Pedophiles, Child Porn & Window Tint – Another Blomfield Kiwi Court Scam

Regular readers will no doubt be wondering what all the fuss is about. Why it is that after five years of posting articles and analysis covering Matthew John Blomfield and Cameron Slater, that Blomfield has suddenly decided to attack LAUDA FINEM, using some pretty strange legal advice and tactics.

Well of course the first and most obvious thing is that Blomfield is no stranger to strange legal tactics, after all, time has indeed confirmed what LF knew 4 years ago. That the defamation tort against Slater was merely an abuse of process, designed to obtain the names of Slater’s sources, so that Blomfield could then attempt to silence them all. Here we go again, with Blomfield pulling exactly the same stunt.

That is of course proven beyond any doubt by the fact that Blomfield has failed to continue his proceedings. But what the public don’t know is that Blomfield has also been harassing Slater’s sources, again using spurious legal processes such as trying to obtain various anti harassment orders

These legal instruments and bankruptcy petitions have been a favourite weapon of Blomfield’s, although in truth, he has had very little luck with them.

So why then, out of the blue, has Blomfield suddenly tried to gag LF after all these years?

Well after much investigation LF now has the answer, and it involves one of those damn legal manoeuvre’s he’s been using to shut down anyone who would like to see the man behind bars, where he belongs.

Behind the scenes pressure has been mounting on Blomfield. He has, for want of a better expression, “lost his Mojo”. His many victims, having read LF’s work, have started to fight back and more are popping out of the woodwork with each day that passes.

Blomnfield’s mate, lawyer Bruce johnson, is currently facing multiple complaints surrounding his law firms trust accounts and the theft of thousands of dollars, of course LF was first to bring this fact to the attention of the Kiwi public, and that was soon followed up in articles penned by a Whale Oil journo.

Another mate, Greg Sheriff, has also been sacked from Grant Thornton for behavior which pretty much mirrors Bruce Johnson’s “cash converters” scheme…you know where they take your cash and turn it into their cash.

Bruce Johnson’s problems with the Law Society are being handled by barrister Andrew Gilchrist, who incidentally is now also assisting Blomfield with his attack on LF.

Multiple complaints have now also been filed with the New Zealand police, serious criminal offenses ranging from extortion, or blackmail, to theft as a company officer.

None of this has been reported in the New Zealand mainstream media of course, but we have to a great extent also exposed the corrupt relationship Blomfield enjoyed with the likes of the New Zealand Herald; where at least three of that newspapers journalists had conspired with and assisted Blomfield in committing a number of offenses in and around the re-acquisition of Hell Pizza, and of course in smearing Cameron Slater when Blomfield had sought to obtain Slater’s sources for wholly truthful articles he’d published back in 2012.

Now as our followers will know, LF has reported on this and other matters involving Blomfield, also since 2012. Excepting one threatening letter, following the decision of Blackwell DCJ back in late 2012, we have not heard from Blomfield at all.

Now that is, we suspect, largely due to the fact that our analysis has been accurate, in fact, it has been LF’s analysis which resulted in at least two of the criminal complaints being lodged with police. It has also been our analysis which resulted in Bruce Johnson facing serious charges before the NZ Law Society’s professional Standards committee.

So then, why now? Why is it that Blomfield has only now decided to attempt to gag LF, to try to have the Lauda Finem site pulled down?

Since Blomfield’s first attempt, Team LF have been very busy investigating the Machiavellian plot behind the New Zealand High Courts recent bogus orders. Of course the Court has been deliberately obstructive in that they have failed, on numerous occasions, to provide anyone with the affidavits in support of Blomfield’s actions. They have also acted well beyond their power, out of jurisdiction, out of New Zealand, where they in fact have absolutely no authority.

To cut a long story short, Blomfield has only acted now because allegations of his involvement in a child pornography ring have surfaced, allegations of pedophilia, stand-over tactics and threats of violence, using New Zealand’s infamous gangs, allegations attested to in an affidavit filed recently at Auckland’s North Shore District Court.

Somewhat ironically, this case seems to have started out as yet another attempt, on Blomfield’s part, to use the courts as a weapon; to yet again threaten and silence one of his more recent victims.

The case is; Olivia Baker v Karl Roe, CIV-2016-044-001219. It’s yet another of Blomfield’s now infamous malicious applications for a restraining order.

