My motion lodged in the Supreme Court of Samoa today requests that Samoa Observer resubmit their Statement of Defence based on reality and not fabrications. Their lawyer, Rosella Viane Papalii will likely be scratching her head over this one because it’s a pretty direct backhanded swipe at her Statement of Defence and in some ways could be a taunt along the lines in sport, “Oh, please can have a better team to compete against?” Ouch!
I want whatever they’re drinking up there in SAHQ in Vaitele!
A strategic nightmare is unfolding for Samoa Observer and their legal team in their $2m defamation case against me. In most cases any weakness in the opposition’s case will be exploited by the other side, for the whole objective in an adversarial situation is to win – the loser of course usually has to pay. If you’re driven by money (I’m not, they are) then you don’t need to play the game the same way as them. I’m driven by truth, credibility and think long-term, like as in ‘out of this world’ length of time if you get my drift.
These guys are greedy and want a big dollop of the cash that I don’t have and don’t want! So they are spending hard-earned cash with a lawyer who will lie on their behalf (to again, I’m sure, just get the cash) and all this chasing the rainbow when every word, act, document they produce just reveals them for who they are – as it it does me!
In a criminal case the prosecution is usually the Police with the Attorney General representing the prosecution. Found guilty, and you then gotta pay the fine to the court or go to jail or whatever. In a civil case it’s the same, where you have a Plaintiff (that’s me) up against the Defendant (that’s the Samoa Observer) and the winner has to pay the loser whatever the case was all about.
I’ve already blogged about the dodgy defence and explained how they have clearly provable lies as the central plank of their defence – “We’ve published three articles and run three adverts,” they proudly proclaim as if it’s obvious that they have no other obligations towards me.
Fine if that’s their position . . . except for one thing . . . I’ve popped into the Apia library, snapped a few photos of the newspapers in the archives and . . . um . . . there’s a lot more than three articles. Oops!
Samoa Observer lies.
So, rather than wait for trial and for these turkeys to get shown up for lying in front of a judge and most certainly winning against the bad boys and being absolutely certain the the front page will NEVER shout, “Samoa Observer loses $2m defamation case against Palagi blogger because we lied and got found out”, I’ve made it public, warned their lawyer Rosella V. Papalii in a served document and published the evidence and commentary online so that the world can see their lies in real-time and for posterity. The Internet web thingy has a very long memory actually!
Now I have no idea what the judge will say or do in the Supreme Court in all the pre-trial stuff. First he will have to deal with my first Motion to separate the two cases – mine where I am suing them for $3,500.00 breach of contract and theirs where they are suing me for $2m defamation. Either way they go – with linked cases or separated cases it doesn’t matter, they will still have to face the judge considering my petition that they “please cook up a better defence and prefereably one that doesn’t start with lies”!
Assuming that Samoa Observer doesn’t chicken out before the event (it’s certainly a possibility), if the judge rejects my petition for legal reasons (or through evidence and logic) then they will go to trial with a Defence based on provable lies. Having warned Rosella of this in advance, she risks being held in contempt of court and professional censure if not criminal charges if she’s leading the charge. If Sano stands in court and tries to put his nonsense across a judge then he’ll perjure himself. As I’ve said before that would be well worth the risk of losing a cool $2m just to see! It would really put a suitable cap on his career as Samoa’s top newspaper man from the stories I have heard about him.
But what is worse though for these brainboxes with more egos than sense is that having lied in a court document, they are caught between a rock and a hard place for to change it raises questions of credibility – the answer of course is that there isn’t any from these self-proclaimed professional pontification moralists.
I’ve called the owner a “goose” in my previous blogging and for good reason it seems – he’s either been led up the garden path by a wimpy lawyer who just wants his money OR he’s bossed his lawyer around and told her to rattle-off some quickly cobbled-together story and she’s run with it too frightened or greedy to smell the poison in the digital ink.
So here we have it:
- I sue ’em for $3.5k because they wouldn’t pay my bill;
- They stitch together a defence with fabrications that took me less than an hour to prove BS from the public library;
- They counter-sue for a few million and then;
- I don’t wait to go to trial and slam their defence with proof, but take it to the judge before the trial and ask him to instruct them to go away and find a better “story”!
- On top of that the whole thing is online in realtime and a book published about it all.
- We have a saying here that’s appropriate, “Only in Samoa!” meaning of course that there are some pretty dopey things happening up [down] here at times.
