Mike Ross Law Blog NZBlogex: CA685/2024 The Court Of Appeal preference for Adsense
The Court of Appeal’s Hammer: Why they need to re-think
Proof of Pre-Meditated Fraud and Judicial Neglect.
The Evidence the Registry Refuses to Process
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolawatkinsnz/
This record and the screenshots of Google as at 27 March 2026 serves as a formal exposure of a critical failure within the NZ Court of Appeal regarding case Watkins vs Highmark Homes. While Registry Manager Maryanne McKennie stated on 25 March 2026 that she would no longer respond to emails, the fact remains: the Judiciary is actively rejecting a third memorandum that challenges them as to why they denied ever receiving evidence Highmark Homes and their Counsel had actively defamed Watkins using a Blog, and urging them to reconsider the recall application due to their errors.
The Court’s final judgment claimed "no copy of the blog was provided." This is a demonstrably false statement. Official Registry strings from June 4th and 13th confirm receipt of the evidence. By refusing to acknowledge this, the Court is not just making a procedural error—it is protecting a fraudulent entity.
When you can no longer fake it: Highmark Homes Defamation Case
Sir.ly not: You mean Mike Ross from NZ is actually a fake?
The following screenshots of the Mike Ross Law Blog in action on Sir.ly pay for clicks on adsense demonstrates the architecture of the blog. The big question for the Court of Appeal to answer is:
How could the NZ Court of Appeal Panel ignore both evidence and the characters of the Highmark Homes Counsel?
If this was a criminal trial which it seems now there is enough evidence accumulated to provide reasonable doubt for a jury that Highmark Homes and their 9 year campaign against Watkins was an ongoing systemic defamatory attack with the sole purpose of silencing her and ensuring her financial ruin. All the technical facts about the architecture of this blog are out there in the open so why won't the Judiciary Registrar forward the 3rd memorandum for Recall of their decision?
While acting as counsel for Highmark Homes against you, these individuals were simultaneously deeply embedded in the legal and managerial structure of the Du Val Group during its regulatory collapse. https://www.pwc.co.nz/pdfs/2025-pdfs/du-val-group-first-six-monthly-statutory-managers-report.pdf Wasn't David Hayes penalty for being a vexatious litigant enough of a red flag for them instead of further berating Watkins? https://thelawassociation.nz/counsel-ordered-to-pay-costs-in-failed-private-prosecution/
Why has the Court of Appeal refused to review evidence? Proof: Mike Ross defames and collects adsense revenue
This screenshot captures the "Sur.ly" gateway. This is a commercial "bridge page" designed to force users to view AdSense advertisements before accessing content. It proves the "Mike Ross" blog is a profit-driven click-farm, not a legitimate legal archive, violating Google’s Inappropriate Content and Misrepresentation policies
Description of the Evidence in the Screenshots and the Percentage of Self-Litigants featured in the Mike Ross Law Blog NZBlogex
Profiting from Google
The manual SEO strategy employed by the "Mike Ross Law Blog" is a sophisticated form of digital "ambulance chasing" that targets high-conflict legal disputes to extract maximum advertising revenue.By creating "Index Page Holders" for cases like Watkins v Highmark Homes before a judgment is even released, the blogger ensures they "squat" at the top of Google search results. This strategy specifically exploits the community of interest surrounding both parties—including Highmark Homes’ industry contacts and the network of self-represented litigants—who are actively searching for updates.
By tagging the content with high-value keywords like "Costs Claims" and "Bankruptcy," the blogger leverages the desperation of those caught in the New Zealand legal system to drive traffic through Sur.ly "bridge" pages, forcing users to view AdSense advertisements before accessing the content. Essentially, the blogger has turned the 9-year legal struggle of the Watkins family into a recurring digital asset, profiting from the search volume of a community seeking justice while providing no actual legal value.
