Friday, May 26, 2006

Annette Presley: The face of threats

Well readers, the lawyers for Our Annette just sent me this missive on her behalf (right -- click on it for a larger version). Not content with using the law to 'unbundle' her competitors, she now wants to do the same to one of her detractors. Odd really, when she told my old school chum Michelle Hewitson last weekend,
She's too busy to think about what people might think of her image. "I think if I worried about that I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning."
This was just after Michelle reported Presley "has a laugh like a kookaburra and fingernails like the sheilas on Footballers' Wives. You are not going to mistake her for a shy, retiring type."

Well, clearly she is. So what should I do, customers? What should I tell Mr Lowndes and Ms Presley? Isn't truth an absolute defence? Just so you're sure what it was I said and the context in which I said it, here is the "offending publication": 'Annette Presley: The face of theft.'

TAGS: Telecom, Blog, Law, Politics-NZ

37 Comments:

Blogger Berend de Boer said...

I would meet her half way and change the "I hope that" into something like "What if". Other than that there's nothing they will have any chance of pursuing in court.

5/26/2006 12:38:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

I think that Lowndes lawyers would prefer that the comments not be removed? Why, they themselves would like to milk Annette's purse for an expensive fees of around $250/hour by typical corporate law firms. The longer the supposed defamatory sentences stayed at PC blog web site the more happier Lowndes lawyers are, since their fees is accumulating by the hours gone past.

It is unbelievable to sometime find out that lawyers can charge $250/hour for just looking at 3 supposedly defamatory sentences. C'mon ONLY 3 lines!!! Most big shot lawyers (& Law Firms) already know what sections, clauses, acts, etc, in the law book to consult for any specific violations, but some still justify their high fees by claiming that they had to spend some tremendously huge amount of time trying to interpret them. Gees, if it takes less time for me to interpret and solve complex equations in Quantum Mechanics in comparison to one whole day for a lawyer to consult the law book for 3 sentences to be able to understand the potential violations, then I guess that I can grab a law book and just read it with ease and be able to find an interpretation in 2 seconds.

PC, I think that you can ask Lowndes of when they want the comment taken off? I would not be surprised that if they come back and say, "do it when you have time". That means that , leave it as long as possible, till we can milk Annette's purse.

5/26/2006 01:01:00 pm  
Anonymous Spitting Llama said...

And I thought the Whig got quality hate mail!

5/26/2006 01:03:00 pm  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Addressing the issues one by one ...

The heading "Annette Presley: The face of theft".

To steal is "To take (the property of another) without right or permission" (all definitions from various sources via. Dictionary.com).

Well, Presley has been lobbying for years for the Government to steal the local loop from Telecom; in fact the Slingshot website loudly proclaims the success of that lobbying. I guess her beef is with the fact that P.C. refuses to call theft anything but theft, rejecting more 'palatable' terms like "nationalisation" or "unbundling". Good on him.

"Annette Presley: theiving bitch." (repeated)

She's a thief alright - is she a bitch? Well, a bitch is "a woman who is thoroughly disliked". And she is thoroughly disliked by all New Zealanders who support human rights, which include the right to own property. So, she can be objectively proven to be a thief and a bitch. Next ...

"Poster tart for theft"

Hmmm .... tart: "a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money". Now I'm presuming P.C. didn't literally mean that she is a prostitute, but that she has in effect prostituted her principles by having the Government steal Telecom's property for the use of her own company. So I'd say he slides by on that one, too.

"I hope someone breaks into her house some day soon and 'unbundles' everything she's worked for. She will have earned it."

Well, so do I. She has contributed, significantly and materially, to a culture that devalues property rights. So, it would be just for her to fall victim to that mentality in the future. Stating that one hopes for something to happen is scarcely inciting that event, especially when those so angry with the thieving bitch are also those who by their own moral code would never inflict such a violation themselves.

P.C., I think you should tell her to fuck off, preferably in as many words.

Annette, if you're reading this, fuck off.

And Graham Jordan, who I am presuming is reading this ... perhaps the next time you're offended by a joke about lawyers, you should reflect on your own conduct, and consider that it's bottom-feeding scum like yourselves who have brought shame upon your entire profession.