This is the document lodged in court today:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU DC 469/15
BETWEEN: DENNIS ARTHUR SMITH of Aleisa
AND:SAMOA OBSERVER COMPANY LIMITED of Vaitele
NOTICE OF MOTION REQUESTING A REVISED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
TAKE NOTICE that on Monday 26 March 2016, I, the Plaintiff, will MOVE the Honourable Court FOR THE FOLLOWING ORDERS:
a) THAT the Defendant PRODUCE a revised STATEMENT OF
CLAIMDEFENCE based on reality and not fabrications; and
b) THAT Counsel for the Defendant be ADVISED to exercise increased due diligence when accepting instruction from the Defendant; and
c) THAT costs be awarded to the Plaintiff for the preparation of this Motion; and
d) SUCH further order as this Honourable deems appropriate;
ON THE GROUNDS THAT:
e) THE Statement of Defence contains provable error in the matter central to the defence, namely the details of billable services supplied to the Plaintiff AND the details of payment rendered to the Plaintiff;
f) THAT Counsel for the Defence has been warned of these errors by public notice AND in served documents; and
g) THAT proceeding to trial with a defence based on previously notified, provable falsehood exposes both the Defendant and Counsel for the Defendant to criminal charges of Conspiring to Defeat Justice; and
h) THAT the Defendant has previously produced evidence to Samoan Courts that have been assessed to LACK CREDIBILITY; and
i) THAT Counsel for the Defendant has an obligation to conduct professional due diligence WHEN accepting instructions from her client, as Justice Vaai phrased it, “Lawyers should always consider the possibility that their witnesses [in this case client] may be lying and the implications that can have not only on the witness but also for counsel concerned”; and
j) THAT failure to do so in the future could bring the Samoan Legal profession into disrepute; and
k) THAT if acted upon in its current form would cause an act of PERJURY on the behalf of the Defendant; and
l) THAT if acted upon in its current form will be an abuse of court processes with a successful Strike Out Motion based on provable falsehood (in the public domain), arguably inevitable.
DATED at Apia this 30th day of October 2015.
DENNIS A. SMITH
This is clearly a little unusual so it begs the question, “Why? Why did you not wait to the trial and ‘waste’ them, if you’re certain that you’ll win?”
The answer is that life is won in the journey, happiness in grasping the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is a mirage. I have five months to blog about Samoa Observer and their arrogance; their hypocrisy; their continued acting like ‘dicks’; their pompous puffery and they can do absolutely nothing because they’re chickens – bullies always are.
If they believed their own drivel they’d have gotten an injunction by now stopping me blogging bad things about them, but they know that all I’d do about that would be to blog about the injunction request and the judge would be really hard pressed to justify that request – nah!
“I order you to stop blogging bad things about Samoa Observer Mr Smith!”
“OK sure, Your Honour, like what things?”
“Well like they say, calling Mr Malifa a “goose” for one, and saying he’s “acted like a dick” is just not on Mr Smith!”
“But Your Honour I thought that this is what we are going to trial over? Can I say that I THINK those things, because that’s what I believe, I have good reason to believe it so free speech and all that . . . ”
In continuing to blog, in speaking it like it is online in real-time people can see the real score – I’m fearless; I deal with facts; I use cold logic; I shoot straight and they’re totally impotent. These guys might have lovely wives and kids and so on but they’re definitely not strategists, that’s for real.
There’s another reason – I can’t believe that one of the most experienced journalists with more experience in defamation cases in Samoa (both taking them and being on the end of them) than anyone else here could possibly think for a minute that he actually had a real defamation case on his hands. He just can’t be that stupid!
So I think that he’s fully intended to just push his weight around a bit against a “smooth-talking opportunist” – bump the case up to the Supreme Court and burn me off because of the costs of lawyers. He’s got the money to play silly little legal games to drag it out as much as he wants and in the end he thinks he’ll get away with it. He may have to cough up in the end but the from his perspective he can justify the whole thing in his mind because as I said in my first post – he doesn’t have an excess of humility and keeps on “acting like a dick” – as I said in the defamation post itself.
There’s just one little teeney-weeney problem though, it’s going out online day after day, I’m loving it and dragging the matters on as each motion has to be heard, dealt with, addressed and I have no legal bills. He does and in time the negative press will continue to (as he says in his defamation case) cause “much embarrassment, distress and inconvenience to the Defendant”.
Scoring an own goal; putting your foot in your mouth, cooking your goose , being goosed (figuratively of course) or being a goose – take your pick! They all apply with this lot.
In upcoming posts I will be sharing more events that will be worthy of a story or two, including details of the single line of defence I will be taking in the $2m defamation case – it will have a few eyebrows raised, and the brown-stuff in the lower regions for the Samoa Observer brains-trust, but it will make perfect sense when I share it. Those who want to see a PR war occur in real-time online can have a ringside seat.
Basically because I’m not interested in petty legal posturing or legal games around the defamation thing, I will be simply employing the defence of truth, nothing else, just doubling down, upping the anti and challenging Samoa Observer to put up or shut up and probably cough up too if I’m allowed to predict the outcome.
You should be researching asymmetric warfare too if you want to be prepared.
See you next time and thanks for swinging by. More in a few days once I’ve saved a few coins for the bus fare and printing the next set of court documents.