Jailing of Kiwi website owner - puzzling

[candor]

http://www.stiassny.org/ The website banned but refusing to go, which I'm sure I first saw mention of here.

What on earth is this about if anyone knows. A website hinting at a local murder covered up and supposedly exposing high level Court official corruption.... leads to an order for removal "in the public interest". And today the order to jail a man appealing the order for 6 mths as he failed to appear in Cour\rt on unknown bizzo, before his appeal against the banning order is heard. Why is the media coverage so reticent about the nature of the alleged offence if it's said to be so much in the public interest to both stop it, and jail someone who won't desist from the unmentioned crime leading to the Court order. There is no mention of slander or lies.. Is this a political prisoner scenario, or does anyone know what is up with this. I'd hate to think our websites could get us jailed at the drop of a hat.

Businessman to go to jail over website
Friday, 01 August 2008

An Auckland businessman will go to jail for defying a court order to remove material from his website about an accounting firm and one of its principals.


American Vince Siemer failed to appear in the High Court in Auckland today after an earlier court hearing gave him until today to remove material from his website about accounting firm Ferrier Hodgson and principal Michael Stiassny, and give an undertaking it would not be put up again.

In 2000 and 2001 Mr Stiassny was a receiver for Paragon Services of which Siemer was managing director.

Siemer is believed to be overseas but when he failed to appear before Justice Lester Chisholm and Justice Warwick Gendall in the High Court today, they adjourned for 30 minutes in case he had been delayed.

He failed to appear. The two judges were told by Mathew Downs, who appeared for Solicitor-General David Collins, that an inspection of his website revealed the material was still there.

The judges conferred briefly before Justice Chisholm ruled Siemer would go to jail for six months.

Mr Downs told the court the website was inspected shortly before today's hearing. "Under those circumstances, the warrant for his arrest will be activated and Mr Siemer will be committed to prison for six months," Justice Chisholm told the court.

Siemer, who has already spent time in Mt Eden Prison over the published material, had filed an appeal against the earlier court ruling the jail sentence but unless that appeal is heard before he is located, he will go to jail.

The action to jail Siemer was brought by the solicitor general and in July the court gave him a six-month suspended jail sentence, conditional on the material being removed and the undertaking being given not to post it again.

Dr Collins had originally sought to have Siemer jailed indefinitely for defying the court order.

The justices said on July 9 they were giving Siemer time to remove the material but if he "failed to take advantage of this indulgence" he would be jailed.

The court also heard today Dr Collins was seeking an order for a total of $72,541 in costs, disbursements and witness fees.

The justices said Dr Collins was acting in the public interest and the public should bear a portion of the costs. The final amount of costs against Siemer had yet to be decided.

[Ixion]

The gaol term isn't for putting stuff up on a web site. It's for ignoring a court order.

Mr Siemer is apparently somewhat obsessed about Mr Stiassny, and imputes to him much naughtiness relating to the latters actions as receiver for a company Mr Siemer was involved in (and, I think, partially owned).

Mr Siemer put up a website making a number of rather serious allegations about Ferrier Hodgson and Mr Stiassny in particular. Mr Stiassny sought ,and obtained , a court order requiring the material to be removed, on the basis that it was untrue.

Mr Siemer has ignored the court order. That is contempt of court. Which is punishable by an indeterminate period of imprisionment (ie they can send you inside for as long as they want).

The action is brought by the solicitor general because he is (or is supposed to be) a sort of constitutional watchdog of the justice system. The offence is not the material , it's giving the fingers to the judges.

[Forest]

There were some billboards as well, if I remember correctly.

I don't know about the specifics of Siemer's complaint. But it is well known in NZ commercial circles that Stiassny is a crook, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out if there is some substance to his complaints.

[Oakie]

The gaol term isn't for putting stuff up on a web site. It's for ignoring a court order.

Exactly. And he was given fair warning of what would happen if he persisted.

[cs363]

Interesting that the website is still up, makes for some intriguing reading too...

[Mikkel]

Now, if you wanted to spread as much bad publicity as possible about a person - getting your court case in the news is a pretty good way to go. Mr. Siemer must be rather annoyed with Mr. Stiassny.

[insane1]

maybe just maybe they deserved the fingers given to them.

[ambler]

Given the lengths Siemer has gone to in order to publicize this case, he might have even found the first prison time to be a useful development. It certainly helps him to play the victim.

I was reading around about this and discovered a few disappointing facts about NZ law:
1. There is no statute or positive rule of the common law recognising and protecting freedom of speech and expression in New Zealand.
2. The truth is not always a defence to criminal defamation.
3. It is contempt of court and punishable to attribute bias or improper motives to Judges or Magistrates.

An interesting thing to note is that after the original injunction more than three years ago, Stiassny has done nothing further to bring the case to a conclusion. It definitely seems that Stiassny is happy with things the way they are. He has even failed to comply with a court imposed deadline to show that the statements are indeed defamatory. Given fact 2 above I'm not sure that this would help Siemer anyway, but the 'reasonable person' in me says that it should nullify the original injunction.