5/26/2006 01:35:00 pm  
Blogger Southern Gent said...

Great work PC, when they hate you, you know you are making a difference.

I would reply to Lowndes Jordon that you do not wish any physical harm to the their client.

Secondly you invite their client (& entourage)to your residence at 15:00 today, to explain why she is not worthy of the descriptions, because everything in the media supports those descriptions.

5/26/2006 01:47:00 pm  
Anonymous ruth said...

I think you should apologise and move on. Calling someone a 'thieving bitch' is low class, if nothing else, and you will run out of money well before she runs out of time. Let karma take care of it.

Death to Hate Speech ;-)

5/26/2006 01:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Ken said...

I can understand her concerns, never knowing when she encounters a digruntled T/C shareholder. Thats is just something she has to live with.
The lawyer, no doubt, has problems getting beyond the legal definition of theft, rather than the moral context implied in your comments.
In this respect it is a true and fair comment.

5/26/2006 02:13:00 pm  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Furthermore, I should mention that the thieving bitch has, in the past, claimed Telecom has "ripped off" customers. She's also said Telecom attempted to "sabotage" her i4free business. Taken literally, she said that Telecom defrauds it's customers, and deliberately defied a court injuction with the intent of destroying her business model.

So she's used some fairly strong terms in the past - as do most commentators when using forceful rhetoric. For her now to complain when the tables are turned is remarkably hypocritical.

Okay, P.C. - how about you offer to start referring to her as a "thieving hypocrite"? :-)

5/26/2006 02:18:00 pm  
Blogger Duncan Bayne said...

Oh, and while we're examining the manner in which those engaged in the debate expressed themselves, how about Firebomb Telecom, featured in Unlimited magazine (which claims to "inspire business", would you believe) ... I didn't see the thieving bitch complain about that article.

(Although, stealing the local loop has actually damaged Telecom more than any well-directed firebomb. But that's another issue.)

5/26/2006 02:25:00 pm  
Blogger Lyndon said...

PC - My first reaction was that the incitement thing was the most likely trouble. Seems okay now.

You're not accusing her of actual direct legal theft - what you're saying is that stuff she has undisputedly done constitutes seizing someone else's property. And the 'bitch' stuff etc is covered by honest opinion.

However, I would encourage you to think carefully about what someone could think if the were, for instance, googling her name and didn't know any of the context.

Is it clear from the post itself what she's supposed to have done and why you call it theft. As long as that's clear - I think it is - in this actual case the 'theft' call is really honest opinion too. It is a blog, after all.

Although since it was the government doing the nationalising, of what it think wasn't technically full property rights to begin with, surely this is more a case of receiving?

The thing with the hardball option though is whether you end up having to mount an actual defense, which I understand costs money. Handy for repressing opinion if you happen to be the richer party.

Not a lawyer, of course, but I did understand the law last time I looked.

Incidentally, I don't see absolute property rights as morally necessary or genuinely feasible, and I don't agree in this case, but I probably won't stay for the agrument.

5/26/2006 02:51:00 pm  
Blogger yalnikim said...

Peter,
I disagree with at least half the stuff you say on this site, which varies between crazy rants and superb beer analysis ;-), but I whole-heartedly agree with your right to express your "opinion".
If it goes to court I will brew you a special celebratory ale, for you and your friends to celebrate the victory with.
Slainte mhath
Stu

5/26/2006 04:33:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You just ca not trust the internet!
Some bastard has plagerised one of PC's finest, verbatim!
check out:
http://latitude45south.blogspot.com/2006/05/annette-presley-face-of-theft-03-may.html

5/26/2006 05:50:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Anonymous said...
"You just cannot trust the internet?"

Are you daft ? It happens right now in the WWW universe. It is OK to spread and republish the articles so that GOOGLE crawler can find them and index, therefore propelling Annette's theft to to the top spot in searching.

5/26/2006 05:57:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

F vowel etc

It seemed like an act of solidarity from Latitude45South to me.

So what is the problem?

5/26/2006 06:49:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that Peter is about to learn that freedom of speech comes with a price if you are too liberal with gratuituous insults and comments that are potentially defamatory. What sounded clever at the time has clearly sounded less clever as time has marched on.

