In this post I address a statement from “rich prick” businessman Sir David Hay, whom I am in the process of suing for [to him] a paltry $1,500.00, who again said to me arrogantly, “I don’t understand . . .” among other choice patronising words after a recent court hearing. In the process of ‘helping him understand’, I describe how people who have more money than sense bully others to get their way, and why people like this ‘bro’ vehemently hate straight shooters like me when their real character is exposed. It’s the same old, age old problem of pride. Enjoy.

Background

Sir David Hay along with his brothers inherited the wealth of multi-million dollar New Zealand businessman Keith Hay. He has retained these assets (which is a mean feat I might add, as many silver-spooners promptly lose their inheritance). He owns 100 or so commercial and rental properties according to him, under the company Roskill Properties Ltd.

I sued him in late 2018 because one of his staff, property manager Mr Alan Fenton didn’t honour an agreement and this cost me money. I did the honourable thing, attempted to meet with the ‘old man’ or to speak to him in the presence of his Pastor or Priest if he preferred, but he told me to “bugger off” so I had to either give up seeking justice or sue him.

That’s like some Swedish millionaire holding a loaded pistol to a randy sailor’s head and giving him the choice of marrying his beautiful blue-eyed virgin daughter or having his head blown off. I chose the latter option of course, as would most sailors I’m sure.

I don’t take kindly to arrogance or bullies especially when it is combined with ignorance and even more so when I’m the recipient of this kind of stupidity. “Fearless” is my middle name and cowards, crooks, crims & crazies like this dude are easy meat when all you deal with is logic and fact.

The Case

The case can be summarised as a breach of contract. The adjudicator wrote the standard issues in any conflict situation on the board:

1. Was there a contract?
2. If so, what were the agreed terms of that contract?
3. Did the defendant breach any of those terms and if so which ones?
4. Is the claim provable? In other words, how much did it cost?

From all of this the judge or adjudicator can then issue an order – “Mr Hay, you gotta pay Mr Smith $xxx” or, “Mr Smith you get nothing because you haven’t proven your case”.

My claim is that Alan Fenton and I engaged by discussing a tenancy matter, then we entered into an agreement which he would summarise by email when he got back to the office. In the meantime he changed his mind, changed the agreement unilaterally which cost us money and therefore the court case.

During the hearing, now into it’s third session (making probably six hours of nonsense) Sir David Hay has presented his case based on lies – from his tenant and from his staff. This is a very serious situation for this dude because he is a senior business leader with a reputation as a man of integrity – a Christian, a son of another senior businessman in his own time, on the Board of this and that, a Sir and more. In the recent hearing, in his written testimony this dude (whom I have previously shown to be a fool in the courtroom arena) stated that no agreement had been entered into – twice. He also slapped up two unsworn affidavits containing more lies, one containing a dozen errors of fact, which I will address shortly.

Lying in Court

So, getting to the crux of the matter after almost 4 hours of argey-bargey, I read the first lie back to this so-called man of integrity and asked him to his face if what he presented to the court was fact. Looking straight into my eyes in a recorded session in court, he said, “Yes!”

Gotcha Sir David Hay. You lied! BIG MISTAKE!

Then I read the second sentence out in court and looked him in the eye. “Do you stand by this statement (that there was no agreement) as true?”

This time though he was a little more evasive and pushed the blame out to his Property Manager who had signed the document. In a tricky move, probably a conscience-pricked attempt to push the blame out to another person (a subordinate) he said, “Well he signed it, didn’t he?” or something like that.

Now we’ve got two liars, Sir David Hay. EVEN BIGGER MISTAKE!

Look, I know that people lie all the time, arrogance makes them think they can get away with it, and that most do it to protect their monetary position usually for reasons of greed, but when someone is prepared to lie, that makes them a crook in my book.

Bullying Others

We now move to the subject of bullying. Again, as with all ungodly, anti-social and self-destructive behaviour, bullying is rooted in human pride. It is the arrogance that we (the guy with the ‘rights’) have some form of right over another human being, thus we can justify coercion, aggression or other hurting behaviour.

Sir David Hay bullies overtly as well as indirectly, and this recent case has shown both sides of this. His staff member Alan Fenton has conspired with David to misrepresent reality to the court. In a signed statement Alan’s signature is attached to a lengthy document that comes in the name of the Defendant (Roskill Properties Ltd) in which the fact that no agreement was entered into (thus undermining our claim). Twice the lie is claimed in court that, “Mr Smith’s claim has no merit because no agreement was entered into.”

Alan Fenton works for David Hay. David Hay is losing a court case which will cost him money. David Hay does not like parting with his money, especially not to opinionated bloggers. You can see how this new testimony arose I am sure. Subtle coercion, you can bet your bottom dollar.

Overt bullying however is provable in the second example for at the court hearing (which was recorded) David Hay admitted that he wrote the letter and put in front of his tenant to sign, which he did. Not only that though in court Sir David Hay even talked about his tenant having to contribute to any losses if he incurred them! OMG!

It just so happened that the very morning of the case I popped in to see my mate the tenant to wish him Happy New Year and to catch up and he admitted to signing the affidavit that Sir Keith Hay asked him to. Listen to this though . . . Sir David Hay told him personally about a clause in his lease agreement where he (David Hay) had a right to claw back any losses incurred by his tenant. Holy Shmoley – this guy oozes stupidity!

I told the court that this affidavit contained a dozen lies and that it was signed under duress. Snap! Sir David . . . you cannot slap a document down in front of a tenant (who is also semi-literate BTW), threaten him with legal action against him if you lose your case against me, and then slap that down into a courtroom as evidence, unless you’re ignorant of legal processes. Did I use the word ignorant before this?

Consequences

Sin takes us further, for longer and is far more costly than we ever predicted. God will not be mocked. The truth will always out and Sir David Hay will find that in decades to come, his children, grandchildren and perhaps even great-grand children will be reading this post, recalling in horror at the real conduct of their supposedly well-recognised, well-respected leader in the community.

There will be serious consequences for those that lied too . . . perjury is a crime, not just a civil matter. When you lie in court, you break the law, thus if convicted become a criminal. If I’m prepared to take on the corruption in Samoa right through to the Prime Minister Tuila’epa, you can be very sure that I will have absolutely no qualms about charging a man who has been knighted by politicians, or his staff or tenants with a crime under a private prosecution.

Sir David, ‘bro’, I know that you will be reading this . . . I told you when you bleated on to me on the way out of the courtroom while you were trying to scurry away back to your lair and that you didn’t understand, that one day you will. You will! Some of us “c*nts” live by principles and have no fear of rich dudes like you who seem to think that you have a right to bully others because you have money and can leverage your position over others for your own immoral purposes. I am not your tenant nor your employee. You have NOTHING on me. I have no fear of you or your power games. Some of us little people David, Sir, live by principle, stand for truth and justice instead of seeking the mighty dollar and some of us never give up – ever.

Watch sir, as your lies, games and evil compound, escalate and ensnare you like a dark fog, and as I told you to your face, you “go down”. Unless of course you humble yourself and do the honourable thing.

For everyone else, watch this space and expect more blogging once I have sufficient evidence to take action.

My Goodness some people are stupid aren’t they? It seems that having money doesn’t always correlate to common sense, truth or integrity does it?

When David took on Goliath, there was a fair bit of ego involved. Granted that one of those egos related to his size and braun and the other was faith in a living God, but to think that David didn’t dance on the big man’s dead body might be a little naive! I reckon he let it rip and had a huge party.

Warfare

Whatever, ego ALWAYS leads to a decent fight, or at least a showdown sooner or later. Slingshot, six-shooters, lances, or nukes it’s always the same . . . and somebody’s going to get their comeuppance in any fight. Sometimes it is both parties and nobody wins but it can be that there is a winner and a loser – if fought to the death.

I’m like that, and have the propensity to escalate a fight to the death. The phrase I use to describe this approach is that I never give up – ever. I also say things like, “I am a man of principle, I am a black and white guy,” that I will fight for the truth, or the little guy, or no matter what the consequences.

I often use an analogy that when you tie the big man’s shoe-laces it is inevitable that he will fall – all you gotta do is get the setup right (the shoelaces part) then taunt him, tease him, bait him and let him make the move – he’ll fall by his own weight and movement. Like David, when Goliath was destined to death even before he fell, so too a big man like David Hay, with his shoelaces tied, he will fall.

While I don’t go around killing people as a habit, I can and do name the arrogant, the bullies and people I call “crooks, crims & crazies”, on my Hall of Shame which is my way of dealing to injustice – exposure. Sir David John Hay gains infamy today by joining others who have crossed my path and made fools of themselves in various ways. David gains this credential through acting poorly in a commercial dispute, which I will shortly detail for the macabre record.

The Commercial Conflict

There are many important takehomes from this specific sorry saga. As I said to David in person recently (forgive the language but this is what was actually spoken) “Some people are arseholes by nature and others are seen to be arseholes by showing others up for who they really are!” This was in the context of a rather testy exchange where the big-shot businessman showed patronising contempt for a little pr*ck businessman [me of course] who dared to challenge him and his company. “Get a life son; do you really enjoy what you do [causing the rest of us good guys problems]” was the general intent of his mocking. It was a bit ugly but his contempt oozed arrogance and to be quite honest, ‘p*ssed me off’.

David Hay is a powerful businessman with many companies and staff. He isn’t known for generosity among his tenants and they generally fear him – that’s not a crime though – he has every right to keep his dollars for himself and to squeeze his tenants however he likes. I though, have no fear and can and did stand up to his arrogance in a commercial dispute. I effectively tied his shoelaces (by doing everything right) then when I had no other option left, I sued him. He may not realise it yet, maybe he is starting to get the picture, but the way I look at it all, he’s a dead man walking now, trapped by his own arrogance, set up for a fall, and in a very public way.

My claim is that his company did something wrong (technically it is called a breach of contract) and that this cost me (my company). I did the honourable thing and approached him personally, explained the problem that one of his staff created for us; I sought to discuss the matter face to face, then when he told me to p*ss off, I took the matter to court*. I will win this court case without a doubt because I speak the truth, have the evidence and from what I’ve seen David is a rank amateur at conflict resolution, and clearly a novice in dealing with court matters.

The background to our dispute is that one of his tenants and I did some business together in which we installed a 40′ high cube container into the tenant’s carpark. One of David Hay’s companies was my mate’s landlord. We sought permission from the tenants on either side who had no issue with either the presence or the location of the container. David’s Property Manager too checked it all out in the first week of its arrival, privately – all sweet.

Goliath’s The big guy’s man said [paraphrased] that the container was there for 116 days but that they “only just found out about it” [BS] and that it had to go . . . forthwith. They gave a whole bunch of reasons which were all either valid or seemed perfectly reasonable.

We said, “Sure, no problem, we’ve already arranged for another place so we’ll do whatever you want!” We agreed to a departure date, and a few other technicalities but two hours later an email arrived. Sorry, so sorry but you gotta go inside 7 days not 21 days. Ummmm, hang on, you can’t do that, we say.

In commercial law when a contract is entered into, any breach of that contract becomes a tort, i.e. a legal problem, for the one who has broken that contract – unsurprisingly David Hay included. The aggrieved party has a right to enforce the original contract and if costs have been incurred as a result of that breach, they can ask the courts to award those costs by way of damages. There’s a whole lot more to this in legal mumbo jumbo but basically if you do what you say you will there cannot be any problem [usually] and if you don’t do what you agree to then you’re in the sh*t legal trouble.

A critical factor in this ‘contract’ thing is that a verbal agreement is a contract (in legal terms) and is actually legally binding. Many people do not realise this and think that because there is no signature and no piece of paper, then there is no contract. This is NOT correct – a verbal agreement is legally binding – you’ve just got to prove on the balance of probabilities what that contract was in a court setting.

Furthermore even if there is an implied agreement (for example if something has been done a certain way for any reasonable length of time) then this too can become legally enforceable. This is the legal principle of estoppel – the fancy pants word comes from French  [a bung] – you are stopped from unilaterally changing something that has been previously clearly accepted.

So these goons listened to some gossip and changed the agreement on us unilaterally. Property Manager Alan Fenton slipped us an email and we had a couple of choices – comply, fight, or be tricky dudes and play games. I can and could have done any of these but chose to comply, then approached the big-shot personally. An email exchange occurred. I warned him that he was defaming my company and me; that he was working with partial and incorrect information from people with vested interests (his staff wanted to protect their butts and the gossip-mongers wanted us out – some people can be real sneaky pricks can’t they?) and I invited him to sit down and talk about things man-to-man.

I told him that I didn’t want a fight with him but that injustice had occurred at his hands and David’s response “this has all grown out of proportion” and “I won’t talk about it any more” shows the real man up as arrogant and a bully. That he also chose to believe gossip is simply foolishness. Speak to another dude who learned the price of leaning on gossip, Savea Sano Malifa about that if you want another example of this.

Then when the court case came, his secretary Sue Gerbich slipped a request for the case to be adjourned into the court. “Keith Hay Homes Ltd knows nothing about what this is all about!” she said. BS. Sue Gerbich personally as David Hay’s secretary received the first three emails relating to the case. Oops! Oh dear – caught, pants down! Why ever would a company secretary lie I wonder? Surely she wouldn’t do this on her own bat would she? I mean in the office next door was her boss. Perhaps she was instructed to . . . oh dear . . . Mr Hay, do you hate me for exposing these ethics? Why? I’m just applying logic onto facts . . .

The Ethics

So that’s now three people from this crowd who operate unethically – 1) Alan Fenton who lies (that he only just found out, when in fact he knew from the outset) and breaches contract on a whim and based on gossip; 2) Sue Gerbich who lies to the court about not knowing anything when she did; and 3) the head poncho himself who got fooled by gossip, doesn’t give a rat’s behind whether his companies actions caused damages to the little guy, almost certainly instructed his secretary to try to “have it on with the court” . . . you get the picture, I’m sure by now. Not good!

But none of this is anything new in the world. People lie and steal every day. Big guys squeeze the little guys and concepts such as ethical conduct, honouring your agreements and justice are foreign to many, unfortunately. So why the big deal over Mr Hay? Several reasons:

1. First he is a ‘Sir’;
2. His attitude and ethics are IMHO contemptuous;
3. He took me on; and
4. He claims a Christian faith;

For whatever reason, the leaders of New Zealand bestowed him a title “Sir”. He accepted that and thus exposure of his conduct is in the public interest. If he’s a crook or a good-guy that public interest is the same. I as most people would expect a “Sir” to conduct themselves ethically. I met and my parents knew Sir Edmund Hillary years ago and while he might have been a bit brutal in his language for his day “knocking the bastard off!” he was straight. That’s what we as a society expect from our knights, isn’t it? David inherited his wealth and has built upon it – I can now see the way that he did this. If he will do this to me, he’ll do it to others for sure, and as a Christian (albeit non-denominational and one who pushes the boundaries) I consider exposure of wolves in sheep’s fleeces within our midst important.

The Lessons

This sorry saga has huge and important lessons for observers. In my experience people of David Hay’s ilk rarely repent or apologise, instead slandering, lying, covering up and making things worse for their victim, but for those of us who do learn and want to understand from others foolishness, here is my take:

1. When somebody comes to you with a problem, listen to them. Don’t argue straight up. Give them the time of day, look ’em straight in the eye and give ’em respect. If you don’t then don’t expect them all to just go away. Some of them may stand up and fight;
2. Work with facts. If you listen to gossip and if you get sucked in by it (for whatever reason – they are your staff or you have a position of power over them as landlord, or otherwise) then you may end up paying in the end for that trust in gossip;
3. Turning off communication is a killer. When you say, “I will not talk anymore about it!” you draw a line in the sand. This is an ultimatum which means effectively, “You now have two choices – bugger off or escalate the matter”. Do not be surprised then if you end up with a ‘situation’ on your hands!
4. Pick your fights. Nobody is perfect and you will always end up in a fight with someone, somewhere, sometime. Pick those fights and be ready to defend if you are attacked unjustly. Some people can have genuine complaints. Consider whether each fight is worthy to be fought. I get this all the time. Dennis, you’ve been pinging Bartercard, or BBX or [whoever] what about *** – they’re just as bad. I choose who I wish to take on and whom to leave alone;
5. Do things right – all the time and pre-empt trouble. When you do this you can never lose in a fair trial or examination. This applies to legal stoushes and personal ones. As an example, I confess openly and often up-front that “I love the sound of my own voice” which is a direct quote from Victor Hafichuk’s correct accusation a few years ago. I also explain in advance that I can be a prized pr*ck or if the situation demands it a real c*nt due to my determination and unwillingness to deny truth or justice for pragmatic reasons. In a commercial situation (like with our stoush with David Hay) I readily admitted that we had to move on, that we would (and did comply). That left us totally free to focus on his breach of contract. It was not a tit-for-tat situation because we did things right and . . . ;
6. Collect critical evidence. There is no point turning up at court and telling the court that the other guy is a bad guy. There is no point in even arguing something factual in court unless you have the evidence. I learned this important lesson 43 years ago in my first legal stoush, when a judge said, Mr Smith, I find in your favour BECAUSE YOU SHOWED ME THE EVIDENCE;
7. Don’t play tricky with the court. They’re not interested. One of David Hay’s big mistakes in his approach to our conflict was to try to be smart – with me by muscling me, patronising me and telling me to be grateful that they didn’t sue us. Then with the court, by pretending to not know what the case was all about, then trying it on again in court attempting to hide the real entity. Eventually the Adjudicator found the facts and we proceeded – nothing constructive gained. In the process though David Hay showed his real colours – crooked;
8. Find the truth before you have to go to court. In our dispute I scratched my head in amazement that David looked across the table and genuinely wanted to know something from me. It was a crucial piece of the puzzle and I told him the answer immediately. I found it incredible that a senior businessman didn’t even know the facts before he went to court! All he had to do was ask me months before and I would have told him!
9. Never go to court nor ask a question in court unless you already know the answer. The reason for this is that you may get an answer that destroys your case/story. The reason that I have never lost a court case in 43 years of standing up for justice is that I will only ever go to court if I know the FULL score. I do this for one reason – I hate losing. I therefore do things right, have the evidence and never give up;
10. Deal with the core issues. In our case against David Hay’s company there is a truckload of history – he said, she said, he did, she did and on and on, but there is only one core crucial thing that really matters – the contract. Was there one, and if so what was it? From there all else flows – was it breached and if so when and how and to who’s disadvantage;
11. Have your witnesses there. David Hay first claimed that he was upset at having to attend what he saw as a ‘frivolous’ court case and wasting his time. Then he didn’t have his key witness(es) there and then wanted an adjournment. Duh! Even worse though was that the week before I had given him this exact same counsel – be prepared and have the right people there.