Another interesting thing is that I can't find any mention of specific parts of Siemers website which are supposed to be false. Generally when one side of an argument is interested in specifics, and the other side is not interested, the not-interested side is dodgy.

Probably Siemers biggest problem is that his criticism is slowly morphing to focus on judicial corruption, and Stiassny's network of friends in the high court. As the high court noted "[Siemers conduct] shows a progression in the nature of the offending". I've spent quite a while on this now (just on the net) and the only progression I can find is that he is beginning to complain more about unfair treatment by judges. His complaints about proceedings not being recorded correctly are quite worrying, if they are true. Also quite worrying is: "Stiassny was able to get a High Court order that debarred Siemer from defending his defamation claim." Didn't know that was even possible...

http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/F/Free...domOfSpeech/en
Yes, old but I don't think outdated...?

Looks like there is another site too: http://www.vectorlimited.com/

[rustycharm]

I remember the initial shit hitting the fan when the Paragon Oil liquidaton case hit the news - there were murmurings about the treatment Siemers got at the hands of Stiassny and things seemed to have spiralled from there as Stiassny's public profile grew.
Whats most concerning is the alleged treatment Siemers has had at the hands of the authorities we all trust to provide Justice and a balanced adjudication of matters such as these and others that have an impact on the public of NZ.

If anyones had any commercial legal dealings at a high level the 'old boys' network at the top level of legal practice in Auckland is a VERY small world. Its very much who you know and the issue of fair 'justice' becomes secondary to who knows who - what Judge is on the circuit and who has the best legal strategy.

Its a scary thought when we mere minions cannot trust the authorities vested with our protection - what course of action do we have left but to try and sway public opinion and try and create greater interest in cases like Seimer has done over the last few years....

He is obviously obsessed and driven by vengance to have gone this long on the same case.... its interesting that his focus has evolved and is now on the system that has let him down when he initially thought it would provide the justice he sought.

As far as Stiassny... where there's smoke there's probably fire and the forest floor has been smoldering for years....

[ambler]

For anyone interested in the full sequence of events, I found a (very) detailed summary. On the page below, scroll down to the statement of claim below the main article, and start reading from "BACKGROUND"
http://www.stiassny.org/Fardell.html

If it really happened as claimed there, that's scary stuff - hard to believe it's happening in NZ.

[SPman]

The site makes interesting reading. He also rates judges and has a bit to say about various members of the bar. Having known 2 judges, some of his remarks are not far off the truth........

If it really happened as claimed there, that's scary stuff - hard to believe it's happening in NZ.

There is quite a lot of stuff in recent years, that is hard to beleive it's happening in NZ. However, keep the populace pacified with toys and sport and no one notices........

http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz/index.asp?pageID=2145845327

[pete376403]

One of the judges mentioned, Judith Potter, also presided at the first trial of antonie dixon.
Errors made in the judges summary were the reason that the first conviction was thrown out and a retrial ordered by the appeal court.

But it would seem that even if a judge is demonstrably incompetent, they still can't be criticised.

[Winston001]

For anyone interested in the full sequence of events, I found a (very) detailed summary. On the page below, scroll down to the statement of claim below the main article, and start reading from "BACKGROUND"
http://www.stiassny.org/Fardell.html

If it really happened as claimed there, that's scary stuff - hard to believe it's happening in NZ.

Seriously guys - take a deep breath and put your energies somewhere else. There is no conspiracy.

I read your link Ambler, and it looks well written, but unfortunately it is yet more self-serving rambling from Mr Siemers. The "Statement of Claim" is a joke and if he actually filed that, I'd expect any judge to order more particulars or stay proceedings. He can't expect to waste the Courts time with that.

There is no doubt Mr Siemers is intelligent, and he tells a good tale. Sadly he is also an obsessed and bitter man who having lost his business, is determined it is someone else's fault. The easy answer for him is to imagine a giant conspiracy which just grows larger every time someone disagrees with him.

You know, we laugh at George Bush for thinking there is a terrorist conspiracy everywhere........why is Siemer's conspiracy theory any less silly?

[Winston001]

I was reading around about this and discovered a few disappointing facts about NZ law:
1. There is no statute or positive rule of the common law recognising and protecting freedom of speech and expression in New Zealand.
2. The truth is not always a defence to criminal defamation.
3. It is contempt of court and punishable to attribute bias or improper motives to Judges or Magistrates.

Not picking on you Ambler .

1. Correct. Lets say I know your real name and start posting and blogging on the net that you are a necrophiliac. You might find this alarming.

But complete freedom of speech would allow me to do that. And even though you deny the accusation, we all know where there is smoke there is fire....

2. Criminal defamation is a rare beast and requires reckless behaviour and intent to cause harm. Can you give an example of a prosecution where truth - not opinion, was not a successful defence?

3. Quite right. There are legal ways for removing judges from cases or having their judgements overturned if - if, you can show bias or improper motives. You can even bring proceedings against the judge.

But just saying in a pamphlet or on a website that a judge is biased etc merely brings the judicial system into disrepute. It is always possible to suggest things like this but be careful.

NZ is one of the two least corrupt countries (along with Finland) in the world.

[insane1]

really i thought we were one of the most corupt countries anywhere in the world.