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 applicants who are self represented in the court of appeal and having navigated the High Court where only 7% of LiP's dare to tread, it is comforting knowing that there is a conversation challenging what has been referred to the Constitutional Battlefield, I can first hand confirm it is and that I wouldn't wish this experience on my worst enemy apart from the perpetrators of the crime that I have reported in defending my name and for the honour of my family.

https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/roger_partridge_supreme_court_matters_constitutional_predators_or_constitutional_guardians

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/498482/courts-clogged-by-self-represented-litigants-lawyers-say-solutions-proposed

What is Spamdexing and How Does This Violate Google's Transparency Policy?

An analysis of the Mike Ross Blogex SEO, posting practices, and page source code reveals a calculated and sinister objective. This technical manipulation is crafted so precisely that it effectively weaponizes search results to maintain a "Page 1" presence on Google, broadcasting misinformation under a veneer of unearned credibility.
This sophisticated spamdexing strategy has not only eluded the radar of the NZ Police but has successfully deceived high-level academics at the Court of Appeal. Furthermore, the deliberate nature of this operation is underscored by the fact that when queries regarding the "Real Mike Ross NZ Blogger" are raised within NZ Law Communities on Reddit, the discussions are promptly suppressed by moderators, leaving the true origins and funding of this platform shrouded in secrecy.
Spamdexing (a combination of "spamming" and "indexing") is a deceptive search engine optimization (SEO) technique used to manipulate a website’s ranking by mimicking high-authority signals. By using tactics like identity hijacking, keyword stuffing, and link farms, a spamdexer tricks algorithms into categorizing malicious or defamatory content as "trustworthy." Under Google’s Transparency Policies, this is a direct violation of misrepresentation and "inauthentic behavior" guidelines.

Court of Appeal denies receiving evidence: Court of Appeal Chronology of Events and Memorandums Filed

1. Memorandum for Recall & Initial Evidence (3 June 2025)
In this initial filing by Nicola Watkins the applicant, the Court was alerted to the existence of the blog:
Fact: Nicola Watkins filed a formal memorandum requesting a recall of the [2025] NZCA 173 decision.
Evidence Submitted: Included a screenshot of the Google search results for the specific term "Nicola Watkins Auckland". This screenshot demonstrated that the "Mike Ross" blog appeared in the #1 position, proving it was a targeted campaign designed to bypass searches for "Highmark Homes" and focus solely on defaming the applicant.
Registry Confirmation: Lily-Ann Grant confirmed on 4 June 2025 that this memorandum and the attached evidence had been sent to the judicial panel for consideration.
2. Second Urgent Memorandum & Safety Warning (8 June 2025)
Following a stalking incident when Highmark Homes Lawyer David Hayes recruited a private detective to follow Nicola Watkins and was reported to the NZ Police, a second urgent filing was made:
Fact: Filed following a stalking event (Police Ref: 250608/6903).Evidence Submitted: Re-emphasized that the blog was a "fake person" profile with no physical office, optimized specifically to "hijack" the applicant's google search results for "Nicola Watkins Auckland".
Registry Confirmation: Lily-Ann Grant acknowledged receipt on 9 June 2025, confirming the panel was considering the urgent safety concerns.
3. Final Verification of supplementary Data (13 June 2025)
Event: Registry Officer Lily-Ann Grant sent a final confirmation stating, "I have passed these emails on to the panel". This confirmation explicitly included the supplementary links and visual proofs of the blog’s front-page presence on Google.Judicial Disconnect in [2025] NZCA 281
The significance of these dates cannot be overstated. When the Court delivered its judgment on 27 June 2025, it claimed in Paragraph [7] that "No copy of the relevant blog was included."
As shown by the timeline above, the Registry had been in possession of this evidence for over two weeks prior to the decision.
This Court of Appeal Panel oversight allowed the spamdexing campaign to continue, effectively weaponizing the "public record" against a self-represented litigant.

The following is a verbatim transcript of the decision delivered on 27 June 2025.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA685/2024

[2025] NZCA 281

BETWEEN NICOLA WATKINS

Applicant

AND HIGHMARK HOMES LIMITED

Respondent

CA855/2024

BETWEEN NICOLA WATKINS

Appellant

AND HIGHMARK HOMES LIMITED

First Respondent

ROBERT JAMES HUNT

Second Respondent

RYAN STEPHEN HUNT

Third Respondent

RED STAG GATES AND FENCES

LIMITED

Fourth Respondent

AUCKLAND STEEL FABRICATIONS

LIMITED

Fifth Respondent

Court: French P and Whata J

Counsel: Applicant in CA685/2024 and Appellant in CA855/2024 in person

R M Upton for Respondent in CA685/2024 and for First, Second

and Third Respondents in CA855/2024

No appearances for Fourth and Fifth Respondents in CA855/2024

Judgment

(On the papers):

27 June 2025 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall is declined.

B The application for take down orders is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Whata J)

Introduction

[1] In a judgment delivered on 16 May 2025,1 this Court declined Ms Watkins’

application for extensions of time to appeal two decisions of the Employment Court,2

and struck out her appeal against an order of the High Court staying her defamation

proceedings against Highmark Homes Ltd (HHL) and its directors.3

[2] Ms Watkins applies to:

(a) recall this Court’s judgment;4 and

(b) take down a blog post about the case.

Background

[3] Ms Watkins’ application for extensions of time related to two

Employment Court decisions, one dealing with security for costs, and the second

dealing with a costs order made on the first decision. We considered Ms Watkins’

application to be hopeless.

Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2025] NZCA 173 [CA judgment].

Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2024] NZEmpC 105; and

Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2024] NZEmpC 167.

Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd [2024] NZHC 3075.

Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 8A.

CA judgment, above n 1, at [13].

[4] The defamation matter related to various alleged claims summarised in our

decision as follows:

[18] As best as we are able to discern, Ms Watkins alleges three key types
of defamation. First, defamation caused by her unfair treatment and dismissal
by HHL, together with subsequent actions by HHL to enforce the various
judgments against her. Second, rumours spread by the HHL directors about
her and her son. Finally, various findings that were made in determinations
by the Disputes Tribunal, the ERA, the Employment Court, and the
High Court. Ms Watkins submits the Disputes Tribunal referee “wrongly
accused [her] of fraud”, and she further submits that allegations of fraud have
been recycled through the High Court to discredit and defame her. She takes
specific issue with the citation of two decisions of the ERA in various other
decisions, and a failure by the ERA to remove those decisions from its website.

[5] Like the High Court, we could not identify an actionable defamation, and noted

that the stay order may be revisited if Ms Watkins properly repleads her claim.6 We

also shared the High Court’s concern that the proceeding was an abuse of process and

a collateral attack on the decisions of the Employment Court and the bankruptcy

proceedings.7

The appeal was struck out accordingly.

Request for recall and take down

[6] Ms Watkins claims, in short, that we erred in our summary of her concerns and

ignored her evidence of, among other things, slander and perjury by HHL and the HHL

directors. She says that our judgment wrongly suggests she dragged out the

proceedings to avoid bankruptcy.

[7] In support of her request for take down orders, Ms Watkin refers to a recent

blog that she says was written about her case and that ridicules her. Ms Watkins

expresses a belief that HHL has arranged the blog to destroy her employment chances.

She also says she has reported a stalking incident and submits that the blog post is a

risk to her personal safety and is causing her extreme emotional harm. No copy of the

relevant blog was included in the material provided by Ms Watkins.

6 At [19]–[20]. 7 At [20]. 8 At [21] and [23].

Assessment

[8] There is no proper basis for recall. Ms Watkins is simply seeking to relitigate

the issues already considered by this Court. A recall application cannot be used for

that purpose.9

[9] As to the application for take down orders, this Court is not the proper forum

for such an application. Rather, an application to take down a harmful online post

should be made to the District Court pursuant to the Harmful Digital Communications

Act 2015.10 That Act sets out the process that must be followed for such

applications.11

[10] We have considered whether an interim suppression order in relation to our

judgment should be made pending such an application. Such an order may be

appropriate in cases where there are specific adverse consequences that are sufficient

to justify an exception to the fundamental rule of open justice.12 But we are not

satisfied that there is a proper basis for doing so. While proven harassment and

stalking are serious issues, the matters of concern raised by Ms Watkins have been

within the public domain for a considerable period. Very little therefore, if anything,

will be achieved by suppressing our judgment pending any such application for take

down orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

Result

[11] The application for recall is declined.

[12] The application for take down orders is also declined.

Solicitors:

9 See Saxmere Company Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC

122, [2010] 1 NZLR 76 at [2], citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC)

at 633. 10 Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, s 15(1)(a). 11 Sections 11, 12, 15, 18 and 19. 12 Erceg v Erceg [Publication restrictions] [2016] NZSC 135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 at [13].

AJO Legal Solicitors, Auckland for Respondent in CA685/2024 and First, Second and Third

Respondents in CA855/2024

In a Loop

The Court of Appeal states they can not see any link between the employment case being heard in the wrong jurisdiction, the perjury which evidence had been provided, and the use of a private blogger as a reason to further investigate or ask the NZ Police to continue with their perjury investigation. They continue to state that my appeals are "hopeless".

Further in a cruel move, the Court of Appeal instructs that if I want to have this blog removed I have go go right down to the bottom. The court system being a game of snakes and ladders is crystallised in this paragraph. when the whole case is founded on an act of perjury, and they have been shown there is a harmful digital communication but they will not consider it in the overall big picture of my applications to have my employment case heard, sending me back to the end of the que after 9 years of providing the court evidence (Exhibit J - the email that shows Highmark Homes Constructively Dismissed me) and Copies of the false claims in their affidavits which contradicted email evidence between the parties) it is a cruel blow:

9] As to the application for take down orders, this Court is not the proper forum
for such an application. Rather, an application to take down a harmful online post
should be made to the District Court pursuant to the Harmful Digital Communications
Act 2015.10 That Act sets out the process that must be followed for such
applications.

The Central Conflict - the Court of Appeal ignores Facts and Clearly has refused to read evidence favouring previous court decisions

The central conflict in this factual account lies in the contradiction between the Registry's confirmation of receipt and the Court's finding in Paragraph [7].

The Court stated that "No copy of the relevant blog was included," despite the applicant having provided screenshots and links via the Registry on June 4th, 9th, and 13th. By directing the matter to the District Court under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, the Court of Appeal effectively allowed the "Mike Ross" blog—a profile that mimics a
Victoria University Academic—to remain active and indexed on Google.

Throughout the litigation process the Court has consistently refused to read evidence, and published in their decisions "snippets" of former decisions which create a higher and higher barrier to Access to Justice, and have taken advantage of Watkins Self Litigant status.

In an Open Letter to the Triennial Review Board, this Blog serves as an information hub to highlight the failings of the NZ Judiciary and to further demonstrate their manipulation of emails and documents to benefit their own pre-meditated outcomes.

Highmark Homes Bay of Plenty, Employment Relations Authority, High Court, NZ Police, Perjury Rewarde

Watkins vs Highmark Homes NZ