I guess there’s not necessarily any connection between wealth and wisdom.

David Hay has shown me to be a bully in business. He is a man with power, wealth and prestige but little understanding of reality around him. He is deceived by his staff and tenants who obviously fear him feeding him BS for various purposes. He has little understanding of court processes and procedures, has no compunction about playing ‘silly-buggers’ in order to try to get one up on others, all this with blatant disregard for the position of others he has caused losses to.

Sir David John Hay, Managing Director of multiple entities which he calls the “Keith Hay Group”, is now on my Hall of Shame. He has a right of reply at any time which I will post in full unmoderated should he ever deign to speak to a mere mortal like me.

He is under a written defamation warning and has not identified one misrepresentation within anything I have said in court, in court documents or in direct written or phone conversation.

I stand by what I have said above and unless there is a correction or matters are resolved through professional processes, I fully expect the court to award us costs in due course. I’ll update this post accordingly.

To David, I say:

Your shoelaces are tied. Step and you will fall. I have warned you that you do not know the full story, that the information you are and have been working with is incomplete and false; I speak and have spoken the truth.

I advise you to do the honourable thing, Sir.

New Zealand’s top blogger, Cameron Slater used to say (until he got his wings clipped a little and toned it down), NFWAB (Never F*ck With A Blogger). It’s not the blogging aspect that matters so much as being fearless to speak and hold out for the truth. Blogging simply amplifies a situation. That can be highly threatening for those with skeletons in the closet. David has some.

He (Cam) also says frequently that “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. Sir David Hay may not appreciate exposure like this, but if he and his support circle have any of the proverbial, they will use it as a huge wakeup call and get real and grow up. If they do, I will support them in that endeavour but it will not be at the price of truth, nor under threat.

This post is not about me. It is not even about David Hay. It is about justice and truth and standing up for it. Like a rock in a river causes a wake, so too does a truthseeker, more correctly a truth-speaker.

Thank you for swinging by again today. Hopefully the three hours I spent writing this will be appreciated by someone, somewhere, sometime.

Go and make the world a better place. Tie a few shoelaces of your own then tell me who the Giant was who fell when he stepped out without checking that all was in order first.

* I also invited him to bring in his leadership from his church prior to this which is a core teaching of Christianity – deal with it in house if you can. He either doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care about it or chose not to for whatever reason, that’s his business.

I’ve introduced and reported on the trial previously. There are two parts to this analysis, the first are factors specific to Down’s case, secondly there are issues that have wider significance.

Issues Specific to Down

Account Termination
Essentially Bartercard cut off Down’s capacity to trade, then closed his account and required his trade overdraft to be repaid in cash according to the Rules. It’s quite a narrow claim, but Down has broadened it by saying “Not fair! You caused the situation that created the loss! Now you owe me! Oh, and BTW, don’t even think of trying to get more than Fair Market Value off me in cash!”

Central to judging Down’s predicament is understanding the circumstances surrounding his account termination. A huge legal brouhaha is occurring over this very matter. This has started to come out in court and when the trial resumes it will continue to evolve as the truth gradually comes out. I suspect foul play. I have based this assessment on key evidence that shows frustration building with Down’s account performance; evidence of malintent in his File Notes (such as a lawyer clarifying that his instructions are to bankrupt despite knowing that Down was essentially impecunious), and circumstantial evidence that shows dishonesty in the given reason for account closure. Additional to all of this, and yet to come out in trial is a very good motive from one person to “take Nicholas out!”

Trial documents show a massive shift in the story of why the trial even exists. The original Statement of Claim stated that Bartercard closed Down’s account because he was auctioning goods and that this was against their Rules. Down’s response in defence relied on the principle of estoppel – basically you can’t stop something from happening when it has always happened. Down said, quite naturally & I think legitimately, “Hey, I joined as an auctioneer; I have always been an auctioneer; you wanted me as an auctioneer; you used me as an auctioneer; we even worked together many times on auctions . . . you can’t just cut off my account because you don’t want me to auction anymore. How the h*ll can I trade if you stop me doing what I do for a living, let alone pay off any overdraft?”

When the trial judge sought clarification of this reason for account closure, he specifically asked Bartercard to link this claimed reason for account closure back to the Bartercard Rules. I’m certain that he did this because he wanted to see something he couldn’t find – a direct causal link between the claimed breach of rules and the Rules. If Rule 26.13.1.4 sub-clause a) when read with a finger up your [you get it] says that you can’t auction goods on trade, and Down did, then Bartercard wins. Otherwise the judge would find that there was no case to answer.

What Bartercard did though was a little naughty because they used that request for clarification as an opportunity to change their entire case, and told the court that this was just a minor change, a tweak to clarify a simple little “mistake” in their first attempt at the case. They also used the legal process to trick Down into agreeing to the change of claim, pop in interest as well (which they forgot to do in the original claim), thus the case currently before the courts is actually the second attempt at going after Down! The evidence though is still there in the files – “mistakes” in the Affidavits. These “mistakes” will actually be shown at the end of the day for what they are – outright fabrications – if the trial lawyer does his job properly. I pity those boys who called them mistakes and have to explain how the mistakes occurred when people complete Affidavits, submit them to the court as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

There’s a lot more to this case than just a poor guy with a trade account in debt, forced to cough up cash because he didn’t do what Bartercard told him to. I’m not sure how much will come out in court on these topics because legal representation issues may interfere but if it all comes out, I think Down has a reasonable chance of winning. It all turns on what the judge thinks really happened when they killed his account. If the wider issues are entertained Bartercard will be in the pooh. If it’s kept quite narrow and the circumstances surrounding don’t come into it then I think Bartercard will probably win – their documentation is strong, as Bulldog Barrister put it in court, “We can do whatever we like and you’ve got no redress!”

That in itself (an ‘unfair contract’) is a defence in a B2C situation. In the commercial environment though it’s not quite so clear.

Tension within Bartercard
An issue that is becoming clearer in this case is the tension within a divided Bartercard. It is a tension that makes sense when you think about it but is not seen or talked about much. This is the natural tension between the two divisions – sales and credit control. Sales wants to see turnover (trade volume in barter terminology) – Credit control wants to minimise risk. In Down’s case with a hugely fluctuating trade overdraft, from zero to $T160,000.00 and back again and fee payments all over the place, as he traded up and down, he was the quintessential ‘Alphabet Account’ – zero-to-hero and back again. For a guy with autism and a natural ability to crunch a deal anywhere on the planet, this seems to have put a huge pussy amongst the Plaintiff’s pigeons. Those struggling with what seem like crazy credit decisions from the big ‘bad’ B, need to understand that Bartercard like any organisation attempting to maximise profits through sales has an internal tension – sales vs an increased credit risk.

Broader Issues

In a previous post I mentioned a little snippet of gold that came out in court, likely not fully understood by the parties at the time, but likely to play a huge part in future proceedings. Dale Chetty acknowledged that Bartercard was (in terminating Down’s account), “managing a currency”. They had a responsibility to make sure that they Bartercard currency didn’t devalue.* That was his job, to control credit so that a trade dollar wouldn’t devalue through inflation. He wanted to stop Down from auctioning so that the prices didn’t inflate. He wanted to avoid bad debt because . . . wait for it . . . this would devalue the currency. When the national credit controller for Bartercard New Zealand stands in open court and explains that his job is to stop happening what Down (and me in my blogging) says HAS ALREADY happened then this is the thin end of the wedge that will bring the industry to its knees. It doesn’t matter what the actual FMV (Fair Market Valuation) is – 25c in the dollar or 95c in the dollar – the point is that now, a District Court judge is being asked to rule on a situation that has always been kept in check. Not so, any more.

Let’s back up for a moment and get the full picture here. Bartercard (and most other commercial barter companies) create a currency which they declare (by fiat) to be on par with the local currency. BCNZ for example rates their currency on par with the NZD. This is accepted for tax reasons and it is ‘managed’ by the issuer so that it is perceived to be worth on par. In all Bartercard’s documentation – the Rules, website and all marketing materials – as well as in practice in person by every Bartercard representative and so on, this is the claim – One $T = one NZD. This is fine when it IS worth on par, but what happens if it ISN’T? Disaster.

Dale Chetty in telling the court that it’s his job is to make sure that the currency doesn’t devalue, has admitted (by the application of simple logic) that there could be a situation where the Trade Dollar is not worth a NZD. Oh sh*t!!! This is NOT what the industry needs . . . the next logical question then is, “Well if a declaration by fiat isn’t kosher, legal or valid legally, what is FMV?”

Down’s second line of defence following the estoppel arguments above is that the Bartercard Trade Dollar is indeed devalued; that it is only worth 20c in the dollar and that even if found to have had his account terminated legally, he should only have to pay FMV, which is according to him in uncontested evidence only 20c! Ouch – that will hurt Bartercard and especially when the power of legal precedent kicks in around the globe and all the other IRTA members find their members getting wise to the concept of using FMV for tax, general trading and settlements with their crooked currencies!

Down’s actual application of FMV though is not assured. He is relying on the legal doctrine of penalties which is basically that any commercial agreement (in the English legal systems) cannot include a penalty. This right to penalise is reserved for the courts alone to administer. If you’ve been a bad boy and somebody wants to punish you, you have to go to a judge to sort it – you can’t penalise someone by contract. There are rules and case law surrounding the application of this legal principle which the lawyers can scrap over, but my take is that anything above FMV is indeed a penalty and that the doctrine of penalties does apply in this case.

Whatever the case, I think that IRTA and any commercial barter company that maintains their own currency should be watching this case very, very carefully. Bartercard are already poorly regarded in the industry but they will certainly not be seen as the prettiest face on the block if or when the ruling goes against them and there are ripple effects.

Personal

I’ve enjoyed helping Nicholas in some ways. He’s not always easy to work with as a result of his autism and his unique ways of doing things but getting him out of certain bankruptcy and sticking it to some people who were trying to stick it to him has been a pleasure.

I’ve learned a lot during the process . . . seeing the different personalities, styles and ethics in the legal profession has been enormously entertaining and educational. Watching a Bulldog Barrister in action was a real hoot. Seeing the pieces come together legally, how different judges rule different ways, and then how the lawyers work around the law, and of course lie professionally supposedly in their client’s interest was fun – especially when you can drill down into it and expose it all. Seeing also how the legal profession look after their own was also educational. We all know that birds of a feather flock together, but to see it manifested so obviously was good for me.

Moving forward, I cannot predict the way I will continue to engage with any party – Bartercard or Nicholas because my job is done, getting the core defences established and saving the man from almost certain bankruptcy. I may push on and go deeper. I may back off from a hands-on role somewhat. I think Nicholas has got value for money to date – I normally only charge a flat rate $10.00USD for strategic advice – and there’s a good 800 hours buried in it all so far, but that’s my choice.

If the legal people for Nicholas take the right track, I think they’ll win their case, unless of course there is something that I’ve missed. If he can bring his counterclaim into the equation, I think he will be doing well . . . if he sees any money out of it is anyone’s guess. On the other side, I can’t really see anything good for Bartercard to get out of this. It’s hugely negative press at a time when BPS Technology has new leadership, swept the crooks Smiles in Suits off the deck and into the tide and is clearly looking to the future. The risk for Down is that he could go bankrupt. The risk for BCNZ is that they drag the Bartercard brand further into the ‘bad’ bin and p*ss off the whole industry with an adverse ruling, especially if the judge finds that the doctrine of penalties applies to their precious Rules document. And then you’ve got the ASX:BPS factor.

While I wouldn’t say that Down is the model trader by any means he was a valuable and capable trader who has got on the thin end of some pretty nasty stuff. It all shapes up in my books, to be a hugely expensive and probably foodhardly personal vendetta by some nasty people (or person) at Bartercard New Zealand.

* It’s also specifically written into the Rules too BTW. In plain view all these years – a logical fallacy when connecting the dots! If you on the one hand say that a currency IS worth the same as the local currency, then later on in the same agreement say that it’s your job to make sure that it DOES remain on par then, hang on a minute . . . which is it? How can they both be true? Surely either it IS or it can change? We all know the answer of course, that they may claim that it IS, but the reality is that it DOESN’T. You can say it is worth on par for tax reasons but then if FMV is less then you are defrauding the taxman! And if FMV is less than on par then you are defrauding your members. It’s a huge problem for Bartercard either way.

This post announces the launch of my new book THE QOIN CON – The real story behind the Funny Money Jokers.

Over the last few months I have been completing this latest masterpiece of my literary ‘genius’ [that’s dry British humour for Americans BTW] and I now have all the pieces of the puzzle stitched together.

The book is scheduled distribution date is midday Wednesday 17th February 2016, Samoa Time.

The book will be devastating to the principles of one of Netherland’s longstanding and ongoing frauds emanating from the mind of an ultra-smooth-talker Edgar Kampers, his lap-dog front-man and off-sider Rob van Hilten and lying lawyer Valerie Vallenduuk as it exposes not only their figures, cons and dishonesty, but more importantly their callous disregard for others.

The book contains the full set of blog posts that revealed their commercial trade exchange (Tradeqoin) as a fraud and is replete with insider stories that are damning to the extreme.

My opening two quotes say it all:

“Dennis, these are people without a conscience”

and

“I got used badly, yes I know that now . . . they are users of people.”

The book reveals key information about:

1. The extent of the Symbid crowdfunding campaign hoax. This was outright fraud known by all to be a cobbled together exercise using fictitious figures thus making their entire crowd-funding campaign a provable crime;
2. The extent of Qoin’s indebtedness going back years even to the point that their own legal advisor gave them clear instructions to go bankrupt EVEN BEFORE Tradeqoin marketing commenced, thus making the Directors personally liable for all borrowings (new debts) and losses as a result of trading while insolvent;
3. The extent of the personal enrichment that occurred to Rob van Hilten and Edgar Kampers as others including staff were conned into working for worthless shares and second-rated debt, even lending their wages.
4. The corruption that lawyer and co-owner Vallerie Vallenduuk brought into an illegal and despicable campaign to discredit and bring the only credible Trade Exchange in The Netherlands down out of spite but which will likely result in her being struck of the lawyer’s register in late January 2016;
5. The corruption within the Executive of IRTA who knew the full nature of the fraud from the earliest days yet for personal and political reasons covered up and actively sought to discredit those who spoke the truth;
6. AND MORE!

The conclusion from The Qoin Con is unequivocal – Qoin is and always has been a cynical method for the jokers behind it to enrich themselves personally at the expense of others. It’s a totally bankrupt shell of a commercial fraud the same as their commercial flagship trade exchange Tradeqoin and there’s nothing surer than eggs that they will go under when exposed, hopefully never to resurface in my lifetime.

It is a story of people who “got away with it” for years but eventually whose egos caused them to overstep their mark and will now face public ridicule and potentially legal actions as the result of publication.

Some quotes from the book for your good reading pleasure:

Then I look at the Symbid investors who have all variously
chipped in a hundred Euros, five hundred Euros and more into an
operation that was (and is still) scamming the investors for personal
gain. I knew where the money was going and watched the fraud
occur in realtime. I knew the desperate need that he Jokers had for
that cash – just to repay the previous loans that had all gone into
building one of the Jokers’ farmhouse; into paying the rent and huge
wages and to buy a small trade exchange called Barter Your Business,
and of course their own pockets.

 

and

Hopeless at business with a string of failures, these Jokers though
know how to self-promote, secure public monies and then pocket it.
They’ve done it for years and they’ve done it well living a great
lifestyle.
The Qoin Con is now over, bankrupt and exposed, the public
purse tightened and warned, the crowdfunding at an end, Friends,
Fools & Family long past exploting . As they say, all good things
must come to an end.
There is no honour among thieves. The Jokers will be at each
others throats even more shortly.

Email me if you wish to get advance copies of the book. It will be available online ordering plus in physical form from selected bookshops and by post in the Netherlands in due course.

DATE ISSUED: 7 October 2015

PERMALINK: http://www.dennis.co.nz/2015/10/media-release-samoa-observer-sues-2m

MEDIA CONTACT: Dennis A. Smith
dennis@dennis.co.nz
+685 777-9999

Documents filed in the Supreme Court of Samoa, reveal that Samoa Observer, Samoa’s largest independent newspaper is suing Investigative Blogger, Dennis A. Smith for $2m (WST) and legal costs.

Claiming defamation, the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim states that the Blogger “has defamed [them] and Mr Malifa” and “has caused much embarrassment, distress and inconvenience”. As a result of the claimed defamation Samoa Observer is asking the court to award $1.5m (WST) in compensation and “exemplary and punitive damages in the sum of SAT$500,000”.