Technical Observation for The Court of Appeal Panel and their Manager Maryanne McKennie
To ensure the Registry and Judiciary understand exactly what they are looking at, here is the explanation of the "Technical Architecture" shown in these screenshots of the Mike Ross Law Blog's presence on Google:
The "Sur.ly" Redirect & Adsense (The Profiteering): The screenshot shows the blog utilizing Sur.ly, a service that creates a "bridge" page. This is a classic SEO tactic to force a user to see an AdSense advertisement before they can reach the actual content. It proves the blog’s primary purpose is not "legal reporting," but monetizing the search traffic generated by the ongoing legal battle between Highmark Homes and Watkins.
The "Index Page Holder" (The Pre-Meditation): The most critical screenshot shows a Google Search result dated 01 February 2025.
What is happening: The blogger created the URL and the metadata for "Watkins v Highmark" before the Court of Appeal released its decision.
The Significance: This proves the blogger had "inside track" information or was manually "squatting" on the case name to ensure they would rank #1 the moment the judgment dropped. The Court's claim that the blog "didn't exist" or wasn't provided in evidence is false and the communication with the Registrar that has been published on this blog proves it.
The "Fake Persona" (The Deception): The screenshots highlight the claim that "Mike Ross" is a "University of Auckland Lecturer." Because this persona is unverified and likely fake, it is a direct violation of Google’s Inauthentic Content Policy. The Court of Appeal is effectively endorsing a "ghost" entity that is using the NZ Justice system as a content farm for ad revenue.
The Mike Ross Law Blog targeting NZ Judicial Decisions, and has published several blogs about a NZ Employer bankrupting an employee who was also a self litigant - Highmark vs Watkins, and the costs issue SEO and tags generates more revenue for the blog due to the changes to costs claims being allowed for self litigants in recent legislation, regardless of whether the judiciary ever makes fair decisions and awards the case to a self litigant based on it's merits.
The Mike Ross Law NZBlogex on the Google Platform blogger consistently uses high-volume search terms like "Costs," "Bankrupt," and "Judgment." * The "Placeholder" Evidence: The February 1st screenshot is the definitive proof. In technical terms, an "Index Page Holder" only exists if a human manually creates a URL slug and title to "prime" the Google bot. This confirms the blog is a calculated commercial operation, not a standard news site.
Based on a technical audit of the case titles and "tags" visible in the blog's architecture:
The Majority: Roughly 70–80% of the cases targeted by this blog involve self-represented litigants or small "one-man-band" employers.
The Reason (The "Why"): Professional law firms have the resources to issue "Cease and Desist" orders or file "Right to be Forgotten" requests with Google to have defamatory content removed. Self-litigants often lack these resources, making them "soft targets" for a blogger looking to keep a post live indefinitely for AdSense revenue.
The Loop: Litigation → High Search Volume → AdSense Revenue.
By targeting "Costs Claims", the blogger is leveraging their income off people in New Zealand who are searching for how to avoid or claim legal costs. This is a very specific, high-value "niche" in the legal advertising market.
This blog article expose 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 litigant.
For 7 years Watkins has been in litigation with Highmark Homes and they have defamed her for 9 years. For 7 years Watkins has urged the court to read her evidence instead of echoing the opinion of a Disputes Tribunal referee with a personal vendetta and no right to rule over an employment dispute before the Employment Relations Act 2000 legislated process. Every single Judge involved in this case has dismissed her evidence and referred back to the decision of the Disputes Tribunal referee.
There has also been a new discover of the link between David Hayes and Brett Martelli who tag teamed Watkins in a campaign to bankrupt her, and never disclosed that they both worked together for Du Val.
If only the Court of Appeal Registry would look at their own correspondence and make an effort to understand why their error is so shockingly embarassing for their Judiciary in light of all the errors and ommissions of testimony, they would see they need to do something different. The screenshot below shows evidence on google of The Mike Ross Blog indexing page holders for the article as at 01 February 2025, two weeks before the Decision was published.
This screenshot provides proves the Court of Appeal was misled by the Highmark Homes and their Counsel's narrative throughout this case, constructed by them way back in the Disputes Tribunal and fed all throughout the ERA, Employment Court, High Court and the Court of Appeal. Note the three conflicting dates within this single Google Index record:
The Metadata Placeholder (01 February 2025): The red arrow points to the indexing date. This proves the blog’s "Main Heading" and SEO data were live and captured by Google 14 days before the Court of Appeal released the [2025] NZCA 281 judgment.
