Watkins vs Highmark Homes NZ

When you can no longer fake it: Highmark Homes Defamation Case  Sir.ly not:  You mean Mike Ross from NZ is actually a fake? A follow up article including screenshots of the Mike Ross Law Blog in action on Sir.ly pay for clicks on adsense to demonstrate how a Court of Appeal NZ Panel Decision is an appalling display of arrogance and laziness and something big has to happen to make the change #NZJustice #eggonyourface What more do I have to say?  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE TRIENNIAL REVIEW BOARD:   This blog article demonstrates how the NZ Court of Appeal [2025] NZCA 281 panel ignored verified evidence presented by Watkins of a targeted "spamdexing" campaign. While the Registry confirmed receipt of Google search screenshots on June 4th and 13th, the final judgment claimed "no copy of the blog was provided." This judicial decision allows an inauthentic "Mike Ross" persona to continue profiting from Google AdSense via the defamation of a self-represented litiga...

The Suppression of Evidence by the NZ Court System: Case Study Highmark v Watkins In New Zealand Employment Law, Constructive Dismissal is defined under the  Employment Relations Act 2000 as a situation where an employer's conduct is so deficient that an employee is left with no choice but to resign. Under Section 103(1)(a) , this is a personal grievance where the resignation is not a free choice. It often involves a "resign or be fired" ultimatum, a deliberate path of conduct designed to force an exit, or a fundamental breach of the duty of good faith. While the law provides these protections on paper, their effectiveness depends entirely on the court’s willingness to examine the facts. When the judiciary overlooks the primary documents that prove such an ultimatum was issued, the legal process fail s the victim. In this case, the transition from a workplace dispute to a high-court battle hinges on one specific document that the system has refused to reconcile with th...

  AN OPEN LETTER TO THE COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRY Attn: Maryanne McKennie, Court Manager/Registrar Dear Maryanne McKennie, I am writing this as an open letter in response to your email dated 25 March 2026. In your correspondence, you state that the Court considers my matters "concluded" and that no further responses will be provided. However, I must draw your attention to the fundamental principles of the Evidence Act 2006 , which the Court is statutorily bound to adhere to. Specifically: Section 7(1) of the Act mandates that all relevant evidence is admissible. Section 132 regarding Common Bundles implies that documents filed are treated as "read" and must be considered by the fact-finder. The Court’s previous judgments claimed that a specific copy of the blog in question was not received. I have maintained that this evidence was provided to the Registry. For the Court to "conclude" a matter while failing to acknowledge or "read" evidence pres...

Court of Appeal stance on Mike Ross Blogex: NZ Public Report on Google Guidelines Breach and Defamation CA685/2024 [2025] NZCA 281  and  CA855/2024 This report documents a case of spamdexing (search engine manipulation) where an entity using the pseudonym "Mike Ross" leveraged the reputation of established legal and academic figures to publish defamatory content.  Despite formal memorandums and numerous email exchanges with the registrar where they assured the applicant the panel had received the information about the inauthentic nature of case publication content  and its breach of Google Transparency Policies , the New Zealand Judiciary Court of Appeal declined to intervene, citing a claimed lack of evidence that had, in fact, been verified as received by the Registry. This resulted in the applicant being directed to the District Court, despite the Court of Appeal already being in possession of the primary evidence.   As one of approximately 35% of ...