Mr Smith has blogged extensively about the owner and Editor-in-Chief Savea Sano Malifa, with a post from February 2013 entitled “Savea Sano Malifa Fooled by Gossip” the cause of the defamation case.

“One has to ask why it takes more than two and a half years for Samoa Observer to act on such an ‘important matter’ of defamation,” Mr Smith says. “Perhaps it is because I had the temerity to sue them for $3,500.00, for work that I did for them and they didn’t pay?”

In a series of hard hitting blogs Mr Smith tells Samoa Observer to “toughen up and grow up” and suggests that their defamation case may be either a “cynical response to attempt to bully a Blogger” or that they are a “pretty fragile company”.

He gives his analysis of the Defence and Counterclaim stating that it “requires a large dollop of blind faith to believe; belies logic; contains factual error and is a disgrace to those who value truth and justice”. In an example of errors of fact he shows photographs of more published articles than Samoa Observer claims they published and further states, “this is not a simple unimportant detail that a busy Editor-in-Chief got a little bit wrong – it is the central claim of fact in their defence!”.

Talking of the risk of losing a $2m defamation case, Mr Smith says, “The risk will be worth it to see the bastion of Samoan journalism integrity lie under oath” and concludes with a challenge, “Bring it on Samoa Observer! Bring it on!”

“While no stranger to the Samoan courts following decades of litigation this is the first time that the MSM in Samoa has taken on a Blogger that I’m aware of.”

The hearing will be scheduled for first mention in the Supreme Court of Samoa on Tuesday, 13 October 2015.

Let’s be brutally honest about this . . .  (a recent commenter on my Tipline used the phrase “brutally, brilliantly honest” which I kind of like!) . . . somethings definitely not right up there in SA, Vaitele.

We all know that nobody’s perfect, and even the worst of us can be nice when we want to but when the top newspaper in the small island country you live in pontificates ad infinitum about the dubious morality and shady conduct of public officials and yet makes a habit of ripping people off themselves . . . something is VERY wrong!

Seeing Red

As an effective, long-term blogger I have power potentially well in excess of the local rag. My words online remain forever and become stronger daily. Googlebot has indexed this website every sixty minutes for way more than a decade. Print media lasts as long as it takes to burn or get ripped into toilet paper.

After blogging the truth about Samoa for six years giving practical biblically orientated commentary AND having sacrificed all that I own for the privilege, I have substantial, visible and building credibility.

Samoa Observer on the other hand has a serious character flaw within its leadership and unless there is substantial meaningful change, if I continue to blog about their shady conduct, it will continue to lose credibility, as one crime by another, month after month, year after year, each skeleton will come out of the closet.

In a previous post I shared the details of my court case against Samoa Observer where I sued them for breach of contract. They had agreed to place daily adverts in return for my articles. I delivered but they didn’t. I approached them for a resolution but they told me to b*gger off, so after a while I sued them.

I then revealed how another professional journalist too tried to do fair business with them but despite promises, the Editor-in-Chief, one Savea Sano Malifa gave him the single finger salute too.

I’ve called these guys to account now more than once and I know that there are others too who have found it difficult getting a fair go from this guy and his operation.

The Owner

When I first arrived in Samoa I asked a lot of questions (still do actually) because I wanted to understand the lie of the land I had found myself in. I asked a senior person in society to tell me about Sano. The reply was an intriguiing one, not a simple answer, “Well, he’s a funny one!” He meant funny as in funny peculiar, not funny ha-ha.

I don’t see him that way at all. I think he’s quite simple really – just greedy. Everything is all about money. The only couple of meaningful things he said to me in our first meeting was that he wanted to get people to think and that he didn’t want to get sued.

More than one advisor has told me that they haven’t got paid. I can believe that too!

As I said I’m sure there’s a good side to the man and that some people might consider the sun to shine from his . . . well you get the picture.

My Offer

I’ve seen enough to know that there’s a big problem in and around his business. I’ve called him a crook and taken him to court – both actions are difficult for many others.

I’m still alive after standing up for truth and justice so want to help others get their story out there and (if it is appropriate) get their day in court.

My offer is simple and genuine . . . Click on my TIPLINE; tell me your story; ask for help and I’ll do what I can.

1. I will listen to you and your story. I do this with people from all around the world on any subjects I blog about and mostly this is all in confidence.
2. I will give you my opinion. I’m not a lawyer, nor a genius but I do have a good brain and know how to use it. I also know the basics of the law and the Samoan legal system. While I don’t pretend to know it all nor do I pretend to be a lawyer and give legal advice my advice will cost you only the time you spend talking to me.
3. If you want me to be your agent and to sue Samoa Observer, I’ll do that for you. Obviously I reserve the right to be my own person and do the right thing, but if you need help sorting out a matter with Samoa Observer, I’ll sue ’em at the drop of a hat!

Conditions

I’m for truth and justice and I never give up – ever. If you’re for real and Sano and/or his team have treated you wrong, then I’ll help.

I’m an investigative blogger. I ask questions and formulate opinions and then blog about it. That’s who I am; what I do and what I love. I can keep a secret but if you don’t want the world to know about your story, best keep your distance from me!

If you’ve just got a beef and they’ve tried to sort it out with you but you’re being a d*ck, sorry, I’m not your man.

You gotta cover my costs. I’ll do everything to help you but I’m not going to subsidise your court case

Objectives

I actually don’t care what happens – it’s up to others like Sano and his team, and those who have been (or will be) stung by Samoa Observer. If Samoa Observer doesn’t rip people off and stops stealing and plagiarising others’ work then great! Perhaps one day Samoa can build a better reputation in this industry

My objective is simply to do what I can to help the little people cope with the challenges of having a crooked business in the business community. Like the lad said about the starfish that he threw back into the tide, “I might not save the world, but the one I helped just got a second chance to make it!”

Since my unpleasant engagement with Sano, and the Samoa Observer, I’ve spoken to people from within and from out side of Samoa, Palagi and Samoans. The fact is that I’m not the only one that Samoa’s ‘local rag’ has ripped off, and their name isn’t the best in the industry as a result of their ‘ethical flexibility’.

This may be surprising to some who believe Samoa Observer’s own hype, but basically local people back off from confrontation with these guys because nobody thinks that they can take them on. The current Prime Minister Tuila’epa and a few other political leaders in the past have had a go at clipping their wings but the owner Savea Sano Malifa has been persistent, taken the blows and pulled through. That doesn’t make him right, nor perfect – it just means that he’s reaping the rewards for a ‘can-do’ attitude and persistence.

Internationally, Samoa is an also-ran, widely viewed as a hiccup on the journalism stage, semi-tolerated but hardly known or bothered about outside of Samoa, except when needed in which case everybody is best friends for a day, or two. The general feeling is that Samoa is still governed by “the island way” and it’s not worth your time or money to chase them up over little matters.

And that’s pretty much the way things have been for as long as I can see looking back before my time – Sano fighting all and sundry, a few pot shots landing here and there over the years but finally ending up in a pretty nice position, able to pick his fights and as I mentioned in the previous article and as I will show now, make a buck at others’ expense as he so chooses.

A Stolen Story

The Samoa Observer ran a story in early 2015 entitled: “One more Samoan who made it big”. It was not written in-house; it wasn’t an editorial, nor was it an advertisement nor was it an advertorial. It was a “FEATURE” – both story and the associated images scraped off the Internet.

So far so good – that is not a crime in itself and the story reads well, they had the author’s name clearly marked at the top of the article and printed the URL of one of his websites. They published the story in their print edition which of course is sold and to all intents and purposes this would be perfectly normal except for one little thing . . . they did all this without the knowledge or permission of the original author!

I know this, because I ask questions and unlike Samoa Observer, I have spoken directly with the author – actually more than once.

The original author is a professional journalist who makes his living by conducting interviews and then writing them up. He them sells the results of his labour to people who ‘normally’ pay him for his creativity. This is the normal conduct in this industry. You do creative work, sell it and then get paid for your labours.

If a publisher wants to use the story (especially a commercial ‘for profit’ business) then according to the law (and morality) you must negotiate with the author for publication rights, pay the author (or agree to pay him) and then you can use the original work* . . . unless of course you are a thief, in which case you just steal others’ work!

Samoa Observer short-circuited the normal process, scraped his work, then published it in a commercial operation.

Let’s just go over this again so that it’s perfectly clear what these guys did – they took a professional journalist’s work off his website without his knowledge or permission and then published it in a commercial publication that their customers paid to buy and read.

In case you still haven’t got it, I’ll use an analogy . . . my neighbour grows taros and sells them at the market. At night time while he and his dogs are sleeping I jump the fence, grab a few and take them down to the market and sell them along with my own oranges and lemons.

This is a crime, called theft in all jurisdictions that I’m aware of, including, yes, believe it or not . . . Samoa!

Further Considerations

Some further considerations in this matter:

Plagiarism

This case is not plagiarism, which is the taking others’ work and passing it off as your own. Samoa Observer did not plagiarise this work (although this is another topic for another day!) because they credited the original author correctly at the top of the FEATURE. It was just downright theft. Plain old ordinary stealing!

Brazen Theft

Samoa Observer though not only stole the story, their arrogance in placing the author’s name in print, without his knowledge or permission is the mark of a deliberate, cynical attempt to deceive, for who would ever (normally) bother to check that a story correctly attributed like this, in print could actually have been stolen – and by the flagship of Samoa’s Fourth Estate – our self-appointed moral police at that?

Remember that this was no accident. Somebody within Samoa Observer deliberately took this work, rehashed it and published it – A BRAZEN ACT OF THEFT FOR COMMERCIAL GAIN!

Logistics

I contacted the original author quite easily and I have no reason to believe that Samoa Observer too could not have entered into a brief exchange (as is normal in such matters) in order to secure publishing rights/permission from him.

I can understand publishing deadlines and the desire to get the story out there under their own brand ASAP before Social Media did but was it so time-sensitive that waiting 24 hours for a response wasn’t even considered worth potentially destroying their supposedly good reputation over one story?

Photography

The original author attributed the photograph of the two Samoan cousins standing together to the photographer. Samoa Observer used more than one image from the original story (without permission) and did NOT attribute the photography. This aspect of their crime IS plagiarism which of course is a form of theft.

As a result they have exposed themselves legally, for if the photographer ever chooses to sue, Samoa Observer will surely lose and it could cost them (more on this topic later).

Story Changes

One of the sweetest parts of an investigation is getting two different documents and comparing them. I love this exercise and doing it with the shonky Bartercard Prospectus in 2014 was incredibly revealing as you could see how the Board quickly changed their documents as a result of my blogging, basically to cover their butts!

Most of the time in an investigation you find yourself picking up little clues along the way . . . you generally know the big picture from the outset – that’s after all why you ask questions at the outset. You have a complaint, or a tip to start with so there is an initial direction to head in.

For example you always know that when the devil speaks that he’ll be lying – that’s easy! Then you have to work out WHEN he speaks and when it’s the other voice – a little harder to be sure but you get the idea – from the get-go you know that the devil is full of BS and God is good.

Likewise, you always know that when a politician does something that there will ALWAYS be a healthy dose of self-interest in there and that anything to do with United Nations and their gazillions of offshoots that centralised power (aka globalisation or the New World Order) will be be the result of anything they say, do, threaten or bribe us to participate in.

Likewise, knowing as I did that the head of Samoa Observer (Savea Sano Malifa) was not afraid of screwing me, when I heard that other people too had got their fingers burned, I could be pretty sure that there was a repeating pattern developing in my sight.

So I found the changes, and lack of changes revealing:

The original headline was:

THE GUY FROM PORIRUA WHO MADE IT BIG

Their headline of course was redesigned for a Samoan audience:

One more Samoan who made it big

Does the change speak a lot to you? It does to me, I’ll explain why.

It’s a perfectly natural change but I can see two issues immediately, Samoans are intensely patriotic. Their pride over the fact that this guy is a Samoan is again perfectly natural, but let’s call it for what it is, racism. It’s one of the reasons that outsiders (Palagi) like me have little chance to foot it in a strongly Samoan context. This is normal, I know BUT it is racism at it’s core. More on this another day, I promise!

The second is a deeper point but one that indicates the futility of looking to the MSM for moral leadership or guidance – aside from the fact that they stole the story, their entire purpose is to . . . wait for it . . . make money; sell newspapers! Thus in New Zealand the focus is a boy from Porirua who succeeded but to the Samoa Observer, they know that it is the fact that he’s Samoan that will tickle the ears of their customers.

Always follow the money to get to the bottom of any situation. From what I’ve heard and observed, the owner of Samoa Observer is only ever interested in one thing, and it’s got nothing to do with ethics, morality or anything other than business, it’s money – plain and simple.

The Samoa Observer inserted a sub heading, one that summarised the entire story in two lines – it’s an excellent addition and good print editorial practice.

They then selected what was actually a secondary image as their primary image, trashing the one that the original author had used. I understand this move very well because their new primary image shows a Samoan lad standing beside another Samoan of fame . . . BUT again, you see the callous treatment of the original author’s work. He wanted the photo of the subject (a neat photo BTW) as the focus, not the joint photo clearly for a reason – remember this is a professional journalist who wrote this story! I cringe, knowing that this is all being done on stolen content, all totally unauthorised activity!

They published the photograph minus the attribution to the photographer – oops! A real-world case of dumb and dumber for now they have potentially p*ssed off two people. They could have easily left the original attribution in there at least? Nope!

Somebody has deliberately chosen to do all these changes. This person knows their audience. They know how to tickle their fancy and produce a newspaper that has the best chance to sell. It’s just like I know exactly what taro my customers at the Fugalei markets will pay the top dollar and I will make sure that I steal only those ones!

The story wasn’t altered in the slightest. It was an interview with a strong character engaging in meaningful dialogue with the guest. They simply HAD to keep it word for word due to the format, which leads me to suspect that they WOULD have changed it however they wanted to if they COULD have. Cynical maybe, but they say that there is no honour among thieves.

These changes reveal the mindset of the thief/thieves. A deliberate, knowing act done specifically to gain maximum commercial benefit from the crime. A judge would be well positioned to maximise any punitive damages should it ever go to court.

Mitigating Factors

Perhaps a genuine mistake? If this was the case then why no apology?

Maybe a staff member lied to the Editor and . . . ? So why not pay-up and apologise, after firing the crook?

Maybe they tried to negotiate with him but perhaps the journo was greedy? Then why did the journo ask us other journos in New Zealand for help? Why did they publish it then if they knew it was copyrighted work and they didn’t have his permission? That only makes it worse!

I can’t think of any mitigating factor that possibly stacks up, but if Samoa Observer ever exercises their Right of Reply I’ll be sure to publish it here, with commentary!

Who did it?

I don’t know.

I suspect that Sano himself doesn’t source Samoan-content stories, rewrite headines, and massage scraped articles for his own paper. He might flick a link of something that he stumbles upon to his staff and tell them or suggest for them to do it but I doubt that he was the guy who both did and hid the crime.

It’s possible that the Editor himself did it. Mata’afa Keni Lesa currently holds that position. It’s his job to put the whole paper together and while he’s got a lot of responsibility with his own steady stream of editorials to write, he could possibly have done it.

I suspect though that it was somebody else on the team who scraped the story, changed the heading to suit the Samoan ego, picked out a couple of photos that would massage the ego of the local Samoan readers and put it forward for publication.

Who’s culpable?

At the end of the day the buck always stops at the top.

In this case though I don’t think pinging Sano for this one entirely would be fair. For screwing around with the author – the guy that his company has ripped off – sure, that’s Sano’s modus operandii to a tee – I’ve had the same treatment and while it sucks to be on the end of it at the time, most of us can get over it pretty easily. You just say to yourself, “Well it takes all sorts to make the world. He’s a d*ck. Get over it an on with life!” and you do.

From the outside looking in though, it’s the Editor Mata’afa Keni Lesa who I think has been outed with this story. You see, I find it incredible to believe that the Editor of Samoa’s biggest daily newspaper didn’t know from where the article came and under what circumstances it arrived on his desk. He either knew or suspected that it had been scraped OR he’s been lied to by a junior staff member who has told him that they had the original author’s permission to reproduce it.

My pick on this is the former. I know the fear that the Samoa Observer staff all work under and it’s certainly not the free environment where initiative is encouraged and occasionally it gets a little exuberant and someone would lie about having scored a juicy pro-Samoan story WITH the permission to publish free of royalties.

Nah! Nobody does ANYTHING there unless they have been authorised to do it, and generally from the top.

The Editor was in on it somehow, for sure. If he wasn’t then he shouldn’t be in that job for it’s the most basic of questions to ask – “Cool international pro-Samoan story! Where did you/we get it from?” Do you think that he’d permit any obvious plagiarised work past his eyes if he cared about his career? Would a staff member lie to him at risk of immediate dismissal that they’d got permission from the original author when they hadn’t?

Nah! I think he knew and thought that he’d get away with it by attributing the story to the original author and things came unstuck when he got found out; Sano covered for him and gave the poor guy the cold shoulder/silent treatment and he’ll be fuming that I’m again hammering his ego and opening his business up to lawsuits like a can of eleni on a Sunday morning. I might be totally wrong and they simply don’t give a ***’s behind but if that’s the case then in time, if I’m still alive, kicking and blogging, that attitude will be sure to change.

Validation

For those who doubt the facts, I reproduce here the author’s actual words of validation as given by way of explanation to the New Zealand journalism industry. This is verbatim for the record:

“[My] editorial piece was republished without my permission by a Samoan newspaper.”

If anyone wants further validation I can provide it offline in confidence.

Note that I haven’t validated 100% that the story was run without the original author’s KNOWLEDGE just as yet, but I’m pretty sure that it was. It was certainly run without his PERMISSION. I’ll update this post if/when I find that out.