The Judicial Decision (14 February 2025): The Court did not deliver its ruling until two weeks after this placeholder was already "squatting" on the search results. This confirms the blogger had advanced knowledge or was manually prepping a defamatory "shell" page.
The Edited Publication Date (28 February 2025): The snippet text shows the date was later manually changed to Feb 28 to make the blog appear like a "reaction" to the High Court costs order.
The Conclusion for the Court:
A blog cannot be "indexed" by Google on February 1st for a judgment that didn't exist until February 14th. This is forensic proof of pre-meditation and manual SEO manipulation. It confirms the blog was active and searchable during the proceedings—directly contradicting the Registry’s claim that "no copy" was available.
The Metadata Placeholder (01 February 2025): The red arrow points to the indexing date. This proves the blog’s "Main Heading" and SEO data were live and captured by Google 14 days before the Court of Appeal released the [2025] NZCA 281 judgment.
The Judicial Decision (14 February 2025): The Court did not deliver its ruling until two weeks after this placeholder was already "squatting" on the search results. This confirms the blogger had advanced knowledge or was manually prepping a defamatory "shell" page.
The Edited Publication Date (28 February 2025): The snippet text shows the date was later manually changed to Feb 28 to make the blog appear like a "reaction" to the High Court costs order.
Information for the Court of Appeal that may assist to improve their public service:
1. What is an "Index Page Holder" (The Placeholder)?
2. Tell-Tale Signs of a Manual SEO Strategy
3. Who is Mike Ross: How did they get the information so quickly?
4. Why does the Mike Ross Blog Exist and what the Court of Appeal have missed in Watkins Evidence, the technical error in their decision that is the catalyst requirement for the Court to perform a full judicial review of Watkins vs Highmark, and Highmark vs Watkins.
A placeholder, in this context, is a "shell" page. The blogger creates a URL and a title (e.g., Highmark Homes v Watkins) but doesn't write the full article yet.
Why they do it: They want Google to "claim the spot" in search results immediately. By the time the Court of Appeal reaches a decision, the "Mike Ross" page is already indexed and ranking #1, ready to receive the traffic from people searching for the case.
The Deception: It makes the blog look like an established legal authority that is "live-reporting," when in reality, it is just an empty net waiting to catch search clicks.
The screenshot from Feb 1, 2025, reveals several "red flags" that prove this wasn't an accidental or automated post:
Targeted Meta-Tags: The search snippet specifically used the names of the parties and the case number before the judgment was public. This requires a human to manually input those "keywords" into the Blogger Search Description field.
Inauthentic Authority (Social Proofing): The "Mike Ross" persona claims to be a "University of Auckland Lecturer." This is a manual SEO tactic called E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness). By faking a prestigious bio, the blogger tricks Google’s algorithm into ranking the page higher than a standard blog.
AdSense Optimization: The page was designed with specific "containers" for ads. Manual SEOs do this to ensure that as soon as a user clicks the "scandalous" headline about your case, they are immediately served high-paying legal industry ads.
For a blog to have an "Index Page Holder" ready two weeks before the [2025] NZCA 281 decision was published, they likely used one of two methods:
A "Registry Leak" or "Counsel" Tip: Since the Registry confirmed receipt of your evidence on June 4th and 13th, the "Mike Ross" operator may have had access to the court's upcoming hearing list or a "look-ahead" at the case files. They set up the "placeholder" page on google and index it setting up the publishing date for as soon as the case was set for a decision.
Scraping the "Daily Fixture List": The NZ Ministry of Justice publishes daily lists online of which cases are being heard. A professional "spamdexer" monitors these lists for high-conflict cases (like defamation or bankruptcy), creates placeholders for every case on the list, and then only "fills in" the ones that get media attention.
Why is this information important for the Court of Appeal not to ignore Watkins Memorandums and Evidence Submissions and dismissing her appeals?
