Help
Quote
TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN
My name is Graeme xxxxxxx. [That's W i s l a n g.]
Arrin W i s l a n g is my son, living in Ballarat, Victoria. xxxxxxx is my nephew, living in Auckland, New Zealand. [They have very similar names.]
My nephew is the administrator of the ACCForum. My son is not, and to my knowledge, has never been associated with it in any way. The forum is being run in a responsible manner. I have been a member of it, off and on, since 2006.
The forum and its administrator are under attack by the Nottingham brothers, Dermot (who uses the online pseudonym ResearchCyberBully) and Antony (Peek-a-boo). The reasons for the attack are not fully known to me; but it appears to be the result of some long-standing grievance and characteristic deep maliciousness on the part of the Nottinghams.
For some reason, they have tried to make an association between Arrin and the site. There is none.
I attach a highly unsavoury interchange (ReasearchCyberBully posts.doc) between Dermot Nottingham and other members of the forum, including the administrator, xxxxxxx. Note the administrator’s post made at 1.19am.
I also attach some details (Skype text. doc) of the Nottinghams’ online identities that may, or may not be useful to you. These, as you can see, have been obtained in a Skype conversation between me and the forum’s administrator, xxxxxxx, this morning (2 March).
My name is Graeme xxxxxxx. [That's W i s l a n g.]
Arrin W i s l a n g is my son, living in Ballarat, Victoria. xxxxxxx is my nephew, living in Auckland, New Zealand. [They have very similar names.]
My nephew is the administrator of the ACCForum. My son is not, and to my knowledge, has never been associated with it in any way. The forum is being run in a responsible manner. I have been a member of it, off and on, since 2006.
The forum and its administrator are under attack by the Nottingham brothers, Dermot (who uses the online pseudonym ResearchCyberBully) and Antony (Peek-a-boo). The reasons for the attack are not fully known to me; but it appears to be the result of some long-standing grievance and characteristic deep maliciousness on the part of the Nottinghams.
For some reason, they have tried to make an association between Arrin and the site. There is none.
I attach a highly unsavoury interchange (ReasearchCyberBully posts.doc) between Dermot Nottingham and other members of the forum, including the administrator, xxxxxxx. Note the administrator’s post made at 1.19am.
I also attach some details (Skype text. doc) of the Nottinghams’ online identities that may, or may not be useful to you. These, as you can see, have been obtained in a Skype conversation between me and the forum’s administrator, xxxxxxx, this morning (2 March).
You will recognise there is coincidence with the letter you published from Arrin xxxxxxx.
Apparently, Graeme W I S L A N G also sent this:
Quote
Wednesday, September 03, 1997
OWEN JENNINGS (ACT NZ): I seek the leave of the House to table a list of the previous convictions of Dermot Gregory Nottingham. This list does not include the period 1991 up until recently, covering some recent convictions, but it is germane to this debate in that much of the material being proffered to this House comes at his bidding.
Mark Peck: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the member can authenticate his document. If it is an authentic court document, then I would like to know how he got hold of it. It raises serious issues about this man's personal privacy. I think it is something that we in this House should take very seriously. We should know the authenticity of this particular document.
Mr SPEAKER: I cannot rule on that now. All I have is the seeking of leave to table this document. It is a shame I do not have the Attorney-General here to advise on whether a criminal record book is a matter of public record. It is, but the question is whether it is open.
Rt Hon. Mike Moore: We are not trying to oppose this. This may well be fair enough, but we could get into a position whereby people could just table records without authentication. People's reputations are at stake. Perhaps you, Mr Speaker, could give a considered opinion. This is an accusation of a criminal record. I would like you to consider it over the dinner adjournment. If it can be authenticated and the member says: ``Yes, that is so.'', I personally will not oppose it.
Mr SPEAKER: I think it is a reasonable request. Could Mr Jennings help us briefly.
OWEN JENNINGS: This is the Motor Vehicle Dealers Licensing Board application by Mr Nottingham, which was turned down. It is a matter of public record. It is obtainable anywhere in the country. It includes the list of convictions that I read out when I addressed the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Given that it has a status and a source, it is up to members to decide whether they will grant leave for it to be tabled.
Mark Peck: If the members of ACT would just calm down, I want to seek one final bit of information. I would like to know two things: first, whether the person concerned knows that the document is to be tabled, and, secondly, whether the document was obtained under the Official Information Act. I think that would help us in trying to make up our minds on this matter.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not usually allow this sort of course. This is pretty sudden death. But I will allow one last thing before I put the question about leave.
OWEN JENNINGS: The answer is ``No'' to both questions.
Document, by leave, laid on the table of the House.