Samoa Observer acknowledged that they had been caught out and according to the original author after he confronted them . . .

“I got an immediate response from the Samoan Observer’s marketing manager saying this was a serious matter and their Editor-In-Chief would send a response”

Yeah right! Get those pigs all fed and watered, ready to fly again!

You guessed it . . . despite this poor guy contacting, complaining, requesting and eventually invoicing Samoa Observer, their response week after week, month after month:

ZIP, TADA, ZILCH – nothing.

Arrogant, hypocritical thieves!

With conduct like this from the prime newspaper in a country (according to their leaders) supposedly “Founded upon God”, no wonder the Palagi who come here to engage with Samoa pretty much all go away within two to three years vowing to never come back again.

Savea Sano Malifa, I say this to you again . . . you are a hypocrite and a crook. You and your company are a disgrace to not only the people and culture of Samoa but to the Creator of whom you and your paper arrogantly refer to so frequently.

Let it be known here and now, once and for all that the God the I know, love and serve has absolutely nothing to do with the one that you do.

Standby

In my next post in this series relating to Samoa Observer I make an offer in which I take real practical action to do my bit to save Samoa from itself, and hopefully restore just a little tiny bit of the credibility that crooks like Samoa Observer have denied a country that really desperately deserves so much better from its leaders than it currently gets.

Take a long, deep breath and standby . . .

* There are exceptions in copyright law that permit fair use, educational purposes and so on. Rest assured though that outright theft for commercial purposes is not and will never be one of those exceptions!

Savea Sano Malifa is the owner of Samoa Observer, the largest newspaper in Samoa. The company is called The Samoa Observer Company (Apia) Limited and was registered on 22 March 1993 with the directors Jean Malifa and Sano Malifa. You can see this from the Samoan companies register online (enter Samoa Observer and click on the Company name for the directors). This makes them one of the longest standing companies in Samoa. Their shareholding is split 51% Sano, 48% his wife Jean and 1% Ieti Lima giving Sano a controlling interest, his wife ‘almost’ half ownership and Ieti a nominal directorship (I am guessing that Ieti most likely has a professional role).

Their publication Samoa Observer runs daily six days a week and their Sunday paper is called the Sunday Samoan. While there are a couple of smaller publications, Samoa Observer is the biggest and most long-serving newspaper. Reading their words as I have for six years, one would think that they are the moral police of Samoan politics and are above reproach. “Your award winning newspaper” is their marketing meme.

Savea is Sano’s Matai** title name and he has assumed a self-appointed watchdog role for himself and his newspaper, with a long and well-recognised track record in calling mainly the government of the day to account for shady deals, corruption, waste and so on.

Our Deal

On 5 October 2012, I invited myself to Sano’s office (the sign above his door reads quite delightfully, “Editor-in-Chief”) and offered my writing services. We discussed this and other things for an hour or more and eventually agreed to a deal – I would write a weekly article for him/his newspaper and he would place daily classified advertisements for me in the Samoa Observer.

The Problem

Essentially, despite multiple reminders, Samoa Observer failed to deliver as agreed, whereas I did – in fact I over-delivered.

When called to account, Sano basically told me to p*ss-off and ‘sing’ for any recompense. After a couple more attempts to resolve the matter calling upon his good nature and appeals to natural justice, I blogged about his foolishness, left the matter for quite a while, then when nothing eventuated, I sued him.

A full copy of my Affidavit can be viewed online which includes all the gory details, opinion, facts, evidence, timelines . . . all the details that were before the judge when he considered the matter. I have removed personal email addresses but the rest remains as presented to the court.

The Legal Process

I issued a Letter of Demand to Samoa Observer and served it on the company on 21 July 2015.

I prepared the appropriate court documents myself without the assistance of any lawyer. I completed these, paid the nominal $20.00WST filing fee, obtained a hearing date at the District Court in Mulinu’u and then served the Ordinary Summons on Samoa Observer. Unusually, I also supplied Samoa Observer my thirty page Affidavit complete with all the evidence a week prior to the hearing – so that there would be no surprises for him or his legal team at the hearing.

At the first hearing (01 September 2015), Samoa Observer’s lawyer requested an adjournment for a more detailed statement of claim. Hmmmm! Despite my protestation that they had had it all for over a week, the judge granted their request and adjourned the hearing for one week. I obliged with their request, supplying her and the court a more detailed statement of claim – a legal lesson learned!

At the second hearing (08 September 2015), Samoa Observer’s lawyer requested another adjournment to prepare a statement of defense and counterclaim. She and the judge agreed to another adjournment, this time for two weeks. It seems that adjournments are standard stuff in Samoan legal system. Tedious but whatever . . . I’ve got all the time in the world and you need it here!

At the third hearing (22 September 2015), Samoa Observer’s lawyer failed to appear. The judge was puzzled and asked me to wait while the court attempted to contact the lawyer to remind her about the hearing and/or to call her to the court. At the end of the court session all matters had been dealt with except mine and Samoa Observer’s lawyer still hadn’t appeared. The judge shrugged his shoulders as if to say he couldn’t do anything (or couldn’t work out what was happening) and adjourned the matter for another week.

At the fourth hearing (29 September 2015), Samoa Observer’s lawyer apologised and explained that the previous week she had got busy with another case and “forgot”. The judge bought this ‘cock-and-bull’ story hook line and sinker and then issued her with another week so that she could “take instructions from her client in order to prepare a defence and counterclaim. [This was nonsense because to believe this one has to believe that a lawyer “forgot” for a whole two weeks then didn’t do anything for another whole week after she “forgot” and apologised to the court! Whatever . . . she got the delays she wanted, although has shown the world her true colours in the process . . .

Here’s an open letter to the man himself. Obviously I don’t think much of his integrity.

The Open Letter

Dear Sano

Today a judge of the Samoan District Court has awarded your company the right to hear our matter of dispute in the Supreme Court because of your Counterclaim for a gazillion bucks. I’ve blogged about this elsewhere but I want to remind you of the reason for all of this legal stuff and explain why I’m not interested in your Counterclaim in the slightest. It means nothing to me whether you win or lose for I, unlike you are not driven by money. I, unlike you are a man of principle. I, unlike you am only interested in the truth.

The truth Sano, is that you (technically your company) owes me following:

1. Our business agreement;
2. Your breach of contract;
3. Your failure to rectify matters; and
4. In consideration of the facts as I presented to him in the court case I initiated, specifically in my detailed Affidavit dated (24 August 2015).

In our first conversation you indicated that there were two things that you wanted to achieve by our doing business together:

a) To get people to think; and
b) For you to avoid getting sued.

I believe that we have together achieved the first goal with style, however we have failed spectacularly with the second objective.

While I will take the bulk of the credit for the first achievement with seventeen articles of original thought (about Samoa) and multiple blog posts (about you and your company) published and yet to be published, you must take full credit for the second matter.

For over two years, sir, I have read your editorials with a smirk on my face knowing that the Internet informed are fully aware that your words of condemnation of various corrupt officials and processes has been a case of ‘the pot calling the kettle black’. I cringe. You, sir, lack credibility, and in common language are nothing more than a hypocrite.

Furthermore I draw your attention to the recent words of your own Editor, Mata’afa Keni Lesa when he gave good counsel that the truth will ALWAYS ‘out’ in the end:

“But know this, nothing can be hidden forever. Those people will eventually be found out for what they really are. It might not happen right away but it will. You just stay the course and you continue doing what you are doing.”

The context was his talking about evil people and how we can all learn and grow through experiences, good and bad. I concur with the latter sentiment but don’t agree with his phrase “evil people” for people are not evil – they, like you, simply CHOOSE evil – usually because of pride.

A chain is only as strong as the weakest link and your dealing with me is a broken link in your chain of ethics. Your treatment of my account and me personally is a disgrace to the proud name, culture, history and people of Samoa. Your arrogance in the face of a guest of your country simply standing up for what is right brings the worst of Samoa to the light of day. You; your wife; your children and theirs; the people of your employ at Samoa Observer; those who have fed you gossip sufficient that you have chosen to conduct yourself in such an unethical manner; the people of your villages and indeed the entire population of Samoa should be grossly ashamed of your conduct.

Let me be specific Sano. Why would I ever wish to involve myself, or recommend to any of my friends or business partners in anything to do with Afega knowing that you hold a most senior leadership position in the village under the Gatoaitele title? It’s a rhetorical question of course – naturally and sure, perhaps to your great delight, I simply wouldn’t!

If you were a man of integrity, you would look me in the eye and apologise, face-to-face. I venture to suggest though that based on your conduct towards me over the last two years, that this will never occur and if it does, it will only be under threat of village council action or as a result of adversity as the shame you have brought to the above-mentioned brings you to a conclusion that it is in your best business interests to deal with me in an ethical manner.

I now refer back to our original conversation in which I offered to help you from the outset, with anything strategic, for I enjoy helping others think issues through. Unlike you, some respect me and listen to my advice. They generally appreciate it, often later and not in the heat of the moment, but I give you my advice now again, none-the-less . . .

Even though you/your people dropped the ball spectacularly with me, you clearly run an effective business. I respect you (and your team) for that.

I understand from my research into you and your business that you have a chequered history with some notable successes such as awards, the capacity to survive in a difficult political environment, and more.

I have also observed some excellent social work achieved through your business.

You, however, have a personality that controls through fear as well as having a distinct lack of integrity. This is a dangerous mix which will ensure that you will always rise to positions of influence in whatever endeavour you so choose BUT it is simultaneously your Achilles Heel for your high achieving personality with a character flaw such as you have opens you up to exposure when threatened with the truth. It will also lead you into conflict situations more than is necessary (like with me). You will need to deal with this before you can achieve lasting constructive change in situations of conflict. Character is a million times more lasting than words, even that of an accomplished wordsmith like yourself.

What is to me the most obnoxious thing about your conduct towards me is actually not that you are arrogant or have ripped me off, it is that you have placed yourself above others in your society and you have and will shock them when they find out that their guardian angel, even a bastion of the truth and someone they mostly trusted is actually no more trustworthy than the ones your opinionated, sarcastic and caustic pen attacks. I know this, not because I guess this or want this to be the case, but because the people whom I have mentioned this all too tell me as much. Indeed as the truth gets out to more in your society, I predict that your credibility will (as I believe it should) take a serious hit.

Note also that the Internet is where it is all at now Sano, not print media like your newspaper. My website is indexed by Googlebot hourly and any vanity search you do will show you what the world can see about you inside seconds. Search for Savea Sano Malifa in one simple click and shudder at the knowledge that the world is viewing my words about you more and faster and more permanently than your own – and that they have been doing this since less than an hour after I published the original story.

As I mentioned in my first blog post about you, you have been led by Samoan sensibilities (aka gossip) rather than doing the basic due diligence in regards to me. This has likely been the cause of this exposure as the hypocrite and arrogant fool that I believe that you are.

Whatever.

I finish with some words of advice from the Good Book:

• There will likely be others that you and your company have ripped off who will take heart from this event (and no doubt subsequent events) that will commence their own action against you and your company. Jesus gave good counsel to settle with a creditor before being shamed in court***. I think that you should humble yourself and learn this lesson from this event. Yes, even at your age it is still technically possible to admit an error and learn something. Settle with them Sano before it goes to court if this ever happens, for repeating adverse publicity like this could become extremely embarrassing to you, your company and the inheritance you leave online for your loved ones when you are gone.
• Forgiveness in a biblical sense is different from the Samoan interpretation of forgiveness. Biblical forgiveness means that we forgive before God but this does not mean that we need to forget, nor should we forget for that matter – often to the contrary. The Samoan way to forgive and pretend that the matter is dealt with permanently with a mere formality is NOT a correct biblical interpretation of forgiveness even though it is a cultural norm here. Regardless of whether your company pays its debt to me or not, I forgive you in a biblical sense**** but the matter is still unresolved until YOU humble yourself and convince me that your apology means something and you clear your account. Every time you avoid me in public and my name comes to your attention, rest assured that your conscience will surely continue to trouble you, for you have wronged another and not rectified the matter. I will not let any amount of Samoan huff and puff or $2m negate this reality for you, Sano.
• Pride was the root cause of the original sin and has been the downfall of mankind ever since. I believe that you are ‘up yourself’ and that I have simply shown the world your real nature. Having heard my story of engagement with you and your company, more than one other has spoken of you in these same terms (arrogance/rip-off etc), thus I know that while your conduct with me may be racially or personally driven, it is not the first time you have screwed another person in business – certainly according to them. Like you said of me in your obnoxious and condescending email, I now say it of you “Now I believe”. The difference between us however is that I have proved my case with evidence. You haven’t and (I posit) can’t for I always shoot straight – always.

I recommend that you take a good hard look at your conduct in both your commercial operation to find ways to properly enable your staff (you will not get the best from them when they fear you like they do), and in your personal life to get to a point that others can trust you, not because you have been granted the privilege of Chiefhood, not because of your past achievements at nailing, or your current power to nail others through your written words or through legal processes, but because of who you are.

Regards

Dennis A. Smith

Author & Investigative Blogger

SAMOA

Savea Sano Malifa’s Ethical Response

If Sano was a true Samoan Chief and/or a man of ethics/integrity he would reply:

Dear Dennis

You are correct in all matters.

It is a brave man who speaks as you do – straight – especially in Samoa, and in public, and to someone like myself.

I will rectify the outstanding matter and apologise to you in person for my attitude and conduct which does not meet Samoan chiefly or indeed Biblical standards.

Savea Sano Malifa

Editor-in-Chief

Samoa Observer

So . . .

Needless to say, I don’t think much of the man or his business and the pua’a**** are all fed, watered and ready to fly!

I will update this post with any future developments.

Sano, you really did deserve to have been put in my Hall of Shame way back when. There’s a lot more to come too from this quarter too as I continue to talk to the world more about you and your company . . . standby.

Initial Statement of Claim

The plaintiff claims the sum of THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TALA ONLY ($3,520.00) being the outstanding amount of money owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff for journalism services rendered and consequential loss from breach of contract.

Revised Statement of Claim

The plaintiff claims the sum of THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY TALA ONLY ($3,520.00) being the outstanding amount of money owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff where as per the agreement with Savea Sano Malifa on 5 October 2012 the Plaintiff in return for daily advertisements would provide articles of between 300-600 words each, where the Plaintiff supplied seventeen articles of 600 words entitled Palagi Perspectives valued at $150.00 each supplied sub-totalling $2,550, in return for 119 advertisements agreed to but not supplied, valued at $20.00 each, sub-totalling $2,380.00, less three advertisements published, valued at $20.00 each, sub-totalling $60.00, making $2,320.00 owing to the Plaintiff; plus consequential loss from the Defendant’s breach of contract being the profit from four weddings valued at $300.00 each sub-totalling $1,200.00.

Affidavit

AFFIDAVIT

Of

Dennis Arthur Smith

Of

Aleisa East

Samoa

24 August 2015

Legend

 

Legend. 2

Affidavit 3

1. Identity. 3
2. Medical Condition. 3
3. Background to Court Hearing. 3
4. Timeline of Events. 4
5. Initial Meeting. 4
6. The Articles. 6
7. The Advertisements. 7
8. Addressing the Problems. 8
9. Financial Calculations. 10

Appendix 1 – Emails (with headers, footers redacted) 12

5 Oct 2012: Initial Confirmation – DS -> Sano. 12

17 Oct 2012: Initial Links – DS -> Marj & Sano. 13

17 Oct 2012: Request to send to others – Marj -> DS. 14

17 Oct 2012: Links sent to Keni – DS. 15

17 Oct 2012: Already sent to Savea – DS -> Marj 15

1 Nov 2012: Phone call followup – DS -> Keni 16

1 Nov 2012: Thanks – Keni -> DS. 16

1 Nov 2012: Private Page extablished – DS -> Keni 18

20 Nov 2012: Good feedback; request adverts; suggest new series – DS -> Keni 18

20 Dec 2012: “The Gift Economy ” – DS -> Keni 19

2 Jan 2013: “The Heart of Samoa” – DS -> Keni 20

11 Jan 2012: “Gambling – Systemised Stupidity ” – DS -> Keni 20

19 Jan 2013: “The evil of Usury ” – DS -> Keni 21

31 Jan 2013: “The importance of theology ” – DS -> Keni 21

31 Jan 2013: “The two stories” – DS -> Keni 22

31 Jan 2013: “Biblical forgiveness” – DS -> Keni 22

31 Jan 2013: “Which Church?” – DS -> Keni 23

31 Jan 2013: “Facts, Feelings & Faith” – DS -> Keni 23

31 Jan 2013: Account Reconciliation Request – DS -> Keni 24

31 Jan 2013: Referred to Savea, Stopped Publication – Keni -> DS. 25

31 Jan 2013: Why did you stop publication? – DS -> Keni 26

1 Feb 2013: Why publication was stopped – Keni -> DS. 27

1 Feb 2013: Get lost smooth talking opportunist – Savea -> DS. 28

1 Feb 2013: Request meeting to sort it out – DS -> Savea. 29

Appendix 2 – Palagi Perspectives. 32

Affidavit

 

1.     Identity

• 1. My name is Dennis Arthur Smith, D.O.B. 12 October 1958 Auckland, New Zealand.
• 2. I am a New Zealand citizen and reside at Camp Samoa, Aleisa East, Samoa.
• 3. I have lived in Samoa since October 2009.
• 4. I am CEO of the SWAP Foundation (a Samoa registered Charitable Trust www.swapsamoa.com) and am an author & investigative blogger (www.dennis.co.nz).