I suspect Peter will remove the comments, because for all his bluster he won't have the guts or money to take on a wealthy angry woman when she can quite happily grind him away with ongoing legal fees that he probably can't afford.

First rule of defamation law - barristers at ten paces, wallets on ready.

5/26/2006 08:35:00 pm  
Blogger sagenz said...

Peter - I think a withdrawal and apology for the more gratuitous insults would serve to reduce the likelihood of a costly settlement. There is a chance that a judge might consider it opinion, but the judge is much more likely to be offended by the tone of the comments and find against you. ON the other hand rolling over is not your style and calling it theft is perfectly reasonable opinion. In your position I would withdraw & apologise on the second and third points but refuse to budge on the first. That is a defensible position although you should consider a judge must determine that the government acted legitimately and as a matter of fact Presley has not "stolen" anything. She has been a face pushing for legalised theft by the government of private property rights.
It would require rewriting & updating the offending posts.

5/26/2006 08:55:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't you take a vote. that's what you normally do when you are being asked to apologise for outrageous or untrue things on your blog.

5/26/2006 09:05:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

I would clarify that you did not intend to incite burglary against her, but also point out her own defamation against Telecom and that you were making a political statement regarding her own belief that the state should confiscate the property rights of Telecom for her own benefit. If need be, define theft on the article and point that out to the lawyers - it shows good faith, but also point out that your defence is truth.

Bitch she is - loves the limelight, unless she is being challenged. Vapid attention seeker if ever there was one.

5/26/2006 09:58:00 pm  
Blogger yalnikim said...

This blog is a political protest against what Peter thinks is wrong with our country. I'm sure any good lawyer will quite comfortably prove that in court. Both the historical content of this blog and common law have good precedent to see him home and laughing. I'd defend myself and take it to the media. I'm sure we can all drum up the right sort of support.

Again, I don't agree with a lot of what Peter says in this blog. His taste in art is dubious, at best. His taste in architecture only ok (good on the bridges) and although his taste in beer critics is quite superb (by the way, where is "Beer O'Clock" you wanker! - please don't sue me for that PC), his idea of universal and absolute property rights is bordering on juvenile (from the juvenile side!). However, his right to those opinions, and my right to mine, is the most important things we have.

The decision is all your Peter. My opinion of you will not change from how you handle this. My opinion of Annette Presley is that she is spineless scum. Instead of arguing her point or turning away, she chooses to send her nerdy bully boys over.

5/26/2006 10:17:00 pm  
Anonymous george said...

I suggest you propose a duel.

I volunteer as your second.

It would beat waiting around to see what waipiro you reccomend on beer o'clock.

5/26/2006 10:30:00 pm  
Anonymous James said...

What the hell has the thieving bitch got to complain about...? that she's been exposed...? awwwww diddums!

5/26/2006 11:33:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

"yalnikim said"
[I'm sure any good lawyer will quite comfortably prove that in court]

Lawyers are the parasites of the society. Meaning, that they don't produce wealth, they only leeched money off from the productive such as Lowndes from Annette's purse. They don't produce any tangible things that contribute to the advancement to civilization.

"yalnikim said"
[I'd defend myself and take it to the media.]

I have forwarded this web page to a mate in Beijing, China to copy and published from his site.

5/27/2006 12:28:00 am  
Blogger Richard said...

She can't be "the face of theft" because that honour belongs elsewhere.
http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/images/events/cullen.png
How about "cheerleader for theft"?

5/27/2006 02:32:00 am  
Blogger writeups said...

How about 'major beneficiary of theft'?

5/27/2006 07:47:00 am  
Blogger Sanctuary said...

Sooner or later the right blogsphere's penchant for bad taste personal attacks was going to get someone bitten on the bum. My advice is to swallow hard, apologise for the personal insult, learn your lesson and move on.

5/27/2006 08:55:00 am  
Anonymous Andrew Bates said...

I note virtually all your detractors are anonymous, lurkers who waited for the day something like this would happen so they could crawl out of the woodwork and post detracting comments anonymously.