Blomfield is notorious for using this particular legal vehicle, in a complete abuse of process, often with two objectives in mind.

The first is of course to prevent his victims investigating his crimes; by hobbling their ability to talk to people who may be associated or have information.

The second objective, to discredit his victims, using false allegation and smear, painting for the court, a wholly fabricated, but nasty, little scenario, which can then, at a later date, again be used against his adversary, should the need arise.

In Baker v Roe however, Blomfield’s strategy didn’t work; precisely because had hadn’t managed to create sufficient fear for the victim to be easily rolled.  In short the victim found that he was not alone, that there were many others, all victims of Blomfield’s legal stratagem.

Don’t get us wrong, Blomfield had been very successful in causing the victim to fear for his personal safety, fear for his life in fact, with the usual threats of gang retaliation etc. The victim had, however, by this time also obviously read about Mr Blomfield and his legal tactics here on LF, at least on the .com version of LF; before the New Zealand Courts, in want of jurisdiction, had it transferred to a co-conspirator of Blomfield’s bent lawyers, one Andrew Gilchrist.

In fact, having read the victims affidavit and notice of intention to defend, the pages of LF seem to have given the poor boy ample evidence of Blomfields wrongdoing to work with.

This evidence and information, much of Blomfield’s commercial history, resulted in Mr Roe deciding to defend Blomfield’s “legal” assault, something that Blomfield isn’t at all used to; having built up quite the fearsome reputation, thanks to the Justice Asher’s complete bungling of the Cameron Slater case.

This latest case is also undoubtedly responsible for Blomfield’s rushed attempt to have LF silenced, Blomfield fearing, rightly, that LF would publish the details should we ever get our hands on the available evidence.

Now before we get started on the details of this quite extraordinary case, we would like to point out a couple of observations we’ve made on the events that transpired between Slater and Blomfield in 2012; the period leading up to the hacking of Slater’s computer and online accounts.

The first involves Blomfield’s obsession with getting Slater to surrender every photographic image contained on the now infamous hard-drive – Blomfield claiming at the time, that the images were just photos of his children and family.

Now the first question that crossed our minds way back then was why would Blomfield be so concerned about a few snap shots of his kids? The happy family stuff?

There was absolutely nothing that Slater could have done with such material, nor, we would suggest, would it likely have even crossed Slaters mind to use images of Blomfields children on his blog. After all, innocent photographs of children have nothing whatsoever to do with fraud, do they?

The second issue we have in fact canvassed on the pages of LF, to some extent, that being that we are of the view Blomfield was the primary mover behind the “Rawshark” fraud; the so-called hacker that the New Zealand police can’t seem to locate. The bloke behind the ‘moniker’ that was supposedly instrumental in Nicky Hager penning his last literary masterpiece and cash Cow, “Dirty Politics”

As regular readers will know, we’ve always been of the view that the Kiwi investigative Journo Nicky Hager had either been fooled into believing, or worse, gone along with a scam, claiming that his source was genuine, when in fact “Rawshark” was little more than a player in a much larger plot, with a number of players being behind it, including Blomfield and various politicians, who wanted to see Slater’s political and social influence decimated.

At the time of Blomfield’s first attack on LF, in October, we were preparing a story on just that subject. How the fraud had been pulled-off, the players involved etc. We will still, at some point in the future, revisit that issue, but suffice to say, with a very different perspective; a revised list of motives, given what’s potentially been exposed with the serious allegations against Blomfield in the Baker v Roe case.

What’s more the Baker v Roe case, or at the least events surrounding it’s handling, also point to a conspiracy within the New Zealand court system; an attempt to conceal the case and the serious allegations, in other words, to protect an alleged child pornography ring, so as not to derail their efforts to remove LF

In this post we will be providing a number of documents for readers to assess themselves. LF followers who are lawyers, or have a little experience in the law, will perhaps have a better understanding than most of what was and is at stake for Blomfield and his so-called “clients”. Why it is Blomfield might have hoped to prevent LF exposing this his latest legal scam; a scam that has obviously gone seriously wrong for him and others, seemingly backfiring very badly, simply because detailed information, that was readily available, existed on laudafinem.com (now laudafinem.org).

We here at LF have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this case is at the epicenter of Blomfield’s attempts to have this website gagged or shut down.