 

2.     Medical Condition

• 1. I have a mild form of Aphasia [genetic].
• 2. The significance of this condition is that:
  • 2.1. I have moderately serious difficulty hearing and processing new sounds, particularly speech (best understood by the description that I have ‘slow ears’ – i.e. while I can hear a pin drop at 50 paces, I initially struggle to differentiate new words, languages, accents or voices); and
  • 2.2. I sometimes need to pause momentarily when speaking to mentally ‘locate’ the right word in my mind.
• 3. I have no difficulty however with intellect, the written word or clear speech in my own language.
• 4. Three things assist with efficient communication:
  • 4.1. Minimising background noises;
  • 4.2. Ensuring my prior attention before speaking, and preferably with direct eye contact (where I can read lips and body language); and
  • 4.3. Understanding that the cause of slowness or hesitation in my speech can sometimes be misinterpreted.

 

3.     Background to Court Hearing

• 1. At the end of Q3 2013 I wanted to advertise our limousine in the Samoa Observer.
• 2. I offered my services to the Editor in Chief, Savea Sano Malifa and we agreed to a barter deal in which I would write him a weekly article for publication and he would run a daily classified advertisement.
• 3. I wrote the articles and supplied them, which they published, but they didn’t honour their part of the deal.
• 4. When confronted, Savea Sano Malifa told me that:
  • 4.1. He knew there would be trouble with me;
  • 4.2. He had been warned about me;
  • 4.3. Our relationship ended forthwith; and
  • 4.4. His advice was to “bin” the remaining unpublished articles.

 

4.     Timeline of Events

• 1. 5 October 2012: Savea and DS agree to the business deal.
• 2. 17 October 2012: Initial articles supplied.
• 3. 1 November 2012: Keni emails acknowledgement of receipt of stories and private Samoa Observer online page link.
• 4. 20 November 2012: Meeting with Keni – confirmed that he was happy with the stories; DS requested advertisements to restart.
• 5. 31 January 2013: DS advises of Samoa Observer’s failure to honour agreement despite efforts to resolve missing adverts; request for account reconciliation; proposed that Samoa Observer makes payment for missing adverts then continue as originally agreed.
• 6. 31 January 2013: Keni referred matter to Savea; and [first] advised of his non-publication.
• 7. 31 January 2013: Savea refuses to discuss my claim for compensation and terminates relationship.

 

5.     Initial Meeting

• 1. I initiated our first and only face-to-face meeting.
• 2. I introduced myself to Sano in his office and explained that I was an author and a blogger offering him my services.
• 3. We spoke for around about an hour.
• 4. The meeting was cordial and Sano’s demeanour was polite but guarded.
• 5. We talked about many things in the course of the hour.
• 6. The reason for my visit and the details of our agreement were spread over the course of the hour meaning that:
  • 6.1. Sano knew why I was there at the outset; but
  • 6.2. We did not agree to the details until the end of the conversation.
• 7. When Sano indicated that he was willing to accept my offer to write articles for publication I asked him what subjects he would like me to write about and what angles he wanted me to take.
• 8. He said that he was open to anything but with two clear provisos:
  • 8.1. First that they didn’t get him sued; and
  • 8.2. Secondly that they would get people to think.
• 9. I said that I understood this and I talked a bit about what I had in mind.
• 10. I then asked him if he wanted to check them all in draft, and he declined, saying that this wasn’t necessary.
• 11. Contrary to what Sano later wrote when he claimed that I “forced myself onto him”, he was very happy to consider my work and this was even before we had discussed the contra.
• 12. At no time in this meeting did Sano ever say that he did not want to accept my work.
• 13. At no time in this meeting did I exert, or even attempt to exert any leverage over Sano.
• 14. Our meeting was cordial and totally professional although I later assessed Sano (in retrospect) to have been a little guarded.
• 15. When we were going to talk about the details of a contra we obviously needed to establish the value of what we each had to offer.
• 16. I had led most of the conversation but did not know the commercial value of articles for publication.
• 17. I asked Sano then what the commercial value of article was to him, I think from memory, I asked him something like, “What do you pay for them [a theoretical 300 word article]?”
• 18. He told me that he measured the value of an article between 300-600 words at around $150.00.
• 19. I calculated this mentally as 7 ½ classified advertisements (which was what I wanted from him, for the contra).
• 20. I then proposed the contra to be one article per week in return for seven daily classified adverts, offering him a slightly higher retail-to-retail value (as classified adverts were then retail $20.00 each per day).
• 21. Sano accepted the offer immediately, obviously having done the same calculations that I had done.
• 22. Neither of us wrote anything down at that meeting but I promised to summarise our verbal agreement in writing and send it to him.
• 23. He asked me to copy his Editor (Mata’afa Keni Lesa) into the future communications loop.
• 24. Later that day I was speaking to another staff member (Marj Moore) and she asked me to copy her into the communications loop too.
• 25. Later that night (5 October 2012) I summarised the meeting and emailed that summary of our agreement to Sano. (Appendix Emails)
• 26. In this communication I used the phrase “date-sensitive” in error . . . I meant “NOT date sensitive” which is an obvious error, from the context.

 

6.     The Articles

• 1. With the agreement reached I provided Samoa Observer with the artwork for the advertisements, which included multiple communications getting the specifications and checking the copy to make sure it was right.
• 2. I wrote the initial articles and supplied them to Samoa Observer with links to a private server location that I had established for this purpose.
• 3. There were multiple communications by phone and email both ways during this period (Appendix contains the email communications).
• 4. I provided Samoa Observer seventeen articles as per this printout from their private web page (updated automatically as new articles were written):

Ref	Publication Date	Article (Web link is only visible the Monday after publication)	Download confidential PDF	Image URL
1	14/10/2012	White Sunday	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-10-14-white-sunday.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/safotu-catholic-church.jpg
2	04/11/2012	The cross-cultural interchange	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-11-04-the-crosscultural-interchange.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoan-shack.jpg
3	11/11/2012	Tell it like it is	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2014-11-11-tell-it-like-it-is.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/wwoofing-in-paradise1.jpg
4	18/11/2012	Church buildings – great but not biblical	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2014-11-18-church-buildings-great-but-not-biblical.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoa-church.jpg
5	25/11/2012	The hidden causes	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-11-25-the-hidden-causes.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pall-mall-vailima.jpg
6	02/12/2012	The Poverty Mentality	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-12-03-the-poverty-mentality.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/child-sitting-on-rail.jpg
7	09/12/2012	The Culture War	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-12-09-the-culture-war.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoa-flag.jpg
–	16/12/2012	Cyclone Eveni	N/A	N/A
8	23/12/2012	The Gift Economy	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-12-23-the-gift-economy.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/hannah-wheelbarrow.jpg
9	30/12/2012	Problems or Opportunities	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-12-30-problems-or-opportunities.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/aggie-greys-closed-doors.jpg
10	06/01/2013	The Heart of Samoa	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2013-01-06-the-heart-of-samoa.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/gift-giving-pig-at-siusega-church-opening1.jpg
11	14/01/2013	Gambling – Systemised Stupidity	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2013-01-14-gambling-systemised-stupidity.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/palagi-perspectives600.jpg
12	27/01/2013	The Evil of Usury	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2013-01-27-the-evil-of-usury.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoan-money.jpg
13	03/03/2013	Facts, Feelings & Faith	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2013-03-03-facts-feelings-faith.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/lalomanu-coconut.jpg
14	17/02/2013	Biblical forgiveness	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2013-02-17-biblical-forgiveness.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoan-armed-police-in-faleatiu-going-to-satapuala.jpg
15	24/02/2013	Which Church?	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2013-02-24-which-church.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/bahai-temple-with-tree.jpg
16	03/02/2013	The Importance of Theology	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2013-02-03-the-importance-of-theology.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/catholic-church-siusega.jpg
17	10/02/2013	The Two Stories	http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-02-10-the-two-stories.pdf	http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/weddingcakes.jpg

 

• 5. I sought both Sano and Keni’s feedback on the articles.
• 6. Sano never gave any feedback until his final email on 31January 2013.
• 7. Keni gave initial feedback after a few articles saying that:
  • 7.1. Nobody had complained about them; and
  • 7.2. He was busy and didn’t read them all but that what he did read, “read well”.
• 8. At no time did anyone from Samoa Observer indicate any problems with the articles, neither did anyone instruct me to stop producing articles, until 31 January 2012.
• 9. I delivered at the upper end of the range Sano and I had agreed, with all articles at least, and very close to 600 words (the agreement was between 300-600 words).
• 10. I also delivered unique original colour photos of Samoa appropriate to the article content, gratis.
• 11. I designed and delivered a Palagi Perspectives logo/masthead and I developed an associated website – www.palagiperspectives.com. (Appendix 2)
• 12. I published a blog post detailing the contract I had entered into with Samoa Observer and how I felt about it with a link to the Palagi Perspectives website and the stories online.
• 13. The point of this is that the commitment I made was a serious investment, not fleeting or casual.
• 14. In an early conversation with Keni, we discussed the online publication and he requested that the online version went up on a Monday as he would include them in the Sunday Observer.
• 15. I confirmed this verbal arrangement in my email of 1^st November 2012.
• 16. I believe that I exercised excellent service to Samoa Observer, producing in excess of that promised and with exemplary professionalism.

7.     The Advertisements

• 1. Approximately three weeks following delivery of the first articles I noted that had I not received any enquiries for the limousine.
• 2. I checked the the current Samoa Observer at their Apia office, and the papers from a day or two prior only to find that the advertisements had not run daily.
• 3. Production told me that they only put the advertisement in once.
• 4. They apologised and agreed to run them daily from then on.
• 5. On a second occasion I followed up with the same result – it appeared as though they had run the advert once (again) but not repeated it.
• 6. My recording of this was on 20 November 2012 in an email to Keni.
• 7. I spoke with Keni by phone on or about 20 December and he agreed to follow up and make sure they ran the adverts as agreed.
• 8. I believe that the advert ran again only once.
• 9. At that stage this was twice that I had to chase up Samoa Observer.
• 10. It is my belief that Samoa Observer has only run the advertisement the three times the day following my chasing them up.
• 11. I never received any enquiries from the three adverts that I understand that they actually ran and I mentioned this in my 31 January 2013 email to Keni, where I also acknowledged that results were not his responsibility: ” For the record (and I know that this is not your direct responsibility) but we have had no enquiries, none from Samoa Observer in all the months since I started writing for you.”

 

8.     Addressing the Problems

• 1. I initiated both a phone call and a meeting to resolve the problems with Keni.
• 2. Keni said to me when we met that we [Samoa Observer] should honour their agreement if that was their agreement.
• 3. I do not have the exact date of that meeting but it would probably be between late December 2012 (after the 20 December 2012 email) and mid January 2013 (before the 31 January 2013 email).
• 4. At our face-to-face meeting I made the suggestion that in regards to the past failures, that they could simply pay me for the articles I had already supplied and then commence the contra as of that date as we had originally agreed.
• 5. I got the impression that Keni had dropped the ball on the matter and was embarrassed.
• 6. In a later communication, Sano implied that I had demanded this to occur, however this is not correct, for in person with Keni and in writing in my email request this was only ever a request, and a suggestion, not a demand.
• 7. My actual words written in my email of 31 January 2012 to Keni (and as Keni copied to Sano) were, “As mentioned before, I propose that you simply pay me for the articles to date, then commence adverts as orginally agreed for say, the next month, and then we reassess the whole thing?” concluding with a question mark, thus indicating two ways that this was only my suggestion:
  • 7.1. “I propose”; and
  • 7.2. A question mark.
• 8. Keni forwarded my email to Sano and advised me that he had stopped publication some time prior.
• 9. This was the first time that I knew this, and even today I do not know when Keni stopped publication and which articles have/had been published.
• 10. Sano responded to this email essentially telling me to, “Get lost!”
• 11. I replied to Sano addressing his comments specifically intertwining my replies with his comments in an email of 31 January 2013 (Appendix Emails).
• 12. In essence, I responded in two sections, the first a more formal direct response stating that Samoa Observer should be honouring the original deal, the second a more personal section suggesting to Sano that he might not have all the information about his companies performance failure prior to firing off his email.
• 13. The demeanour of Sano’s communication was aggressive and personal.
• 14. My reply was the reverse, depersonalising the matter and extending quite some considerable goodwill.
• 15. With no response for a week or so, I called Sano and left a message asking him to call me with his wife Jean.
• 16. I also texted a request for him to call me on Jean’s phone.
• 17. Sometime later I mentioned to a journalist who had engaged me in conversation in a food shop in the SNPF Plaza that Sanoa had “ripped me off” and that I had written a blog post about it, publishing the full text of our emails with my commentary.
• 18. That night, Sano viewed my LinkedIn profile for the first time, and LinkedIn advised me of this visit [an automated process that I have switched on], which indicated to me that Sano had not done basic due diligence on me prior to firing off his abusive email, but did research on me only after alerted to the negative press by an informant.
• 19. I have had no communications from or with Sano since the emails of 31 January 2013.
• 20. I have received no payments in any way, shape or form from Samoa Observer other than the three adverts I believe that they ran.
• 21. I believe it is reasonable, even a conservative estimate, that a daily advertisement costing $20 per day and a limousine hire service in peak wedding season would have generated at least four sales.
• 22. At a $100.00 direct cost per wedding (driver and petrol) and a minmum $400.00 charge per wedding, direct profits per booking are reasonably $300.00.
• 23. From a business perspective this minimum estimated income would of course exceed the cost of advertisements thus resulting in a net loss, however I have calculated consequential losses from Samoa Observer not running the advertisements conservatively.

 

9.     Financial Calculations

 

Articles supplied	17
Weeks	17
Days per week	7
Total days	119
Commercial value per story	[$150.00]
Total commercial value	[$2,550.00]
Advert value	$20.00
Total advert value	$2,380.00
Confirmed adverts run	3
Total value received	$60.00
Shortfall		$2,320.00
Lost opportunity costs
Minimum wedding charge	$400.00
Costs per wedding	$100.00
Profit per wedding	$300.00
Weddings (est)	4
Total lost opportunity		$1,200.00
Total owing		$3,520.00

 

 

 

Signed:

 

 

 

__________________________________________

Dennis Arthur Smith

Aleisa East

Samoa

 

________ August 2015

 

Witness:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________________________

 

 

______________ / ____________________________ / 2015

 

Appendix 1 – Emails (with headers, footers redacted)

5 Oct 2012: Initial Confirmation – DS -> Sano

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.64.67.99 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:08:37 -0700 (PDT)Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:08:37 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: ghsvp3p3yAsLN0TLUNEXibftgXgMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrJLfHoFz387ucJHN2RWGkAo1oHYK26f9nCgvgdvy+ryVA@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: savea.malifa@xxx.comContent-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c1f4012dd604cb458394 –e89a8ff1c1f4012dd604cb458394Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Sano

 

Thank you for your time today.

 

As promised, here is confirmation of our conversation whereby I will supply

you with a weekly column “Palagi Perspectives” of between 300-600 words and

you will provide a daily classified advertising slot for our Limousine

business.

 

I understand from you that you require no editorial input other than to

ensure that the copy is not likely to “get you [or me] sued” and “gets

people to think”. I stated that my approach to writing will be to bring a

Palagi perspective, touching on Samoan culture, tourism, foreign investment

and faith. I omitted to also mention IT when we met but Internet Marketing

is of major interest to me.

 

I try to write generously but I usually have strong opinions, and always

write with a Christian perspective. I enjoy applying Christian values and

principles into business and other life matters, thinking creatively and

laterally. I have extensive experience in assisting small businesses to

think strategically and delight in working at board level to help develop

objectives and structure businesses well. A lot of my success with others

has been taking problems, turning them upside down and re-engineering them

into opportunities.

 

I have spoken to Marj about another matter, and at her request will cc the

column to marjandebs@xxx.com, as well as lesa.keni@xxx.com, and

observer.news1978@xxx.com by Friday night for publication on Sunday. I

intend to provide extra columns that are date-sensitive for you to hold on

file and to choose from as you see fit. This will also give you a buffer

for continuity should there be any communications breakdown or adversity.

 

I will supply you with a photograph (Marj’s request) and use the

attribution byline:

 

*Dennis A. Smith (**www.dennis.co.nz) **is a Samoa-based author, blogger

and CEO of the SWAP Foundation, home of Samoa voluntourism.*

 

As I requested in person I would also seek your personal feedback on the

columns, especially in the early days so that I can better understand where

the final product fits on the various scales here!

 

Thank you for your willingness to engage and also your flexibility to do

business with a direct contra. This is much appreciated.

 

17 Oct 2012: Initial Links – DS -> Marj & Sano

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.64.67.99 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 11:47:06 -0700 (PDT)Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:47:06 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: Cl6EUECmriytUsnqEiz3Us5PrBMMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+B_JCGaBoKx6vESapoqpu1fVb57deJtAZPx9bWGowbVA@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Marjorie Moore <marjandebs@xxx.com>Cc: Sano – Samoa Observer <observer.news1978@xxx.com>,        Sano – Samoa Observer <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae94739657f3c5204cc45b279 –14dae94739657f3c5204cc45b279Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Marj & Sano Here are links to PDFs of all Palagi Perspectives, the new ones withpublication dates 4th, 11th and 18th November 2012.

“White Sunday”

http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pp-2012-10-14-white-sunday.pdf (link changed)

“Tell it Like it is”

http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pp-2012-10-21-tell-it-like-it-is.pdf (link

changed)

“Church Buildings Great but not Biblical”

 

http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pp-2012-10-28-church-buildings-great-but-not-biblical.pdf

(link

changed)

“The Hidden Causes”

 

*http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pp-2012-11-04-the-hidden-causes.pdf*

“The Poverty Mentality”

*http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pp-2012-11-11-the-poverty-mentality.pdf*

“The Culture War”

*http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pp-2012-11-18-the-culture-war.pdf* Links to the three high new resolution images:*http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoa-flag.jpg**http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/child-sitting-on-rail.jpg**http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/pall-mall-vailima.jpg* Once again I have set the online publication dates for all these stories tothe day following publication (Mondays). As before I will be interested in your feedback.

