Thursday, 11 June 2009

"Say it ain't so, Joe"

Am I the only one who thinks there's something wrong with Joe Karam dunning you and I for more than one-third of a million dollars for the last two years?

Am I the only one who understood that Karam had put up his own money to back David Bain, instead of taking ours to pay himself? Turns out however I was completely mistaken.

Mr Karam has just lost several hundred points in my estimation.


  1. I thought that legal aid meant to be for expenditures related to lawyers, expert witnesses, scientific testings, etc. It wasn't meant to be paid to supporters such as Mr. Karam. If the aid is to be paid for supporters, then they might as well pay money to other supporters of David Bain who had been there in his support from day one. Mr Karam is a bludger.

  2. Karam also has a contract with Bain to receive something like 20% of any compensation he may get.

    That can be found in his book of a few years ago.

    The whole thing is a farce.

  3. Agreed. He is not a proper member of the legal team but he has been paid as if he were.

  4. While I'm extremely anti him getting our money to fight his chosen crusade, I have no problem with a contract with Bain for a percentage of any compensation. Seems eminently sensible in fact. Where is the issue with that, Ruth?

  5. Karam set himself up in the public eye as a crusader for righteousness without any pecuniary interest.

    Thankfully that lie has now been exposed.

    If you are happy for him to have his blood money, so be it.

  6. It's more than fair the Karams are entitled to be paid for their time in building up their defence against the Crown whose pockets are bottomless by default.

    Note that Karam applied for Legal Aid after the Privy Council decison 2 years ago.

    The application must have fit the criteria of Legal Aid because the application was approved.

    It's over. A man has been found not guilty. The disputed portion of the tape has been ruled inadmissible by the High Court, the Appeals Court and the Supreme Court.

    It is easy to see why from the Reasons released by the Supreme Court yesterday.

    Good on Joe for his tenacity.

  7. What should occur is the judges who got their law rulings wrong, along with the prosecution team and police (who it would appear embellished the evidence after undertaking a shoddy effort to collect it in the first place), be required to pay the money. They did wrong, none of us did. Therefore none of us should be expected to contribute any money. On the other hand, they should be.


  8. Hello LGM,

    I am most interested in your level of reasoning.

    Are you saying that all the judges, from the High Court right through to the Supreme Court, plus all members of the prosecution team, plus the entire police force be asked to pay for the cost of the Bain Trials?

    Well, I suppose we could.

    Let's see. Take the entire cost thus far, and divide that by the number of people who made wrong decisions and collected shoddy evidence.

    Should we include Court Clerks in the equation?

    Are they wrong by association and so must contribute to costs?

    Yes. The only way to resolve this would be to get the Union of Law Clerks invloved.

  9. I propose the whole of NZ go on a massive pot-smoking spree to try and destroy our short term memory and eradicate this whole bloody case from our minds. I am so fucking sick of the whole thing and have stopped caring one way or the other.

    Us Northlanders are already practicing this approach.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.