There are of course others involved, including the New Zealand Courts and the country’s corrupt police force, who also want to see this happen, for more than obvious reasons; an alliance that Blomfield has to date enjoyed. We have evidence that they too are concealed behind Blomfield’s spurious civil applications, not that it will do any of them one ounce of good.

Baker v Roe, the case

As we have stated on many occasions Blomfielf has made a very bad habit of claiming to be a lawyer of many years experience. He has in fact made this claim on multiple occasions. That is according to at least four of his victims, all of which have wound up losing thousands of dollars, in a variety of frauds. This, his latest victim, is no different, Blomfield using the false claim that he was a lawyer, among other wholly predictable methods, employed to intimidate the victim.

On this occasion however the victim, Mr Karl Roe, and his support person both had an all important thought, which they wisely decided to act on; they covertly recorded the meeting with Blomfield and another real lawyer.

They did so primarily because they had, at least to some extent, become aware that Blomfield had lied to and fabricated various claims that he’d made prior to that meeting.

The meeting had ostensibly been called by Karl Roe’s employers, the husband and wife owners of an Auckland (North shore) car window tinting Business; Olivia and Craig BAKER.

The employers had advised Roe and his support person that Blomfield and Brent Norling, their purported lawyers. would be at the meeting. Interestingly Karl Roe’s support person was in fact the Master Franchise holder, a woman, who to her credit had smelt a rat and thought to attend.

Now Blomfield, until very recently, had believed the meeting had gone well, that he had gotten away with the fraud, as Mr Roe, who couldn’t be bothered with the crap, simply left without incident.

This was despite the fact that, in our opinion, Roe had not only been unlawfully terminated, but had also suffered an attempted entrapment by both Blomfield and the only real solicitor at the meeting, Brent Norling, of Norling law, an Auckland law firm.

“I’m Matt, a lawyer, and I’ve been working in the area of HR for the last fifteen years”– Blomfield

Source: http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/New-Recording.pdf

In the transcript, linked below, it becomes quite apparent that what transpired between Norling, Blomfield, Roe and the support person amounted to both Blomfield and Norling attempting to threaten and intimidate Mr Roe. That Norling, a solicitor of the High Court, knowingly allowed Blomfield to misrepresent himself as a solicitor, whilst being fully aware that Blomfield was not only not a solicitor, but that he held no legal qaulification, or anything even vaguely resembling the experienced he’d falsely claimed.

The full transcript of that covertly record meeting can be viewed using the link below (note; LF also has the audio):

http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/New-Recording.pdf

Whats more, it is also apparent, from the transcript, that Blomfield was fishing for information, he is clearly heard attempting to establish if Karl Roe still has any of the information which he had assisted Olivia Baker retrieve from a her husbands computer over 12 months earlier:

“I would like to say some things to Karl now. Firstly, I’d like to ask you are you gonna respond. Can you tell us, are you denying the allegations, is what I’d like to ask” – Blomfield

source: http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/New-Recording.pdf

“Cut to the chase, you’ve obtained a whole lot of highly personal information and the reports back from Olivia and Craig is that that information that you’ve said to them on several occasions, to Olivia in particular, that if this goes wrong, you’re going to distribute that information to all of her extended family, her family and all of the clients which would be hugely damaging. So, the short answer is, and this is being covered off with the police, you’ve been blackmailing them for over a year. This is an allegation and the police will confirm whether it is blackmail or not but you’ve been doing this for over a year so they’ve been absolutely petrified as to how to deal with Karl.

You take the example of Olivia. I feel huge sympathy for her. She’s going, “I think I need to be nice to him because he might do something crazy,” and then she’ll back away. I’ve seen the text messages, I’ve seen this firsthand so I’m not basing this on anything other than the stuff I’ve seen firsthand and I’m going, “Are you for real?” And this poor woman is torn between …” – Blomfield

source: http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/New-Recording.pdf

Of course Roe had made no threats to release any information; that false allegation had been dreamed up by Blomfield – purely to justify his interrogation and the subsequent sacking of Roe, which neither Norling or Blomfield had any legal authority to do.

What is clear, as aforesaid, is that Blomfield was obviously worried that, had Roe kept any data, it could well be used later to evidence the fact that both Blomfield and Craig Baker had not only conducted a homosexual relationship, but of more concern to Blomfield, during which they both may have engaged in the systemic downloading/uploading and viewing of child pornography – as had been evidenced by the contents Craig Bakers computer and comments his wife, Olivia Baker, had made to Karl Roe, when discussing Blomfield’s sexual relationship with her husband Craig, over the twelve months prior to Blomfield’s staged HR meeting.