I completely agree with Duncan and Julian. The context of the comments make clear that you believe that theft is still theft even if the government says it's OK. Do not back down an inch.

I suggest others here join me in contributing towards a legal defence fund.

To those of us who value freedom, it's time to stand behind one of freedom's greatest champions on the 'net. Put your money where your convictions are.

5/27/2006 09:34:00 am  
Anonymous Andrew Bates said...

PC, see if you can get the paypal currency converted to NZD.

5/27/2006 09:53:00 am  
Blogger Michael said...

Don't take seriously the woman who is so stupid she thinks Whangarei is a rural area, and doesn't know where Ruatoria is.

see http://agendatv.itmsconnect.com/Default.aspx?tabid=1038

5/27/2006 09:54:00 am  
Blogger Dave said...

truth and honest opinion are defences for defamatin, sure, but do you honestly believe section 2 and are prepared to back it up in court? If not, then I`d reword it, if so, we`ll just do a blog campign like we did with the case over in the US and let peole know that even in NZ some lawyers are bully boys

5/27/2006 09:54:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd delete the post as requested and rewrite it in less inflammatory language but making the same underlying point. Be clear that, in your opinion, Annette is supporting the theft of Telecom's property, since this is a position that is clearly not defamatory. Don't include the bit about breaking into he house, that was unnecessary and is by far their strongest point against you. Do make sure to include a new section about what a thin skinned, litigious, cow you think she is.

5/27/2006 10:13:00 am  
Anonymous joy said...

Great job! Not only did you take your opponent's point to an extreme to give them verbal smack with their own line of B.S. - you have written proof of your victory! Well, now we can add "sore loser" to "theiving bitch".

On the paypal thing....
Do you have to change it to NZD? As a product of the US public school system, I'm probably not smart enough to convert to NZD. My lazy typing of $5 or $10 goes further if it's not changed.

5/27/2006 10:29:00 am  
Anonymous Mosese Latu said...

The question for me is if Annette's winning against Telecom for Unbundling will do any good for us low income earners here in Otara and whole of South Auckland? Or perhaps she is targeting her service to be available only in Remuera and the affluent areas. I would support her if she means what she says. If she is paying lip service to the potential benefits to New Zealanders with unbundling of the local loop, then I think that she is a true hypocrite.

5/27/2006 12:37:00 pm  
Anonymous Dean said...

If it were me, I wouldn't take down the comments. But don't fool yourself that a judge is likely to regard your comments as opinion. As someone said the definition of theft is taking without right. The whole point of the unbundling is that it would give others the legal right to use Telecom's lines.

5/27/2006 06:58:00 pm  
Blogger Icehawk said...

oh, this is funny!

PC, who regularly champions common law, is shocked, shocked! when someone threatens to sue him using common law.

One standard criticism of libertarianism is this its very heavy reliance on contracts and common law results in very heavy legal costs - which restrict freedom because even if you're in the right often you're often better off folding than paying huge amounts to gamble on proving yourself in court.

Or is PC just a champion of common law and court-based solutions a la carte: just those bits where it's applied to restrict others, not where it's applied to restrict PC?

5/29/2006 11:15:00 am  
Anonymous Andrew Bates said...

Freedom isn't free. PC offers us a value (the defence of freedom), and we who value it pay to make sure we can continue to consume it.

5/29/2006 11:11:00 pm  
Blogger sarah said...

Looking at this posting(12 July comment)

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/blog.asp?blogid=17&postid=638

Isn't this another example of her stealing someone's property??

7/15/2006 06:32:00 pm  
Blogger Julian said...

Annette Presley (among others) used the government to expropriate property rights that were assigned to Telecom. Telecom did not voluntarily enter into this. Unbundling means nationalisation and this IS theft of private property. Legalised theft it may be, however theft it is.

Annette Presley (and her other cheerleaders) are thieves dressed in suits who use the government to bully others into obtaining what they want.

Of course no-one is advoating that people invade her home, breaching her individual and personal property rights. But this is exactly the point Peter is making. If she feels so strongly about the importance of property and individual rights, why then does she go around demanding that the property rights of others be breached. ie Telecom? (Remember Individual rights include the rights to property)

Julian

10/10/2010 05:36:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home