Lawsuits are always risky. There’s a term for it: ‘Litigation risk’. As a person with a law degree, Jordan Williams should know that.
The boy-wonder with a penchant for deceit first caught my eye as the ‘front’ (as in, public face) of the grubby and dubious anti-MMP campaign ‘Vote for Change’. I wrote about that at the time and Jordan Williams features here at The Paepae now and then.
Prior to that, he’d apparently been hired to perform services for Don Brash during the ACT Party leadership coup which saw Rodney Hide resign. ACT Party stalwart at the time Cathy Odgers (Cactus Kate) summed him up thus:
The VFC frontchild Jordan Williams is [a] supercilious little prick who acted like a second rate twit during the recent Brash ACT coup. If anything I shouldn’t wish to be associated with them.
Jordan Williams was later revealed in Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics as Simon Lusk’s apprentice, and David Farrar’s apprentice, and Cameron Slater’s apprentice – and as someone willing to look for sleaze on his masters’ political opponents. Hager records a ‘mission’ Slater Jnr sent Williams on to try to get some photos of Winston Peters in a pub. (Failed.)
He also points to a pattern of fishing for ‘dodgy’ or embarrassing communications …
I make no bones about it: I long ago formed a personal view that Jordan Williams is a shallow puppet and nasty, vacuous, sleazebag who, like Slater Jnr, will hypocritically use other people as weapons to attack his elders’ enemies. Just like Slater Jnr, accuracy is not his strong suit. This week, presenting his ‘evidence’ in his defamation case against Colin Craig, it seemed to me he again confirmed my view.
It’s been revealed in court this week – out of Jordan Williams’s own mouth – that he has repeatedly made untrue, “wrong” and inaccurate statements.
Things like: that he had personally seen a text message (“with his own eyes”) when he had not. *see footnote
Things like: messages from one party to another were “never reciprocated” when they were.
Things like: Information he was given in confidence, then asked not to reveal, he revealed anyway because it was “in her best interests”. (Please.)
Not only did Williams apparently “ignore her plea”, he apparently broke a confidentiality undertaking to her lawyer:
Jordan Williams’s grossly offensive description of women, revealed in the Whaledump leaks, will follow him everywhere. So will his reputation for using deceit, revealed in Dirty Politics. Quite right. What an arse. Describing himself as ‘a whistleblower’ in these circumstances is preposterous, and an insult to whistleblowers.
I personally see this sleazy apprentice just as I do his sleazy masters Simon Lusk, David Farrar (right) and Cameron Slater: Contemptible character assassins.
The way I see it (described here: Is Colin Craig ‘defaming’ Cameron Slater and his commercial attack website?), the smearing of Colin Craig was a decapitation attack, fitting the old-as-the-hills pattern of using a political figure’s foibles, idiotic weaknesses and lapses of judgement in his personal life as a political cudgel with which to beat him.
Hager’s book Dirty Politics reveals such smear campaigns are Simon Lusk’s and Cameron Slater’s bread and butter, modus operandi and the trigger of their wet dreams. (OK, I’m speculating about the wet dreams.) They don’t give a rat’s arse for the damage they do to others caught in the crossfire while they spout about ‘morality’. Consider Jordan Williams’ role in the light of Luigi Wewege. You get the picture?
And for Cameron Slater, who took such protracted umbrage at his own extramarital affair being made public, to continue his sleazy walk down this path only deepens my contempt for his warped sense of so-called morals. And, surely, it must smell fishy to his Seventh Day Adventist enablers? Surely? Or they’re hypocrites too.
For Jordan Williams to cite the Christian values of the Conservative Party, its founder and board in court in these circumstances is beyond satire, and I have nothing printable to say about that at the moment.
Here I thought Jordan was a National Party apparatchik, but he indicated in court that he was Conservative Party voter and deeply concerned about the Conservative Party’s future etc etc yada yada. (Sorry, not buying that either.)
And what a sad, deluded fool Christine Rankin must feel now describing Jordan Willams to a Judge and jury as “a trusted contact” and his half-baked dossier as “direct evidence from someone I trusted implicitly”.
And as for that part: “Williams begged Rankin not to take any action”, sure. Read that in the context above. It looks to me like he played her like a fiddle.
Facts are stated to the best of my knowledge and commentary is my honest opinion. Corrections or clarifications are always welcome by email. Comments are open, but may be moderated.
– Best wishes, Peter Aranyi
* footnote: Here’s Jordan Williams under cross-examination about the “explicit text” referred to above which he said he’d seen — but now admits he hadn’t. (credit: TVNZ)
What else has Jordan Williams got “wrong” in his evidence?