Karl Roe himself, in fact contemporaneously, briefly eludes to his prior knowledge, that of Blomfield’s homosexual relationship with Craig Baker, during that same “HR” meeting:

“I’d like you more if you weren’t Craig’s friend, you know what I mean?” – Karl Roe

source: http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/New-Recording.pdf

Blomfield’s behaviour during the bogus HR meeting was extraordinary, false claim after false claim, implied threats, claims to have police at his beckon call –  all the while the only real solicitor in the room, Brent Norling, either supported Blomfield’s bullshit or simply sat back and remained silent as the fraudster spun his “matjick”.

What Blomfield hadn’t considered however, of course, at the time likely thinking only of his own culpability, if exposed, was whether or not Roe had kept any evidence of his own long-term sexual relationship with his employer Olivia Baker, and just how that might impact on any malicious allegations that Blomfield might be required to fabricate at a later date.

This is precisely where Blomfield has in fact come unstuck on this occasion; by basing his recent malicious and spurious allegations on a fairytale; that being that Bakers were a “normal” suburban Kiwi couple; employers who simply had legitimate concerns that one of their naughty employees had unlawfully hacked into and obtained personal information from a business computer.

Nothing could have been further from the truth however in this Machiavellian Blomfield special (served with extra cheese).

The truth was in fact unwittingly touched on by Roes support person during the aforementioned HR meeting;

“No, that’s why he needs an opportunity to say something but he needs a lawyer and there’s a love triangle going on so I’m not sure what mess we’re gonna get into here” – FV

Source: http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/New-Recording-1.pdf

But the so called “Love Triangle” was actually more of a “Love Square” because Roe’s support person obviously hadn’t been made privy to the sexual involvement of the “fourth angle”, aka Matthew Blomfield himself – that Blomfield had in fact allegedly been ploughing Craig Baker, and likely, also involved in the same criminal activity; both possibly sharing a perverted interest in child pornography; if one is to believe Olivia Baker and the evidence she and Roe had obtained as stated in his affidavit;

 

 

Now, throughout this ordeal young Mr Karl Roe’s only mistake was that he simply left the job, he didn’t stop to think of the ramifications, he didn’t challenge the dismissal as he was no doubt entitled to do. Remember, he had been told and still believed that Blomfield was a lawyer, not the lying scheming piece of shit that he is in reality.

Roe figured that he had actually done nothing wrong and that given his sexual relationship with Olivia Baker had turned sour he might as well make the best of a bad situation with a clean break, although that was not to be, with Olivia Baker continuing to pursue him.

Mr Roe was guilty of being a silly boy, but that’s completely understandable and its a mistake almost any naive Kiwi male might make if they believed they were dealing with a fucking LAWYER.

The fact is that Roe had been a model employee, as is evidenced by the presence of the master Franchise owner as Roe’s support person at the meeting with Blomfield and Norling. Roe therefore soon found work, in fact he ultimately started taking work from the Bakers automotive window tinting business, which of course then threatened to send them both broke.

This appears to be where Roes problems started, for a second time. Roe soon got wind of the fact that rumors about him had started to be spread around the area in which he worked; rumors that were not at all nice, mirroring the activities of Blomfield and Craig Baker in fact –  rumors that Roe soon established had been spread by Blomfield and Craig Baker.

Roe started countering the rumors with the truth, which was the catalyst for Blomfield’s attempt at obtaining what he thought might be any evidence Roe may still have, and then what he’d hope would be the “coup de grâce”,  a restraining order.

This very much simplifies what is in fact a complex series of events, Machiavellian ploys and plots which were employed by Blomfield in order to mitigate the damage he had done to the Baker’s business and reputation, all in order, we would argue, to prevent knowledge of his own true “character” becoming public knowledge – evidenced with images and video footage.

The collapse of the case.

As we have already said Blomfield had earlier clearly managed to convince himself and Craig Baker that Roe posed no threat to them personally, that he no longer held data that would expose them both, in particular Baker, as a criminal pervert.

Whats more Blomfield appears to have convince this disfunctional couple that in order to save the business they needed to attack Roe’s credibility, preferably by having him framed by the courts in the same light as they had endeavored to paint him to mutual and prospective clients in the local automotive retail sales industry.