Wednesday, September 03, 1997
OWEN JENNINGS (ACT NZ): Let me read to this House from the document that was quoted by the Labour Party, because unfortunately what was quoted is only part of what the Serious Fraud Office stated. ``This office is very conscious of the fact that there is not a comprehensive database available to conclusively identify the quantum of odometer tampering, notwithstanding the data that we have now matched, which is, incidently, supportive of a large-scale problem. It would be unreliable to extrapolate these figures across all imports.'' In other words, the Serious Fraud Office did say there was a problem, but it did not know how big the problem was. It is not correct for the Labour Party to quote that office in support of Labour's position.
Let me say why I spoke out against Harry Duynhoven lodging documents on the table of this House. The reason I did so was this. I have in my possession evidence that would suggest that the so-called conclusive evidence being put forward by some persons includes names of reputable, honest, hard-working dealers in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand. The privilege of this House should not be used to malign people, either by association or directly. I wrote to Mr Duynhoven yesterday. I said I had such information. I questioned whether he was proposing to take the action he did, and cautioned him against it.
Most of the evidence comes from one Nottingham and his brother [Philip, I think], who have been active in this business for some time. Most of the evidence that I have seen, and most of the evidence that I know Mr Duynhoven has, has come from those sources, has been aided and abetted by those two brothers [Philip and, presumably, Antony]. If that is the evidence being put before the House, I say it is absolutely questionable. Indeed, if it is the only evidence those members have, I have to say it is shonky.
Evidence is being brought to this House from somebody who in 1978 was apprehended for theft, for unlawful interference, for burglary. In 1980 he was arrested for wilful damage. In 1983 he was arrested for fighting in a public place. In 1985 he was arrested for refusing to accompany an officer, using insulting language, and assaulting a traffic officer. He has been arrested for common assault and the discharge of a firearm in a public place. The list goes on and on. If the evidence comes from that person, then I have to say it is pretty questionable. If that is the material being put before this House as conclusive evidence, I have to say those members ought to think again. The Labour Party ought to think twice.
There is odometer fraud---there is absolutely no question about that---but we had better ask ourselves why it is being peddled out there. Mr Dermot Nottingham is proposing to be part of a company set up to be in charge of all cars introduced into New Zealand, so that he can have a financial stake. He wants to be the only person who introduces those cars. He wants to have a cut. Members of the Labour Party are putting forward evidence from that gentleman. They are proposing that it is substantial and that this House ought to reflect on it. I have to say: ``Think again.''
A report from the company that proposes to do odometer checks states: ``This report is for exclusive information and use, and no responsibility is accepted to any third party for the whole or any part of its contents. Neither the whole or any part of this report may be published in any way without prior written approval.'' What sort of evidence is that? The guy will not even stand by what he is saying. He will not even categorically say that he will allow other people to use his evidence. Such is the evidence being put before this House.
I suggest that there is a real problem out there. If all of these cars have been tampered with, where are the consumers? Where are the 250,000 people who bought a car knowing it was a Japanese import? Where is the wave of anxiety? Where is the roar from the hills of consumers wanting something done about it? This is a ruse by the Labour Party. It is a ruse to get round Mr Kirton. Labour members want him to cross the floor and sit on that side of the House. That is 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 the floor of this House.
{source http://www.vdig.net/hansard/index.jsp }
http://en.wordpress....mot-nottingham/
"Any change, any loss, does not make us victims. Others can shake you, surprise you, disappoint you, but they can't prevent you from acting, from taking the situation you're presented with and moving on. No matter where you are in life, no matter what your situation, you can always do something. You always have a choice and the choice can be power."
-Blaine Lee
0
OWEN JENNINGS (ACT NZ): I seek the leave of the House to table a list of the previous convictions of Dermot Gregory Nottingham. This list does not include the period 1991 up until recently, covering some recent convictions, but it is germane to this debate in that much of the material being proffered to this House comes at his bidding.
Mark Peck: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the member can authenticate his document. If it is an authentic court document, then I would like to know how he got hold of it. It raises serious issues about this man's personal privacy. I think it is something that we in this House should take very seriously. We should know the authenticity of this particular document.
Mr SPEAKER: I cannot rule on that now. All I have is the seeking of leave to table this document. It is a shame I do not have the Attorney-General here to advise on whether a criminal record book is a matter of public record. It is, but the question is whether it is open.
Rt Hon. Mike Moore: We are not trying to oppose this. This may well be fair enough, but we could get into a position whereby people could just table records without authentication. People's reputations are at stake. Perhaps you, Mr Speaker, could give a considered opinion. This is an accusation of a criminal record. I would like you to consider it over the dinner adjournment. If it can be authenticated and the member says: ``Yes, that is so.'', I personally will not oppose it.