17 Oct 2012: Request to send to others – Marj -> DS

 

Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.58.74.105 with SMTP id s9csp276327vev;       Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:04:09 -0700 (PDT)Received: by 10.66.72.134 with SMTP id d6mr53752440pav.13.1350507848412;      Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:04:08 -0700 (PDT)Return-Path: <marjandebs@xxx.com>Received: from mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz (mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz. [119.47.119.8])       by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m8si32219669pav.307.2012.10.17.14.04.07;       Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:04:08 -0700 (PDT)Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of marjandebs@xxx.com) client-ip=119.47.119.8;Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of marjandebs@xxx.com) smtp.mail=marjandebs@xxx.com; dkim=pass header.i=@xxx.comReceived: from ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz [172.16.246.13])       by mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A521AB003B;       Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:04:06 +1300 (NZDT)Received: from ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1])       by mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8791A6C004       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:04:05 +1300 (NZDT)X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mlf1.webhost.co.nzX-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,       DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS       autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1X-Envelope-From: marjandebs@xxx.comReceived: from mail-ie0-f177.google.com (mail-ie0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177])       by mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31B851A6C003       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:04:03 +1300 (NZDT)Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e14so16602973iej.22       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:04:02 -0700 (PDT)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;       d=gmail.com; s=20120113;       h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type;       bh=oxXLAZ5I10GP/u8qARBooeibwW/vitnX0aO7xgeBrnQ=;       b=mwadIrdqoP4ZcLtFGY21s7Whz9ug4l9+G08SBtJGJ9+VC29a/5qpye5DKnpMt60F88         N+Kmye2lx/Cp7i2enQlNw32ioaBCc3bC+ZXVIzL1UbcBkuCXYmP5ZQfw6UxoE2oj9qTi         c8XRAr97qWNrt9jPlmyJ50b/uur2RvCxEWhXd9pgj6Vd6iYquUuJ7aUR8M5mmQr5YviQ         uyp/mvG2v5OX229+c/xvSF7ezMdezWbeN8XcIlbTGFrQHv+vIjlivMOApmfxmccwWdwp         saYjooAbyf5+bKQNedSJ5so1Ma+kj6UUD2wP+pbZYTGrhtMSEd1p17Zk9qorvh0DKMVz         zXlg==MIME-Version: 1.0Received: by 10.43.7.132 with SMTP id oo4mr15599732icb.6.1350507841548; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:04:01 -0700 (PDT)Received: by 10.231.4.1 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:04:01 -0700 (PDT)In-Reply-To: <CAOS-hr+B_JCGaBoKx6vESapoqpu1fVb57deJtAZPx9bWGowbVA@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hr+B_JCGaBoKx6vESapoqpu1fVb57deJtAZPx9bWGowbVA@mail.gmail.com>Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:04:01 +1400Message-ID: <CAObDcUuAU7sy_iNBeSWjuh=O9Lr8-ToTfRS_iEZjYqqO88Vowg@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Marjorie Moore <marjandebs@xxx.com>To: dennis@dennis.co.nz, Mataafa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec50fe2df29716304cc479ce8X-ProxSMTP: Clean –bcaec50fe2df29716304cc479ce8Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Dennis, if you wouldn’t mind sending these to Savea and Mata’afa (seeaddress above) who is back from Israel. ThanksMarj

17 Oct 2012: Links sent to Keni – DS

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.58.74.105 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:32:32 -0700 (PDT)In-Reply-To: <CAOS-hr+B_JCGaBoKx6vESapoqpu1fVb57deJtAZPx9bWGowbVA@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hr+B_JCGaBoKx6vESapoqpu1fVb57deJtAZPx9bWGowbVA@mail.gmail.com>Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:32:32 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: CW7NtNVw3Gh8MS6qURaCO1qYjwYMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+Sq_-ctSPVbptUWQqU+Bn=2tGDmTrta-tA9FO599doCA@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Fwd: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: lesa.keni@xxx.comContent-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d942626c64b04cc480208 –047d7b6d942626c64b04cc480208Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Mata’afaMarj has asked me to send a copy of this to you too.

17 Oct 2012: Already sent to Savea – DS -> Marj

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.58.74.105 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:58:03 -0700 (PDT)In-Reply-To: <CAObDcUuAU7sy_iNBeSWjuh=O9Lr8-ToTfRS_iEZjYqqO88Vowg@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hr+B_JCGaBoKx6vESapoqpu1fVb57deJtAZPx9bWGowbVA@mail.gmail.com>       <CAObDcUuAU7sy_iNBeSWjuh=O9Lr8-ToTfRS_iEZjYqqO88Vowg@mail.gmail.com>Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:58:03 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: OuM9qWH2BVJwBvORpyIlGQIamdsMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr++Zhc8eMt6ejkrq=TYyr-X3M1p=D0p3HFLZC-UC9bpOQ@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Marjorie Moore <marjandebs@xxx.com>Cc: Mataafa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc8f2464a49504cc485d28 –047d7bdc8f2464a49504cc485d28Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Savea already has it (I cc’d him) and I have also just sent it to

lesa.keni@xxx.com

Thanks

 

 

1 Nov 2012: Phone call followup – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.64.67.99 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:05:50 -0700 (PDT)Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:05:50 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: gZwWgtqX_utG2pO4CBmR99G-cZoMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+Kkafd+Tvnvr_3gzrA1UJ3bxriVy1KEiKNfmz+cqZPpg@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Cc: Sano – Samoa Observer <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53fee8b28395904cd799309 –bcaec53fee8b28395904cd799309Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Keni Good to talk – thanks Agreed – I have removed the online posts and redated them to automaticallypublish the day after your Sunday publication being the Monday morning. The PP masthead is here:http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/palagi-perspectives.jpg Obviously we’ve missed the White Sunday post. I will leave it up online butwe can now start with this one:http://www.dennis.co.nz/xxx/pp-2012-11-04-the-crosscultural-interchange.pdf The high resolution images is:http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoan-shack.jpg I will forward links to the next articles and images shortly. Look forward to meeting in person lunchtime next Wednesday.

1 Nov 2012: Thanks – Keni -> DS

 

Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.64.67.99 with SMTP id m3csp818360iet;       Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:51:33 -0700 (PDT)Received: by 10.68.233.230 with SMTP id tz6mr1910939pbc.36.1351824692539;       Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:51:32 -0700 (PDT)Return-Path: <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Received: from mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz (mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz. [119.47.119.8])       by mx.google.com with ESMTP id ka8si11612354pbc.125.2012.11.01.19.51.30;       Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:51:32 -0700 (PDT)Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of lesa.keni@xxx.com) client-ip=119.47.119.8;Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of lesa.keni@xxx.com) smtp.mail=lesa.keni@xxx.com; dkim=pass header.i=@xxx.comReceived: from ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz [172.16.246.13])       by mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F1FD57E0EF;       Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:51:28 +1300 (NZDT)Received: from ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1])       by mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4D3357E2AE       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:51:27 +1300 (NZDT)X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mlf1.webhost.co.nzX-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,       DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,       RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1X-Envelope-From: lesa.keni@xxx.comReceived: from mail-vb0-f49.google.com (mail-vb0-f49.google.com [209.85.212.49])       by mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF19F57E0EF       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:51:26 +1300 (NZDT)Received: by mail-vb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id fo1so4473680vbb.22       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:51:25 -0700 (PDT)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;       d=gmail.com; s=20120113;       h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type;       bh=n4a3iWs9IDMfur6zPv1FfcMyJv3oYj90x3ZV0yBAc28=;       b=k5POQDrkNkAiTrP/5yh0+xIKrUru4TVd2K8H4Xw6GopD9EJoDNvIjdR/reUwEWwr/T         DCJ4s+mt8hzYRsYeRKFUmXT7Xhys08IqQq/24yEHPq7Iirl82Ulj6D+/bgcbEYGqlFSn         X1oks2jeMoL+N1pV+GUh9AFC09bquA3xPAb1R7BUG4tocPJezZAXT8xurVG2dMZL1oPS         1I3C9wpoP2orIjZFvfzgKbUJsB50us1jzlzhwgYJjtkS6t8Z7vsiIfDk2LHToC6/lW5K         fDDaCe4Sa5EhgScUkqMYZxSSNU1hLQ6sGJi5IUVwdHAWZryevwoOtEIymjOEBfyoUVhm         5aqg==MIME-Version: 1.0Received: by 10.220.106.129 with SMTP id x1mr583281vco.9.1351824684852; Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:51:24 -0700 (PDT)Received: by 10.58.249.74 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 19:51:24 -0700 (PDT)In-Reply-To: <CAOS-hr+Kkafd+Tvnvr_3gzrA1UJ3bxriVy1KEiKNfmz+cqZPpg@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hr+Kkafd+Tvnvr_3gzrA1UJ3bxriVy1KEiKNfmz+cqZPpg@mail.gmail.com>Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 15:51:24 +1300Message-ID: <CA+1=HSS6px7cwXkEttycJ_CphrB9Hy7Kr7Cg-gwjnvy0KnVfQA@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>To: dennis@dennis.co.nzContent-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7ace23a5e804cd7a36a5X-ProxSMTP: Clean –f46d043c7ace23a5e804cd7a36a5Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 thanks Dennis.

1 Nov 2012: Private Page extablished – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.64.67.99 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:22:36 -0700 (PDT)Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:22:36 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: F_GgilKXvadqS-tAJPZ3YmdJhykMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrL5KEzvPHQHuXqB-ONP4cL7cX6CBoo5YgSrtsV1-rqP3A@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9d70fec6c9fc104cd7d29b2 –14dae9d70fec6c9fc104cd7d29b2Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Keni

 

I have created a private page for you with all the Palagi Perspective

articles, their PDF files, date of publication and links to their images.

The password is “1234”. I can easily change it to anything you or the teamwant. Just let me know. http://www.dennis.co.nz/samoa-observer-confidential-masterlist/ I have done this because I cannot be assured of emailing material weeklydue to my ever changing schedules! Hope you understand and that this is OKfor you.

20 Nov 2012: Good feedback; request adverts; suggest new series – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.55.131 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:02:26 -0800 (PST)Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:02:26 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: XjPaTiy28ovgFj0OY9p80YDx6JkMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrJxwO3vF61LqLjoidD7mwLKjQskMpmWfKnAJ0PAJjDLbg@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Samoa & GlobalisationFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Cc: Sano – Samoa Observer <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043084ce697c8a04cef6e731 –f46d043084ce697c8a04cef6e731Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Keni

 

Good to hear that you appreciated the “Churches great but not biblical”

Palagi Perspective. It made my day that at least one person “out there”

appreciated the point! I will remind you of your positive comments when you

read a future Palagi Perspective that grates with your sensitivities!

 

Can you please commence the classified advertisements as discussed

previously. Thanks.

 

As alluded to last time we met, and spoken by phone just now, I have anidea for a possible series (maybe to run over Christmas?) which would beabout Samoa in the context of Globalisation. I would need a decentfinancial return for this one (ongoing contra is fine for the PalagiPerspectives) as this would be a high-quality well researched and seriousseries, perhaps 10x 1,500 words or 10 x 2,000 words. I am considering the title perhaps “The impact of Globalisation on Samoa”and ten stories/chapters perhaps along the lines of this draft blueprint: [details redacted] I’d love to talk more about it with you and Savea if you’re interested andwhen you have a moment.

20 Dec 2012: “The Gift Economy ” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.55.131 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Dec 2012 16:14:38 -0800 (PST)Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:14:38 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: UvdZFqFQM0neuVLmqLTsjYps29gMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+znbyLwWKJbTeWJTycVSSXz9V=dC8D=o7HqqvNVAFdiQ@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP for Sunday 23/12/2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Sano – Samoa Observer <saveamalifa@xxx.com>, Mataafa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Keni I confirm our meeting with Savea at midday next Friday, following Christmas This Sunday’s Palagi Perspective column, herewith. Title: The Gift EconomyImage: http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/hannah-wheelbarrow.jpgImage Caption: A SWAP volunteer with plantation produce – given, not sold.Text: [story redacted]

2 Jan 2013: “The Heart of Samoa” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.55.131 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:38:05 -0800 (PST)Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 15:38:05 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: mJejMbiiEftDN0S5f5EXIQrkxLYMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+H59YF+CM7W+hFzxDAQZXpujH-uiQNdbRaZ5yJH33-aQ@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e6ffaff15a27804d2586acf –e0cb4e6ffaff15a27804d2586acfContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Malo Keni This weekend’s PP – first of the New Year: Title:The Heart of SamoaImage: www.dennis.co.nz/images/gift-giving-pig-at-siusega-church-opening.jpgCopy: [story redacted]

11 Jan 2012: “Gambling – Systemised Stupidity ” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.55.131 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:44:03 -0800 (PST)Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:44:03 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: DPDEHbzgpgR2A_mzeMFQDWgchj0Message-ID: <CAOS-hr+U6rvm2rP6MnsR3Y92PQMU0X1P4tFv5vrX7W-T_4YyRw@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP – 14 January 2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0433a0aed186a304d30bdede –f46d0433a0aed186a304d30bdedeContent-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi KeniPalagi Perspectives for: 14 January 2013Title: Gambling =96 Systemised StupidityImage: http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/child-sitting-on-rail.jpgImage title: A disproportionate gambling income comes from the poorText: [story redacted]

19 Jan 2013: “The evil of Usury ” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.55.131 with HTTP; Sat, 19 Jan 2013 01:16:44 -0800 (PST)Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 23:16:44 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: QSfWP9B2AzBXnMHMRc5EY3bScmYMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+yjmaVFk13PDZEJ_iZKTXLJe2dJ8dpLXhg58zJ2ruRpg@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP 27/1/2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Keni PP for this coming Sunday 27th January 2013 Title: The evil of UsuryImage: http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/palagi-perspectives600.jpgImage caption: Samoan money – like all modern national currencies afiat currencyText: [story redacted]

31 Jan 2013: “The importance of theology ” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:07:29 -0800 (PST)Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:07:29 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: weV3yt4Iq-mX5uN1fg5j8i1mN7sMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrK2=Nb_Q16uRvmsgcO-5zS1jKH2K4LuG4OK-s4eGCYR=Q@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP for Sunday 3 February 2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4efa7e9058ee6504d4a2b812 –e0cb4efa7e9058ee6504d4a2b812Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Keni Latest Palagi Perspectives . . . Date: 3 February 2013Title: The importance of theologyImage: http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/catholic-church-siusega.jpgImage text: Catholic Church SiusegaStory text: [story redacted]

31 Jan 2013: “The two stories” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:07:35 -0800 (PST)Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:07:35 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: g0aXAk-O8mCflkNfleO1PqpcpjIMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrLpREJ3GxHLK=gEgD4DKN5d7R8EXkC7C0J8kdF0RfqSqA@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP for Sunday 10 February 2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d64958b71e5404d4a2b8c9 –0016e6d64958b71e5404d4a2b8c9Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Keni Latest Palagi Perspectives . . . Date: 10 February 2013Title: The two storiesImage: http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/weddingcakes.jpgImage text: Wedding Cakes – a Samoan speciality!Story text: [story redacted]

31 Jan 2013: “Biblical forgiveness” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:07:40 -0800 (PST)Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:07:40 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: SX4SZz9KLo78ocRmlaxws7Kq4XcMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrJwtY-zR=ma2bh_NL2Q5x7Aqc9_KY4mv8xjA4i=CaDm+Q@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP for Sunday 17 February 2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5140806affd04d4a2b966 –000e0cd5140806affd04d4a2b966Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Keni Latest Palagi Perspectives . . . Date: 17 February 2013Title: Biblical forgivenessImage:http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/samoan-armed-police-in-faleatiu-going-to-sat=apuala.jpgImage text: Samoan armed police during the Satapuala conflictStory text: [story redacted]

31 Jan 2013: “Which Church?” – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:07:47 -0800 (PST)Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:07:47 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: ix0yK6F8YQPSjBV3hE-nGug4qn8Message-ID: <CAOS-hr+md7A=A3hEZEOBitnKQsnrHT6pMH+5PH-Wx7N1VEM3ng@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP for Sunday 24 February 2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042d05ea6f8bda04d4a2b955 –f46d042d05ea6f8bda04d4a2b955Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Keni Latest Palagi Perspectives . . . Date: 24 February 2013Title: Which Church?Image: http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/bahai-temple-with-tree.jpgImage text: Baha’i Temple – A syncretising faithStory text: [story redacted]

31 Jan 2013: “Facts, Feelings & Faith” – DS -> Keni

 

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:07:58 -0800 (PST)Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:07:58 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: b0B9RYqp-AD33JCqAT2cD6bejjEMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+ibhnf9wPK+QE155pGWU3KWTfihswJFpvx6FsSSQ+OMw@mail.gmail.com>Subject: PP for Sunday 3 March 2013From: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042c613317887904d4a2bae1 –f46d042c613317887904d4a2bae1Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Keni Latest Palagi Perspectives . . . Date: 3 March 2013Title: Facts, Feelings & FaithImage: http://www.dennis.co.nz/images/lalomanu-coconut.jpgImage text: A tropical island paradise that captures the heart-stringsStory text: [story redacted]

31 Jan 2013: Account Reconciliation Request – DS -> Keni

 

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:10:10 -0800 (PST)Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:10:10 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: wo0EpVPS27S9mHEDxP-0Ovd7wXwMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrK-1oJN+mQCMuW2W1t7OSaRprKUhDNO=E1og+mQVq9MUg@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e6ffafff302c704d4a2c153 –e0cb4e6ffafff302c704d4a2c153Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi Keni

 

As you will now know, I have just completed the PP stories for the next

five weekends. I will try to pop in on Monday to reconcile the

advertisements. According to my best calculations Samoa Observer has simply

failed to honour its obligations as per the original agreement despite me

extending much grace and patience and several requests to follow up. I know

of no other way to say this other than that I think that you guys have

really dropped the ball. I have undertaken many many hours work (which has

of course been enjoyable), but at the end of the day I simply have no idea

whether your classified advertisements “work” for the limousine or not, and

the wedding season is pretty much over.