- Watkins has recently disproved the Court of Appeal and their written decision where it says "No Copy" of the blog was provided to them and written a third memorandum for recall of the decision to decline her appeals. This new evidence proves the blog was visible to the world (and the Court) weeks before they claimed it didn't exist and their registry email strings confirm they received the screenshot of the blog and Watkins submissions describing the blog, the content and why she believed it existed, and the background of Highmark Homes Legal Counsel.
- The new evidence proves "Pre-meditation": The blogger wasn't just reacting to news; they were anticipating the judgment to profit from it.
- The Court of Appeal ignored Watkins report to them that the Mike Ross Blog was created to defame her, and that the Highmark Homes case was run by a vexatious Litigant already known to them. Now for their Registry Manager Maryanne to refuse to pass on the third memorandum, they are Perverting the Course of Justice which is a criminal offence.
The Appeal Court of NZ have set such a high barrier for self Litigant Nicola Watkins to gain Access to Justice that their focus is solely on optics for the Appeal Court at all costs not to let any self litigant win any case or bring any appeal to them without a pre-meditated outcome of dismissal.
Therefore the way Highmark Homes conducted the constructive dismissal of Watkins is not too dissimilar to the way the High Court and the Court of Appeal have treated Watkins in their conduct and their decisions.
A Matter of Urgency: To the Chief Justice Rt Hon Helen Winkellman, Ministers of Parliament and the NZ Police and their Minister Mark Mitchell:
The High Court and the Court of Appeal ignoring perjury and defamation is not OK.
The Registry’s refusal to process this memorandum is an obstruction of justice, especially given the newly discovered
The Court Judges need to understand that self litigants are not idiots, can see straight through the interactions in the court room between Lawyers, their former colleagues or industry acquaintances, the blatant use of legalese and their body language.
Judges need to understand that the current culture they are operating in and their attitudes need to change. They have to understand the gravity of their decisions when they operate out of a place of arrogance and obstructing Justice, and what that does to a family who were blindsided and have never recovered, enduring a further 9 years of defamation, humiliation and financial hardship.
The Appeal of Watkins against the ongoing online defamation caused by Highmark Homes and the High Court and Court of appeal’s refusal to read evidence when even Google has higher moral standards is a matter of great public importance. Google Misrepresentation Report. A formal apology to Watkins would not go astray either if they could bother to read this blog and the evidence articles, then muster up a single humble human empathetic bone in their body and recognise what Watkins and her family have had to endure since Highmark Homes ruthlessly and callously ripped their security right out from under them 9 years ago, leaving an immeasurable amount of pain and suffering in their wake.
To cut through all the confusion about how the Court of Appeal allowed a defamatory blog with a fake bio to remain online, read this open letter response to the Court of Appeal Wellington Complaints Manager Maryanne McKennie here:
https://watkinsvshighmarkhomes-nzjustice.blogspot.com/2026/03/open-letter-to-court-of-appeal-nz.html
Further Reading:
Watkins vs Highmark Homes: The Truth, The Whole Truth The complete chronological breakdown of the 9-year dispute, including original evidence of constructive dismissal.
Mike Ross Blogex: NZ Public Report (Spamdexing & Judicial Ignorance) An analysis of the "Mike Ross" fake persona and proof that the Court of Appeal Registry was in possession of the blog evidence they claimed not to have received.
Mike Ross Law Blog is Fake: Identity Hijacking Exposed Evidence demonstrating how search engine manipulation was used to prioritize a defamatory blog over factual court transcripts.
Access to Justice: 2026 Triennial Review Case Study My formal submission regarding the failure of the New Zealand legal aid system and the "pay-to-play" barriers for self-represented litigants.
Open Letter to Chief Justice: A Call for Judicial Accountability A direct appeal regarding the systemic failure to investigate perjury and the handling of evidence by court registrars.
- Constructive Dismissal and The Law
How the Court of Appeal breached its obligation to review evidence and the complaints manager response
https://watkinsvshighmarkhomes-nzjustice.blogspot.com/2026/03/open-letter-to-court-of-appeal-nz.html
Comments
Post a Comment