Now so far, in this sad and diabolical story, we have seen absolutely nothing that isn’t classic Blomfield – discredit, smear, threaten with gang violence, and the when all else fails, use spurious and malicious litigation and the associated financial costs to fuck his targets once and for all. That’s exactly what he succeeded in doing to Slater, while the gullible Justice Asher simply obliged

The next ploy, sadly, is from the same arsenal that Blomfield has employed against almost everyone he’s ever attacked, including Hell Pizza, Warren Powell, Marc Spring, Shiv Mattu and restaurateur Duch Pham.

Mr Duch Pham, of course, also has a complaint before the New Zealand Law Society, also with respect to serious frauds that Blomfield and one of his bent lawyers, Bruce Johnson, pulled.

Mr Pham has, you guessed it, also accused Blomfield of falsely representing himself as a lawyer, so as to gain his confidence. Funnily enough, lawyer Bruce Johnson is being represented in the Law Society investigation by none other than Andrew Gilchrist, the same bent barrister who Blomfield is now using in his High Court efforts to gag LF

The fact is, young Mr Karl Roe, automotive window tinter extraordinaire, was just another “mark” to Blomfield, one that Blomfield believed he could completely control or destroy with another of his spurious litigation’s. But as it has turned out, Karl Roe was not an easy mark at all. In fact he has proven to be anything but the sitting Duck Blomfield had hoped for.

Blomfield’s “final solution” was simple enough, it involved suborning Olivia Baker, using God only knows what as the ‘carrot’, to commit perjury, knowingly filing a false and malicious “exparte” application (they’re a favorite) for another of his bogus “restraining orders”.

This was, of course, not particularly original. Blomfield has done exactly the same to one of his many failed companies creditors, Mr Marc Spring, back in 2014, following a preliminary hearing in the Blomfield v Slater matter; that order lasting only 12 months. Blomfield of course failed to apply for another. This to was designed purely as a gag order, no real threat ever being present.

In the case of Karl Roe however, Blomfield’s false allegations were far more sinister, with lies and fabrications so extraordinary, that they had the potential to do some real damage to Roes future prospects.

Blomfields application and affidavits can be read using the links below (pdf):

http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ExParte-Affidavit-Exhibit-A.pdf

http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ExParte-Affidavit-Exhibit-B.pdf

http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ExParte-Affidavit-Exhitit-C.pdf

As aforesaid, Blomfield’s failure to account for the possibility of substantial evidence of the existence of a sexual relationship between the woman, Olivia Baker, who’s perjury Blomfield had suborned, and the intended target, Karl Roe, proved to be Blomfield’s undoing;

Karl Roe’s notice of intention to defend and his affidavit in support can be viewed using the links below (pdf);

http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Baker-v-Roe-Notice-of-defense-applications1.pdf

http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ExParte-Affidavit-K-Roe.pdf

http://www.laudafinem.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/K-Roe_affidavit.pdf

Within a matter of days of receiving the second affidavit from Karl Roe, Blomfield’s lawyer and front man, Stuart Gloyn, allegedly telephoned the registrar and undertook to file an immediate notice of discontinuance with the District Court; thus attempting to withdraw the suborned application and perjured affidavits of Olivia Baker.

In short, Blomfield’s malicious prosecution had just collapsed, Blomfield undoubtedly knowing that the tables had now been turned; that he and his homosexual lover, Craig Baker, had now in fact become the targets.

Of course all of this work was, purportedly, also performed by the “real lawyer”, Blomfield’s latest partner in fraud and crime, Stuart Gloyn, aka Bytalus Legal.