 

For the record (and I know that this is not your direct responsibility) but

we have had no enquiries, none from Samoa Observer in all the months since

I started writing for you. I do not believe that you have been running the

advertisements, certainly not daily, if at all. The issues that I have

checked do not have them, despite me calling Sui several times to ensure

that they do. May I please ask that you undertake an audit, and establish

what dates any advert ran for me, then we can do a financial

reconciliation. As mentioned before, I propose that you simply pay me for

the articles to date, then commence adverts as orginally agreed for say,

the next month, and then we reassess the whole thing?

 

Hopefully we can catch up on Monday.

 

31 Jan 2013: Referred to Savea, Stopped Publication – Keni -> DS

 

Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with SMTP id i10csp66418web;       Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:37:50 -0800 (PST)X-Received: by 10.68.237.129 with SMTP id vc1mr14150089pbc.123.1359697069441;       Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:37:49 -0800 (PST)Return-Path: <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Received: from mlx2-out.webhost.co.nz (mlx2-out.webhost.co.nz. [119.47.119.10])       by mx.google.com with ESMTP id a9si7063209paz.84.2013.01.31.21.37.48;       Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:37:49 -0800 (PST)Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.10 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of lesa.keni@xxx.com) client-ip=119.47.119.10;Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;       spf=neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.10 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of lesa.keni@xxx.com) smtp.mail=lesa.keni@xxx.com;      dkim=pass header.i=@xxx.comReceived: from ml.mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (ml.mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz [172.16.246.14])       by mlx2-out.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 509611ACCC2;       Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:37:47 +1300 (NZDT)Received: from ml.mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1])       by mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3285F1AEA76       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:37:46 +1300 (NZDT)X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mlf2.webhost.co.nzX-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,       DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS       autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1X-Envelope-From: lesa.keni@xxx.comReceived: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182])       by mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF70C1ACCC2       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:37:44 +1300 (NZDT)Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id gg6so4101598lbb.41       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:37:41 -0800 (PST)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;       d=gmail.com; s=20120113;       h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id         :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;        bh=UJ1GAYByPipHTDWzPgzyyU3sUn4Mm9vvf52xhwv41Kk=;       b=bHoH5y/35yDECbGAfMWVdKE8zBa4K6mjSfAd2mNsqvnaPZG8PZPBZ5VKid/MJGmYPq         S4QecI23T6aZkFHRRFTEHL2bg6lt8k6agif/HN2wjrxzPGAlmJgZpbgjCHa6RORvQ4Hm         F2ZhyOzIV0oZ/T8lKkOpi1UVJcYpggQEZJ9fOwIr62X4w+m/hBHodRL6fZV3IVYZ5/Hb         78QVyA2azU9yYJSuUEZQY5Mf5917JcFaoqroMS0J6wRmgbM7PaRRK92yDt9SHPQP//Ka         aHqVZE1O+aMzEZDKJSUKq/hhiH5rZJ+raLu+somduBMliqOe4P0PQvVUYrnvdMCswIaZ         7SvQ==MIME-Version: 1.0X-Received: by 10.152.162.1 with SMTP id xw1mr10188082lab.3.1359697061326; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:37:41 -0800 (PST)Received: by 10.112.125.98 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 21:37:41 -0800 (PST)In-Reply-To: <CAOS-hrK-1oJN+mQCMuW2W1t7OSaRprKUhDNO=E1og+mQVq9MUg@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hrK-1oJN+mQCMuW2W1t7OSaRprKUhDNO=E1og+mQVq9MUg@mail.gmail.com>Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:37:41 +1300Message-ID: <CA+1=HSRTGYC2-vEV6RQXDM-TO4Ec2dci=Po_gOvps+jvbiW8OA@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>To: dennis@dennis.co.nzCc: Sano Malifa <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042ef4a557ae8d04d4a3242aX-ProxSMTP: Clean –f46d042ef4a557ae8d04d4a3242aContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dennis,

 

I’ve referred your email to Savea whom I am copying on this email. If you

haven’t noticed, I’ve stopped publishing your column since our last

conversation.

 

All the best.

 

keni

 

31 Jan 2013: Why did you stop publication? – DS -> Keni

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:28:51 -0800 (PST)In-Reply-To: <CA+1=HSRTGYC2-vEV6RQXDM-TO4Ec2dci=Po_gOvps+jvbiW8OA@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hrK-1oJN+mQCMuW2W1t7OSaRprKUhDNO=E1og+mQVq9MUg@mail.gmail.com>       <CA+1=HSRTGYC2-vEV6RQXDM-TO4Ec2dci=Po_gOvps+jvbiW8OA@mail.gmail.com>Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 20:28:51 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: iuUh8OjmDyMZ_bVuMpeDxazg0_IMessage-ID: <CAOS-hrL0DRcKwcYzn9Cz07ErQXLfHTFnw_rqsw-S-Xxi5MQdXg@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Cc: Sano Malifa <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e0cb4e43d2515c3fe304d4a3db2d –e0cb4e43d2515c3fe304d4a3db2dContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks

Why did you stop publishing?

Without telling me? I would have thought that you would at least let me

know! Is there a problem?

 

1 Feb 2013: Why publication was stopped – Keni -> DS

 

 

Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with SMTP id i10csp106083web;       Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:02:23 -0800 (PST)X-Received: by 10.68.197.71 with SMTP id is7mr35880255pbc.79.1359752541548;        Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:02:21 -0800 (PST)Return-Path: <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Received: from mlx2-out.webhost.co.nz (mlx2-out.webhost.co.nz. [119.47.119.10])       by mx.google.com with ESMTP id rg4si9102847pbc.143.2013.02.01.13.02.19;       Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:02:21 -0800 (PST)Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.10 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of lesa.keni@xxx.com) client-ip=119.47.119.10;Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;       spf=neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.10 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of lesa.keni@xxx.com) smtp.mail=lesa.keni@xxx.com;       dkim=pass header.i=@xxx.comReceived: from ml.mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (ml.mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz [172.16.246.14])       by mlx2-out.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E261AD431;       Sat, 2 Feb 2013 10:02:18 +1300 (NZDT)Received: from ml.mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1])       by mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA4D1AD443       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 10:02:17 +1300 (NZDT)X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mlf2.webhost.co.nzX-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,       DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS       autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1X-Envelope-From: lesa.keni@xxx.comReceived: from mail-lb0-f173.google.com (mail-lb0-f173.google.com [209.85.217.173])       by mlx2-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A241AD44F       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 10:02:15 +1300 (NZDT)Received: by mail-lb0-f173.google.com with SMTP id gf7so4902818lbb.4       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:02:13 -0800 (PST)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;       d=gmail.com; s=20120113;       h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id         :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;       bh=LpPEHT4MrydtRq807XQzUCO+PTyYREtY8wt8bZ/27iY=;       b=Qwj7le5J00zizLLCdhXxrtLofqK7NEOA3P3hqAk3+eYO+kV4dUzx+aDSIxScAoHIW4         s37OZJcozzbVEbjeXXBY/Hq1K7w0Cezss74kIP5mPDJIX3IPdySQQNovfMTCiLxUprdG         bZZolpGaXo0Mn4rJ1MLeiQwkP7uVy8EiSpgPQO86yIzg7FKblMdl4coZU/qBx+iciT7T         NubLnywk3Rgri/l8ey8yJCTLjEXn8EjiCHpoHINe7YaaZMIQjmCalYAwQ0CbhiPlhH83         /XmWYIMXC548eYoLo5XmfOZbShRkpHvgKhcVWKW/P/sSSFGgrqMR1vI7xF4pz4tF/b7T         n7PQ==MIME-Version: 1.0X-Received: by 10.152.113.66 with SMTP id iw2mr12197561lab.37.1359752533109; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 13:02:13 -0800 (PST)Received: by 10.112.125.98 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:02:13 -0800 (PST)In-Reply-To: <CAOS-hrL0DRcKwcYzn9Cz07ErQXLfHTFnw_rqsw-S-Xxi5MQdXg@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hrK-1oJN+mQCMuW2W1t7OSaRprKUhDNO=E1og+mQVq9MUg@mail.gmail.com>       <CA+1=HSRTGYC2-vEV6RQXDM-TO4Ec2dci=Po_gOvps+jvbiW8OA@mail.gmail.com>       <CAOS-hrL0DRcKwcYzn9Cz07ErQXLfHTFnw_rqsw-S-Xxi5MQdXg@mail.gmail.com>Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 10:02:13 +1300Message-ID: <CA+1=HSR3KbgmpK0VFJec88biTR+Rjpp=KHbavswpBeA_nRSxTA@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>To: dennis@dennis.co.nzCc: Sano Malifa <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04089159b7ecbc04d4b00eafX-ProxSMTP: Clean –f46d04089159b7ecbc04d4b00eafContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Dennis,

 

In our last conversation, you said you wanted to be paid for the columns

where the ads were not run. As I said to you, because I did not negotiate

your column with you in the beginning, it’s best that you deal with Savea.

Once that is sorted, then we’ll look at the viability of future pieces.

 

keni

 

1 Feb 2013: Get lost smooth talking opportunist – Savea -> DS

 

 

Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with SMTP id i10csp112152web;       Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:10:36 -0800 (PST)X-Received: by 10.68.220.162 with SMTP id px2mr37117084pbc.109.1359760235217;       Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:10:35 -0800 (PST)Return-Path: <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Received: from mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz (mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz. [119.47.119.8])       by mx.google.com with ESMTP id zs4si9353588pbc.300.2013.02.01.15.10.34;       Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:10:35 -0800 (PST)Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of saveamalifa@xxx.com) client-ip=119.47.119.8;Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;       spf=neutral (google.com: 119.47.119.8 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of saveamalifa@xxx.com) smtp.mail=saveamalifa@xxx.com;       dkim=pass header.i=@xxx.comReceived: from ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz [172.16.246.13])       by mlx1-out.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB4457C522;       Sat, 2 Feb 2013 12:10:33 +1300 (NZDT)Received: from ml.mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (localhost [127.0.0.1])       by mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D339A57D581       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 12:10:31 +1300 (NZDT)X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on mlf2.webhost.co.nzX-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,       DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=disabled       version=3.3.1X-Envelope-From: saveamalifa@xxx.comReceived: from mail-qe0-f54.google.com (mail-qe0-f54.google.com [209.85.128.54])       by mlx1-in.webhost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CB3657D55A       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 12:10:30 +1300 (NZDT)Received: by mail-qe0-f54.google.com with SMTP id 1so2121669qeb.13       for <dennis@dennis.co.nz>; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:10:29 -0800 (PST)DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;       d=gmail.com; s=20120113;       h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id         :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;       bh=HT8k2jrzGAMzJsiMgAlm4LGbR0iH88vmyZkMqgrp0CA=;       b=gWtYgGTiiA+xWrQfcNRMBhfjWfqKCAgCQE7RP0RvjK2ZCMZbiHEBvQCdqh8Em88fjS         zB6sDpDiPwFfmHSn8vKphvv5GRnH+Uw2qLnp+Bbm6oCZp438NK5mJgSdieo3Cgd2NPGO         aMASIkSVwksNYrQj/5/NkfrpTbwAR13Sgvpitvcr6nriZP/5/yCbXd8edPP9OWOzA5Vy         4z8leLg253v3Riox4tqwoObBU4sLe4XJhUQmtDcSxkm6T8hrlVe1WHTPP3sf0b7H8mUe         W47vejmTXv+sX1lFCrm3dtxr9m68VIJUC/XWzU8kBdCuLhBZNUXk/3JE7hjGHGEUGgbY         DIfw==MIME-Version: 1.0X-Received: by 10.224.40.16 with SMTP id i16mr14578006qae.48.1359760228708; Fri, 01 Feb 2013 15:10:28 -0800 (PST)Received: by 10.49.81.135 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 15:10:28 -0800 (PST)In-Reply-To: <CA+1=HSS2sJ3idACdk_VyEVGu-P9kGv6pvE-ifq1Hh5oAR8phaA@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hrK-1oJN+mQCMuW2W1t7OSaRprKUhDNO=E1og+mQVq9MUg@mail.gmail.com>       <CA+1=HSS2sJ3idACdk_VyEVGu-P9kGv6pvE-ifq1Hh5oAR8phaA@mail.gmail.com>Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 12:10:28 +1300Message-ID: <CAOdxDhASWKSyM25MotH5xKtDiaTzZMFmx0+h=7sXeUL5tfWjHg@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Sano Malifa <saveamalifa@xxx.com>To: dennis <dennis@dennis.co.nz>Cc: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1X-ProxSMTP: Clean

Hi Dennis,

 

I’m in Auckland. I’ve been forwarded your correspondences by Mata’afa.

 

For some reason I knew something like this would come up. I was warned

about you. Now I believe.

 

Just bear in mind that I did not come to you asking that you

contributed columns. You came to me. I told you we did not need any

more columns but you insisted saying we did not have to pay you, but

to just put your advert in the paper.

 

Now you are proposing to just “simply pay me for the articles to date,

then commence adverts as orginally agreed for say, the next month, and

then we reassess the whole thing?”

 

What are you talking about? Are you joking?

 

Dennis, let me tell you straight. I have no time for smooth talking

opportunists who push their way in thinking they can get away with

anything. I know well your kind of people.

 

I don’t care about how many “PP (lousy) stories you have just

completed for the next five weekends.” I would just throw them in the

rubbish if I was you.

 

Any relationship we might have had stops right here.

Savea Sano Malifa.

1 Feb 2013: Request meeting to sort it out – DS -> Savea

 

MIME-Version: 1.0Reply-To: dennis@dennis.co.nzSender: victusinambitus@xxx.comReceived: by 10.216.42.10 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:01:35 -0800 (PST)In-Reply-To: <CAOdxDhASWKSyM25MotH5xKtDiaTzZMFmx0+h=7sXeUL5tfWjHg@mail.gmail.com>References: <CAOS-hrK-1oJN+mQCMuW2W1t7OSaRprKUhDNO=E1og+mQVq9MUg@mail.gmail.com>       <CA+1=HSS2sJ3idACdk_VyEVGu-P9kGv6pvE-ifq1Hh5oAR8phaA@mail.gmail.com>       <CAOdxDhASWKSyM25MotH5xKtDiaTzZMFmx0+h=7sXeUL5tfWjHg@mail.gmail.com>Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:01:35 +1400Delivered-To: victusinambitus@xxx.comX-Google-Sender-Auth: -8LqA5YWXnP_cXUa5T7fjMUBQGgMessage-ID: <CAOS-hr+=ijQWCmydxnNR1DEsqttv8AnQYmx_1kb+aoVtGgw5Ng@mail.gmail.com>Subject: Re: Palagi PerspectivesFrom: Dennis A Smith <dennis@dennis.co.nz>To: Sano Malifa <saveamalifa@xxx.com>Cc: Keni Lesa <lesa.keni@xxx.com>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301ee9ad6032af04d4b43db6 –20cf301ee9ad6032af04d4b43db6Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Comments in reply below [footer redacted]

On 2 February 2013 13:10, Sano Malifa <saveamalifa@xxx.com> wrote:

 

> Hi Dennis,

>

> I’m in Auckland. I’ve been forwarded your correspondences by Mata’afa.

>

> For some reason I knew something like this would come up. I was warned

> about you. Now I believe.

 

I’m not interested in gossip.

 

 

> Just bear in mind that I did not come to you asking that you

> contributed columns. You came to me. I told you we did not need any

> more columns but you insisted saying we did not have to pay you, but

> to just put your advert in the paper.

 

It takes two to tango Savea and you are most definitely not a weak puppy

dog that bowed to a manipulative Palagi. We are simply two businessmen who

entered into an agreement. It was a simple one – I would write a weekly

column between 300-600 words that made people think and wouldn’t get you

sued; you valued 300-600 words at $150.00 and I suggested a contra of 7x

daily classified adverts; you agreed; we confirmed it all in writing; you

instructed your staff accordingly; I delivered (no less than 600 words

weekly with a unique Samoan photograph as well); your company didn’t. What

does it matter if I came to you with the suggestion or whether you came to

me?

 

 

> Now you are proposing to just “simply pay me for the articles to date,

> then commence adverts as orginally agreed for say, the next month, and

> then we reassess the whole thing?”

>

> What are you talking about? Are you joking?

 

 

Not at all and it was only a suggestion to solve the problem that you had

by not placing the adverts. As I explained to Keni, not placing the

adverts, despite my multiple requests to do so has caused me loss of

opportunity. No adverts in the peak season not only means no business, but

I lost the opportunity to measure the effectiveness of your print adverts

for the limousines in the lead-up to Christmas (the primary reason that I

approached you in November and suggested an advertising contra BTW). I gave

my suggestion to Keni which I thought was quite reasonable which was to

start afresh with adverts from that date and just pay me for the columns

supplied to that date. If your company did’t honour our agreement then if

you are a man of ethics, you should find another way to get an agreed value

returned to me. What is YOUR suggestion Savea? You have mine.

