem to hold grudges for a very long time about many people - police, journalists, MP's, Judges, competitors, innocent creditors, independent juries, the Ministry of Health employees, newspapers, the restaurant association etc all for for apparent wrong-doing against them.
How could these people all be so wrong about the Nottinghams - "the brothers".
Check these out....
Www.mediamalice.wordpress.com
Www.nottinghamfiles.wordpress.com
Www.filthfiles.com - which strangely also has a Latin moniker "fiat justitia ruat caelum"
Everything, in my opinion, appears to link to Nottingham.
And now we're expected to believe kiwioncoast is a 28 year old - barely born at the time of the allegations, is the one making these defamatory claims based on hearsay from a guy called Lauda, not his own personal experience. Thanks for confirming that Lauda.
And then Lauda is doing the same thing on his blog. Defaming others based on hearsay. Again, according to Lauda, he's not Nottingham either - just a mate of his, who has put into all this passion and energy into blogging and blogging and blogging about the Nottingham's relationship with the police.
Lauda and Kiwioncoast obviously both have Notthinghams full blessing to publish documents that Nottingham has obtained in the past, mostly obtained fraudulenty using false names and trickery as recorded on the Lauda blog, and where Nottingham would appear to have gone to great lengths to block out his own name first. Without consent, Notttingham would have taken legal action against Lauda, based on his history - surely.
And Kiwioncoast, Lauda and Dermot Nottingham (the tight three) are all on a first name basis, who have each others contact details, know each others identities, and who all talk to each other. Thanks for confirming that too Lauda.
So we have a 28 year old on the West Coast of NZ, and Lauda in Mt Ida supposedly blogging in his sleep in the middle of the OZ night like his life depended on it, reacting emotionally in response to exposure that Laudas blog is all about the Nottinghams. And we're supposed to believe that simultaneously Nottingham is supposedly innocently still asleep in bed!
Then Lauda responds by referring to taking legal action himself, (remember he says he's not Nottingham), and then immediately recounts Nottingham's Fairfax case as his own!!! I'm confused...I thought these guys weren't the same person.
Isn't it amazing two people (Kiwioncoast and Lauda) write so passionately, based on hearsy, about somebody else's business - the Nottingham's - and their association and experiences with the police etc, all apparently with Nottingham's full consent and knowledge - otherwise he'd sue their arse off. Truly bizarre.
So who is he trying to fool - himself?
But why all this negative energy and vendetta's?
Why doesn't he just do an open blog in his own name in NZ if he wasn't concerned by legal action for what he posts?
And why doesn't he take legal action if he believes all these people are criminal?
NoShit 
Help