Gloyn, a second rate charlatan with an LLb, who has a track record of covering up the financial failures fraudsters and property shysters the likes of Blomfield, Brent Clode, Malcolm Mayer and Simon Turnbull, who just earned himself three years, two months, in the big-house, create, now operates from the same address as Blomfield’s own bullshit faux-law firm “Blomfield and Co”

Court attempts to conceal the proceeding and the evidence

Before we get started on what happened after Blomfield was forced to withdraw his bogus application against Carl Roe now is perhaps an appropriate time to introduce the players in this and various other legal scams that Blomfied and his mates have managed to get a Court to buy into:

The various parties involved with the malicious and false application, made by Blomfield, against Karl Roe, and its subsequent coverup:

• Matthew Blomfield
• Olivia Baker (window tint)
• Craig Baker ( window tint)
• Daniel Toresen (private investigator)
• Danny Thompson (ex corrupt cop private investigator)
• Mike Gillam (private investigator)
• Steve McHugh (Manager Licensing Private Investigators, Auckland District Court)
• Stuart Gloyn (corrupt lawyer)
• Brent Norling (corrupt lawyer)
• Andrew Gilchrist (Barrister, defending Bruce Johnson before LS)
• Lawrence Irwin Hinton (District Court Judge)
• Peter Woodhouse (High Court Justice)
• Bruce Johnson (corrupt lawyer)
• David Dillion (lawyer West Auckland, Bruce Johnson associate)
• Michael Blacknam (Circle IT limited, Blomfield associate, formally of Mangawhai)

Court attempts to conceal the proceeding and the evidence

So Blomfield is forced to withdraw his application against Karl Roe, using suborned proxy Olivia Baker. which in itself is not that extraordinary, especially given the evidence against the Bakers and Blomfield – the child pornography, alleged paedophilia and a homosexual tryst between Blomfield and Olivia’s husband Craig Baker.

What is however extraordinary is what happens next. Mr Roe and a number of other interested parties contacted the court and requested copies of the file. Those requests were declined. Not that the affidavits of Olivia Baker weren’t available, no they could be handed out freely. The problem appeared to be with Karl Roe’s affidavit.

In fact, it would appear that a lot of strange things have occurred since the North Shore District Court  received Karl Roes affidavit, the least of which was Blomfield’s, understandable, immediate withdrawal.

The file was suddenly, at least seemingly, transferred from the North Shore registry, to the Auckland registry and a new court officer was gaurding the file, ensuring Roe’s damning affidavit never saw the light to day.

Karl Roes killer affidavit was filed on the 3rd of November, Blomfield and Gloyn, upon receipt, immediately withdrew their bogus application against Roe.

Karl Roe was immediately advised of this, unusually with a telephone call, purportedly made from the North Shore Registry.

Later however there were conflicting stories told to Roe and a legally experienced support person and that the file was now being held and dealt with by the Auckland registry.

Roe was also repeatedly told that the judge, who had been assigned the hearing, had ordered that his affidavit be sealed, quite an extraordinary order, given that the court could not produce any application requesting this action.

Nor in fact could the registrar even produce the so-called order that Hinton DCJ had allegedly granted. Despite constant demands for the Court to do so, the purported Court Order was not finally produced until 2 days ago, late on the afternoon of the 17th November, almost two weeks after Blomfield had withdrawn the application.

We here at LF are in absolutely no doubt that corrupt behavior has taken place, that officers of a New Zealand District court have attempted to pervert justice.

Once the file reached Auckland, the person who was now dealing with the file acted very strangely, almost as if a novice at the job of registrar.

The reason for this mans peculiar unfamiliarity could perhaps be put down to the fact that despite his claiming to be a mere “case manager” this court employee was anything but a lowly clerk.

The man in question was in fact Steven McHugh, or Steve as he prefers to be known. Far from being a mere District Court “case manager” Steve is in fact a Department of Justice Manager, the official responsible for the licensing and policing of private investigators.

LF had been looking at MCHugh some time ago as a result of various fraudulent behavior of corrupt Private Investigators, involving the obtaining of unlawful police search warrants.

McHugh was not at all hard to identify as likely being one and the same civil servant we’d been looking at earlier. Something as simple as an email address can produce all the evidence needed:

McHugh has a relationship with known Blomfield associates, corrupt private detectives Danny Thompson, his son Daniel Toresen and their employee Mike Gillam.

In fact it seems that Steve McHugh was the civil servant that turned a blind eye to Danny Thompson’s criminal record whilst unlawfully reissuing Thompson’s private investigators license not so long ago. Thompson having recently been fined almost a thousand dollars for not declaring the recent conviction for assault, an event that we here at Lauda Finem in fact reported on.

Wherever Blomfield is these three bent private dicks are not far away. In fact we suspect that the so-called “large Moari” ex cop/document server that Roe reported as menacingly mentioning the “Head Hunters” on Blomfield’s instructions, may well be an employee of Daniel Toresen’s.