 

> Dennis, let me tell you straight. I have no time for smooth talking

> opportunists who push their way in thinking they can get away with

> anything. I know well your kind of people.

 

Calling me names achieves nothing positive Savea and I will address your

assumptions here in more detail shortly.

 

 

> I don’t care about how many “PP (lousy) stories you have just

> completed for the next five weekends.” I would just throw them in the

> rubbish if I was you.

 

It is nice to finally have some feedback from you over the columns, even

if it is the one word “lousy” but if Keni unilaterally stops publishing the

column, without informing me, and I continue to produce as per the original

agreement then you are still liable to pay for them. I cannot read Keni’s

mind! If you had continued placing the adverts and I didn’t deliver, I am

SURE that you would have been asking me to pay for the adverts. Am I not

correct? Your business doesn’t just give away your value do you?

 

So what is different if YOUR company fails to deliver, and I do?

 

 

> Any relationship we might have had stops right here.

 

No problem if you insist, but only once we have, as Keni says, “sorted”

the account issue. I’ve asked three times for an account reconciliation.

Keni too has stated that “if we agreed to publish the adverts, then we

[Samoa Observer] should do that”. I would like to continue the Palagi

Perspectives column as I have had positive feedback from readers and Keni

has accepted them as suitable for publication thus far, but we do have an

unresolved issue to sort first.

 

 

> Savea Sano Malifa.

 

Savea, may I please speak to you on another level?

 

I DO understand your position here. I came to you and suggested the column

and you seemed to have expected trouble. Whatever. As we all know, gossip

abounds in Samoa and I am and have been a big target since the day I got

here.

 

The point I want to make here is this . . . I delivered. Your “smooth

talking opportunist” who “pushed [his] way in” may actually be a

straight-talking author and blogger who waited three years before

contacting you and then regularly delivered a small but consistent column

with original thought, as we agreed.

 

I think that you may not have all the information about your companies

performance. I think that you may have also fallen victim of the Samoan

gossip machine that has followed me around like a bad smell. I also think

that you may have acted in haste by firing off these comments before fully

understanding the picture.

 

If I’m wrong and you know full well that the adverts didn’t run, please,

just let me know this and I’ll accept that reality, and resolve the account

matter another way. Furthermore if you are certain that you know and

understand me and “my type” so be it. Time will surely prove the matter to

you, but you would not be the first person to mis-judge me and my

character. May I suggest that you enquire of BOTH sides to any story before

settling on one?

 

I believe I am a man of integrity and principle, an ultra-creative deep

thinker with a big heart – probably the direct polar opposite to what you

are currently thinking that I am. I believe that many people will be

reassessing the gossip that they have heard when they read my book “A

Little Slice of Paradise” which details my first few years in Samoa. As you

well know, there are always two sides to any story.

 

If you would reconsider your response in the light of this communication, I

would seek a short face-to-face meeting to shake hands and get on with life

without any conflict, yes even, column or no column.

 

Appendix 2 – Palagi Perspectives

 

 

http://www.dennis.co.nz/2012/10/palagi-perspectives/

Their court document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA

My claim was a civil claim in the District Court of Samoa (not the Supreme Court). The District Court can deal with matters up to $10,000.00WST and court rules permit you to represent yourself – a lawyer is not required. Samoa Observer’s counter-claim of $2m is a tad over the $10k limit thus they have successfully bumped the matter up to the Supreme Court. I will likely need a lawyer to proceed. I don’t engage lawyers as a rule so unless someone takes up the cause and gets paid out of trying whack Samoa Observer for their fees, no doubt they will succeed in their counter-claim by default.

HELD AT MULINUU

BETWEEN: DENNIS ARTHUR SMITH of Aleisa

Plaintiff

AND: SAMOA OBSERVER COMPANY LIMITED at

Vaitele

Defendant

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

THE DEFENDANT by its solicitor responds to the Statement of Claim as follows:

1. THAT it denies all allegations by the Plaintiff and puts him to the proof thereof and the Defendant further says that:

i) The Plaintiff had approached the editor of the Defendant Company Savea Sanoa Malifa (“Mr Malifa”), for the publication of his articles in return of the Defendant publishing his articles provided these were approved for publication.

Right out the bat, Samoa Observer lies, blatantly.

Their Clause 1. i) actually doesn’t even make sense and the whole document smells of something quickly cobbled together to get me off their back. The phrase “for the publication of his articles in return of the Defendant publishing his articles” is interesting because not only does it not make sense, it almost looks like the lawyer was listening to Sano rant down the phone and started to write “for the publication of his articles in return of the Defendant giving advertising” but it has been chopped around and changed, eventually making no sense at all. This error in grammar could be understood if Sano (and his lawyer) didn’t want to acknowledge that there was an agreement – a contra of articles for advertising – after having discussed it. Hmmmm.

But let’s park that one for the moment and look at the concept of “approving for publication”. . . this is an interesting point that Samoa Observer raises which is that of the importance of “publication”. In our original agreement, supported by the evidence of multiple communications, payment was for SUPPLY not publication. Furthermore I specifically asked Sano when we met whether he wanted editorial control and he said, “No!” with two memorable exceptions – a) that they got people to think and b) he didn’t get sued. There’s a lot more on this deception following.

ii) There was no agreement on the price per article but Mr Malifa had clearly indicated to the Plaintiff there was no commitment to publishing articles as it is subject to approval but will see how it goes.

This is again a bold-faced, outright lie. Logic and evidence shows this to be the case too. It is not just a matter of he-said; he-said because in order to believe this one has to believe that I took on a contract to write with publication (in his mind i.e. payment) on a whim. This is neither the way professional journalists work NOR is it the agreement that Sano and I entered into, which was confirmed IN WRITING on the same day that we agreed to it. One would also have to believe that I made up the deal; that I made up the knowledge of the value of an article; and that I would spend MANY hours over several months just writing freely for the love of Samoa Observer and then accept three advertisements totalling $60.00 in return!

Yeah right! Far more logical that I would do exactly what I said happened, that I did a deal for an article the length and frequency that was agreed in return for an equivalent value in advertising equal to the value that Sano himself gave me! Ummm unless you happen to believe Sano and think that I’m a “smooth-talking Palagi opportunist” or whatever he was told by the Samoan gossip-machine I guess!

I am an experienced businessman who thinks issues through, negotiates in good faith and ALWAYS puts it in writing. I am not so foolish as to do something along the lines of “will see how it goes” – nah! Sorry Samoa Observer . . . you lie.

iii) Three Articles were published and in return 3 advertisements were run by the Defendant.

Right, so what is the significance of this Samoa Observer? Was this the deal we supposedly entered into, that I gave you a $150.00 article and you gave me $20.00 advertising in return?

There is a bigger issue here and it is that Samoa Observer is clutching at straws using my statements rather than doing the research and working with facts. I do not know and have said in my Affidavit that I do not know when or how many articles were published. The reason for that is that I don’t buy the paper as I live in the wop-wops and only go into town infrequently. Furthermore our deal was that I would write and supply, nothing to do with whether or when they were published.

So Samoa Observer implies that the deal here was one advert for one article published, but this is contrary to their second statement that there was no agreement on price. Sano will have to lie under oath in court to explain how this statement of defence can hold validity and that will be very hard – first this clause is a lie; secondly it implies that a deal WAS struck on 1:1 article/advert basis and thirdly it does not make sense – it simply doesn’t pass the BS detector sniff-test in the slightest. In fact it looks decidedly like Sano has [on the fly] just claimed that three articles were published because I said they ran three advertisements then matched them up as again another cobbled defence.

Now this is an official written statement of defence to the Supreme Court of Samoa submitted by a lawyer on behalf of a longstanding company not unfamiliar with court and the legal processes in which there is a clear statement of fact from them, which I call BS on. I only want to deal with the truth so I popped in to the Apia Library this afternoon after flicking my eyes over this document and went back through the archives to see whether they had published three articles and three adverts. Obviously if they published anything other than three adverts and three articles he’s a proven liar. It’s a simple binary issue – they’re right or they’re wrong.

According to the archives (simply walk in and ask to see the newspapers like I did from November 2012 to January 2013 and they’ll bring you out the bundles for easy viewing) there are a little more than three articles. Hmmmm [again]!

Above are photographs of some of them – and there’s more! You can check the advertisements too – Sano I’d strongly recommend that you revise your defence document so you don’t have to lie on oath in court. You’re toast in the ethics department, sir!

Now this is not a simple unimportant detail that a busy Editor-in-Chief got a little bit wrong – it is the central claim of fact in their defence! If Samoa Observer can be shown to lie over a simple little fact like this then they can never be trusted on anything else in the dodgy defence document can they?

iv) Thereafter no further articles were published for the main reason that the Defendant did not approve it for publication.

It seems that Samoa Observer and lies in court, cohabit comfortably.

Click the above image for high resolution. Seems pretty much like I claimed in my Affidavit actually, right down to the explicit dates too!

Oops!

v) The Defendant maintinas the claim by the Plaintiff has no merits and ought to be dismissed.

The case actually has nothing to do with how many articles were published. The case is simple – Samoa Observer breached contract by failing to place the advertisements in return for articles supplied – whether they were published or not is a red herring meaning that Samoa Observer lies for no legal benefit!

As they say here in Samoa – STOOPID SAMOAN!

AND BY WAY OF COUNTERCLAIM the Defendant repeats the foregoing paragraphs and says as follows:

2. THAT on or about 16 February 2013, the Plaintiff caused to publish on his blog defamatory comments about the Defendant and its editor in Chief, Mr Malifa.

PARTICULARS OF DEFAMATORY COMMENTS

3. THAT the blog entitled, “Savea Sano Malifa fooled by gossip”.

4. THAT at paragraph 1 of the blog, the Plaintiff wrote “Savea Sano Malifa, founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Samoa Observer recently supplied me with a perfect example of the mindset and conduct of a Samoan who lives (and in Savea’s case works) in the world of gossip.”

5. THAT at paragraph 2 he writes “…it is actually the first time that I have documentary proof for others to see of the mostly hidden workings of the Samoan gossip machine”.

6. THAT under the subheading “motive for public disclosure” he writes: “Sure, I have a beef: his company ripped me off and he mouthed off some stuff … I think the guy is a “goose” and clearly has an attitude.”

7. THAT under the heading “comments” he further writes, I think that Savea has acted like a dick…the point of the post was that Savea was clearly fooled by gossip and combined with his pride set him up for his fall.”

Is that all? Crumbs, I could have at least said something juicy for $2m – surely?

Did you note the point that the Defendant highlights (the second part of Clause 7) in which I explain that the whole point of the post was about the guy (individual) acting like a proud old man? It undermines their own case – I don’t think I would have included that phrase if I was trying to twist my words – but hey, this is only a $40,000.00 lawyer and I’ve had no legal training [sarcasm!].

8. THAT the whole context of the blog is defamatory, scandalous and libellous.

No, Samoa Observer, the entire blog post is my opinion on the conduct of your Editor-in-Chief, Savea Sano Malifa and his arrogance and dishonesty. You write your opinion in your Editorials in your newspaper and I write mine on my blog. Toughen up and grow up!

9. THAT the blog and specific comments set out in 2 -7 infers that the Defendant and Mr Malifa relies on gossip and therefore lies to form the basis of the articles and stories published by the Defendant.

Yes and no. I don’t imply the former in the slightest; I state that it is my observation that Sano DID INDEED listen to and get fooled by gossip and I showed the world how he made a fool of himself as a direct response to this error.

The second part of this clause however is nonsense and is a “straw-man” logical fallacy. The entire post was about one man – not a newspaper. If I blogged that I thought that Bill Gates was a closet homosexual, could Microsoft sue me for defamation saying that people might get scared of getting Aids from their computer and so they might lose sales as a consequence? Not at all. In order to prove defamation in a court of law, Samoa Observer will have to find something that directly links my post about Sano being fooled by gossip to Samoa Observer. They can’t because there deliberately isn’t anything there  like that – I’m not stupid and I choose my words VERY carefully!

10. THAT the blog and specific comments set out in 2-7  carries the imputation that the Defendant operate on lies and gossip.

Again, not in the slightest. I state that Savea Sano Malifa was fooled (and was a fool, a dick, arrogant and since that post a lot more too) but not the Defendant.

Not only does Samoa Observer confuse the words about Sano with the company they also introduce the concept of lies. This is again another logical fallacy (bait and switch) where the topic of the blog post was Sano and GOSSIP, which their defence document attempts to twist into the NEWSPAPER and LIES.

Sorry Samoa Observer, in a court of law we [normally] work with facts and simple logic, not straw-man or bait and switch logical fallacies. I have no idea of the quality of Samoan judiciary but it will be interesting to see how they deal with this pathetic nonsense of a Counterclaim! The reason it’s so pathetic of course is that . . . wait for it . . . there IS no defence!

11. THAT the blog is published on the Internet world widely and easily disseminated and/ or accessible by members of the public.

That’s right Samoa Observer, unlike a newspaper that is used to light fires and toilet paper within a day of reading, it will stay up there in the archives forever, as will all other posts I make about you. People will be able to assess the truth about you and your Editor-in-Chief forever. In my next post I get specific about this but briefly, perhaps you should pay your bills and stop digging yourself into a big hole?

12. THAT the defendant company is a renowned newspaper medium in Samoa and internationally.

Maybe so but perhaps not quite so “reputable” though now, eh?

13. THAT its Editor in Chief, Mr Malifa is the winner of various international awards.

Yes, and he can add another one to his list of achievements; since ripping me off he and his company have been in my HALL OF SHAME.

14. THAT the publications has lowered the Defendant and Mr Malifa’s reputation in the mind of right thinking members of the local and international community so that they would think less of the Defendant and Mr Malifa, its editor in chief.

I quite like this Clause because I think it is true. I’m not really bothered by the reputation of the newspaper. I’ve sued them because they are the ones that ripped me off, but the reputation of the old man – definitely will have taken a knock. Some questions then . . .

Am I allowed to blog about it? – Of course I can, and did!

Is it in Samoa’s best interest to learn about the true nature of their [fallen] ‘hero’ or should we just carry on pretending that he’s not a hypocrite? – On this blog, that is a rhetorical question!

Who caused the problem? – Nuff said!

15. THAT the publication has defamed the Defendant and Mr Malifa and they seek compensation accordingly in the sum of ST$1.5 million tala.

I’ve never actually been sued before – nice that they think I’m worth $1.5m! In fact I personally own about $100.00 worth of old clothes, one cellphone that I paid $60.00 for and which is now worth about $20.00 and my old Toshiba notebook computer.

16. THAT the publication has caused much embarrassment, distress and inconvenience to the Defendant and he claims exemplary and punitive damages in the sum of SAT$500,000.

I’d be fascinated to see disclosure on this claim!

17. THAT the Defendant have incurred legal costs in defending and actioning this counterclaim and he seeks legal costs in the sum of $40,000.00

Golly, you could retire if you were a lawyer getting this sort of money. Note to self: Lawyer who “forgets” to appear then apologises to the court and seeks more time when she does appear . . . “to receive instructions from her client” . . . little wonder I don’t have a lot of time for lawyers!

WHEREFORE the Defendant seeks:

a) A dismissal of the Plaintiffs claim:

b) Judgment pursuant to the counterclaim in the total sum of ST$2,0400000.00:

c) Costs: AND

d) Such further relief as the Court deems just in the circumstances.

DATED at APIA this 6th day of October 2015

[signed]

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDDANT

(ROSELLA VIANE PAPALII)

THIS STATEMENT OF DEFENCE & COUNTERCLAIM is filed by ROSELLA VIANE PAPALII.

Counsel for the Defendant whose address for service is at the offices of RV PAPALII LAW LEVE 2 Maxkar House, Convent St, Apia

 

Timing Issues

Samoa Observer claims a large counterclaim based on damaged reputation . . . cry me a river! . . . yet their Counterclaim follows two years of silence and inaction . . . the reason for this is that I chose not to do anything about it for a long period – deliberately.

The REASON I chose to wait was that I wanted Samoa Observer’s Editor-in-Chief as much time as possible to ponder his conduct. If I had charged off to court in a hurry to sue them, people (and he) could with a large degree of justification called me a hot-head, argumentative, litigious and so on. Sano’s own words called me a smooth-talking opportunist.

Waiting as I did (even though I could really have done with the money) and giving him a long chance to do the right thing proves to the world several things:

1. I have the patience of Job;
2. I never give up – being driven by principle and not opportunism, and that
3. His own companies Counterclaim is [to use his own words] opportunism at its worst and a cynical act at that!

In some ways, Sano has walked into a trap, dug his own grave and is now going to find it very hard to gain sympathy from [as he says it himself] right-thinking people of the world. Samoa Observer, if you had any case at all (and you don’t) you should have sued two years ago on or shortly after the time I published it – NOT as a Counterclaim to a simple matter I bring to the courts over two years later!

The word “Dodgy”, is taking it easy on you over this one!

Wrapping Up

Samoa Observer has provided a Statement of Defence that requires a large dollop of blind faith to believe; belies logic; contains factual error and is a disgrace to those who value truth and justice.

Their counterclaim is either a cynical response to attempt to bully a Blogger who has attempted to sue them for rightfully due monies OR a desperate attempt to save face for a pretty fragile company.

In the next post in this series about Samoa Observer I share my entire Affidavit with evidence. It gives my side of the story, the same as the court has on fle and which Samoa Observer has had since it was served on them on 21 July 2015!

In following posts I then talk about and directly to the man at the centre of the storm – a $3,500.00 storm that has ballooned into a multimillion dollar storm but which is really all just a couple of dudes slugging it out over a simple contract that one party breached!

I take the gloves off and get personal.