Talk:Two New Zealand men ran illegal text lottery

Inaccurate report
This report is defamatory and unless removed will be subject to legal action without further notice.

The two accused were discharged without conviction under s106. A s106 discharge is a deemed acquittal.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.57.150.180 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 January 2012‎


 * No. In addition, threats of legal action are a breach of policy on-project. If you mean it you can get in touch with the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department at legal@wikimedia.org. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Once you have convinced New Zealand's Department of Internal Affairs to take down their coverage.
 * As it states in the linked-to document, "ignorance of the law is not a defence"; I believe you will find that is compounded when attempting to sue an international news organisation, and not knowing which jurisdiction to sue within.
 * I'm sure Geoff Brigham will find this somewhat amusing - if you have the chutzpah to follow through on my colleague's suggestion you mail his office. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr Sandman and Mr McNeil you both need to brush up on your understanding of New Zealand law. We can sue for defamation in New Zealand as its published here. Then use international treaties to enforce a judgement. If you read carefully the DIA has not stated we were convicted as they know we were not. There are also some other inaccuracies in the article. So its simple remove the inaccurate references. Thanks for letting us know Mr Brigham's name we will include him in the lawsuit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.60.186.142 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 August 2014
 * &lt;sigh&gt; The New, New, September?
 * The above link clearly states, "Sentencing will take place on October 6." That matches perfectly with the content of this Wikinews article. Neither myself, nor "Mr Sandman", will be intimidated by bi-annual sniping which NZ-government published statements contradict.
 * Re-issuing your legal threat is grounds for an immediate block; given you're now issuing legal threats against the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel without serving any notice to them whatsoever, that might-well be just who I have to go speak to.
 * Don't worry; wasting a lawyer's time isn't a criminal offense, just a billable one. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)