Blomfield has used these same men in the past, including as “muscle” during the theft and conversion of a $100’000.00 Government cheque.

Back in September this year LF received the above comment, a warning that something was afoot perhaps?

What we do know for certain is that Thompson, Toresen and Gillam are involved with Blomfield’s recent High Court attempts to have Lauda Finem gagged, to prevent us reporting on cases such as this, where criminal enterprises, such as the one that Blomfield and his associates run, can operate with impunity, without hindrance or the risk of being caught red handed.

Now what intrigues us about this case, and Blomfields destined to fail attempts to gag LF using the New Zealand High Court, is that there is a connection. A connection that the judges overseeing both cases should have been made aware of, if they haven’t been already.

For his part, District Court Judge Hinton appears, at least on the face of it, to have assisted an organized paedophile group, men who allegedly, according to Olivia Baker and Karl Roe, enjoy up/down-loading and viewing internet child pornography, without so much as a hearing.

We know that this attempted coverup will not ultimately succeed, far too many people are watching and investigating now for that to happen, but its still extremely disturbing.

LF will eventually be handing everything we have obtained to the Australian Federal police and the Netherlands police, because clearly, the New Zealand Police and many of the country’s judges seem to be far more interested in concealing crimes, especially those of fellow lawyers, than they are putting away criminals.

As for Blomfield’s efforts to quickly get all of the photographs and image files contained on the now infamous hard-drive returned by Slater, isn’t that panicked behavior now perhaps worth a little rethink, particularly in light of the above evidence and outlandish attempted coverup by Blomfield?

As indeed is the possible real motivation that drove the so-called self-styled cyber avenger “Raw-shark”? A cyber expertise obtained while avoiding detection, when visiting, uploading and downloading, on child porn sites perhaps?

Important Footnote;

If Justice Woodhouse is aware of this latest false accusation from Blomfield, which is quite possibly an attempt on Blomfield’s part to conceal child sexual exploitation, is he really the right man to be presiding over cases of alleged child sexual abuse?

 

References/Bibliography

https://nz.linkedin.com/in/brent-norling-33267246

http://www.norlinglaw.co.nz/

Additional reading –

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/08/04/the-blomfield-files-the-criminal-thompson-toresen-clan-locate-cameron-slaters-witness-marc-iron-spring-the-criminal-harassment-continues-an-lf-investigation/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/12/06/matthew-john-blomfield-the-a-z-of-plan-fraud/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/11/04/are-attempts-to-associate-blomfield-case-with-police-search-of-nicky-hagers-home-a-complete-furphy/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/09/29/blomdumps-act-iii-blomfields-statement-of-claim-more-holes-than-the-titanic/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/09/04/whale-oil-blogger-cameron-slaters-bad-dream-climbs-into-bed-with-arch-nemesis-matthew-blomfield/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/08/26/the-blomfield-files-operation-haresay-the-day-jono-did-the-dirty/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/08/03/the-blomfield-files-the-thompson-toresen-conspiracy-rapidly-unravels/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2016/03/23/halfwit-bloggers-damning-new-evidence-surfaces/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2015/09/29/whale-oil-runs-with-another-lf-story-dumb-and-dumber-the-pet-detectives-have-been-at-it-again/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2015/07/24/the-standards-lynn-prentice-gifted-sys%C2%B7op-complete-idiot-or-plain-nasty-cyclops/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/09/19/blomdumps-act-ii-the-modus-operandi-of-brazen-fraudsters/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/09/17/blomdumps-act-i-the-genesis-of-a-defamation-scam/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/09/14/nz-high-court-states-the-obvious-whale-oil-blogger-cameron-slater-is-a-journalist-but-theres-a-sting-in-the-tail/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/06/22/exclusive-its-official-slaters-a-journo-the-whale-oil-blog-is-media-the-sources-should-be-safe-according-to-top-qc/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/05/21/the-gospel-of-matthew-in-the-beginning-there-was-the-word-the-word-was-extortion/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2015/08/17/new-zealand-ird-the-blomfield-frauds-the-liquidators-the-lawyers-the-police-and-the-media-collaborators/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2015/01/21/standard-sucked-into-blomfield-versus-slater-dirt/

http://www.laudafinem.org/2014/09/04/whale-oil-blogger-cameron-slaters-bad-dream-climbs-into-bed-with-arch-nemesis-matthew-blomfield/