Mr SPEAKER: I think it is a reasonable request. Could Mr Jennings help us briefly.
OWEN JENNINGS: This is the Motor Vehicle Dealers Licensing Board application by Mr Nottingham, which was turned down. It is a matter of public record. It is obtainable anywhere in the country. It includes the list of convictions that I read out when I addressed the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Given that it has a status and a source, it is up to members to decide whether they will grant leave for it to be tabled.
Mark Peck: If the members of ACT would just calm down, I want to seek one final bit of information. I would like to know two things: first, whether the person concerned knows that the document is to be tabled, and, secondly, whether the document was obtained under the Official Information Act. I think that would help us in trying to make up our minds on this matter.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not usually allow this sort of course. This is pretty sudden death. But I will allow one last thing before I put the question about leave.
OWEN JENNINGS: The answer is ``No'' to both questions.
Document, by leave, laid on the table of the House.
Wednesday, September 03, 1997
OWEN JENNINGS (ACT NZ): Let me read to this House from the document that was quoted by the Labour Party, because unfortunately what was quoted is only part of what the Serious Fraud Office stated. ``This office is very conscious of the fact that there is not a comprehensive database available to conclusively identify the quantum of odometer tampering, notwithstanding the data that we have now matched, which is, incidently, supportive of a large-scale problem. It would be unreliable to extrapolate these figures across all imports.'' In other words, the Serious Fraud Office did say there was a problem, but it did not know how big the problem was. It is not correct for the Labour Party to quote that office in support of Labour's position.
Let me say why I spoke out against Harry Duynhoven lodging documents on the table of this House. The reason I did so was this. I have in my possession evidence that would suggest that the so-called conclusive evidence being put forward by some persons includes names of reputable, honest, hard-working dealers in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand. The privilege of this House should not be used to malign people, either by association or directly. I wrote to Mr Duynhoven yesterday. I said I had such information. I questioned whether he was proposing to take the action he did, and cautioned him against it.
Most of the evidence comes from one Nottingham and his brother [Philip, I think], who have been active in this business for some time. Most of the evidence that I have seen, and most of the evidence that I know Mr Duynhoven has, has come from those sources, has been aided and abetted by those two brothers [Philip and, presumably, Antony]. If that is the evidence being put before the House, I say it is absolutely questionable. Indeed, if it is the only evidence those members have, I have to say it is shonky.
Evidence is being brought to this House from somebody who in 1978 was apprehended for theft, for unlawful interference, for burglary. In 1980 he was arrested for wilful damage. In 1983 he was arrested for fighting in a public place. In 1985 he was arrested for refusing to accompany an officer, using insulting language, and assaulting a traffic officer. He has been arrested for common assault and the discharge of a firearm in a public place. The list goes on and on. If the evidence comes from that person, then I have to say it is pretty questionable. If that is the material being put before this House as conclusive evidence, I have to say those members ought to think again. The Labour Party ought to think twice.
There is odometer fraud---there is absolutely no question about that---but we had better ask ourselves why it is being peddled out there. Mr Dermot Nottingham is proposing to be part of a company set up to be in charge of all cars introduced into New Zealand, so that he can have a financial stake. He wants to be the only person who introduces those cars. He wants to have a cut. Members of the Labour Party are putting forward evidence from that gentleman. They are proposing that it is substantial and that this House ought to reflect on it. I have to say: ``Think again.''
A report from the company that proposes to do odometer checks states: ``This report is for exclusive information and use, and no responsibility is accepted to any third party for the whole or any part of its contents. Neither the whole or any part of this report may be published in any way without prior written approval.'' What sort of evidence is that? The guy will not even stand by what he is saying. He will not even categorically say that he will allow other people to use his evidence. Such is the evidence being put before this House.
I suggest that there is a real problem out there. If all of these cars have been tampered with, where are the consumers? Where are the 250,000 people who bought a car knowing it was a Japanese import? Where is the wave of anxiety? Where is the roar from the hills of consumers wanting something done about it? This is a ruse by the Labour Party. It is a ruse to get round Mr Kirton. Labour members want him to cross the floor and sit on that side of the House. That is 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 the floor of this House.
{source http://www.vdig.net/hansard/index.jsp }
http://en.wordpress....mot-nottingham/
"Any change, any loss, does not make us victims. Others can shake you, surprise you, disappoint you, but they can't prevent you from acting, from taking the situation you're presented with and moving on. No matter where you are in life, no matter what your situation, you can always do something. You always have a choice and the choice can be power."
-Blaine Lee
0
Now, I assume your discombobulation is complete.
Your only issue now is how many people will sue you.
