Rod Vaughan Rejects Damned Lies

Rod Vaughan | 05.04.2007 03:50

TV Reporter Condemns Scurrilous And Malicious Slur On His Reputation

It has come to my notice that on 27.08.2006 you published a highly defamatory article entitled: "Rod Vaughan Exposed. TV Expose Journalist Exposed As Child Pornographer!"

I am the person named in the story.

Be advised that there is not a single shred of truth in this malicious and scurrilous work of fiction.

It was written with malicious intent by a person of ill repute who is well known to myself and US law enforcement agencies.

As a result of being published on the world wide web it has exposed me to hatred, contempt and ridicule.

I demand a full retraction and apology and the offending article withdrawn from your web site immediately.

Failing that I shall seek legal redress in the form of substantial compensation for the damage it has done to my reputation.

Rod Vaughan
e-mail: rvaughan@tv3.co.nz

Additions

Hidden

05.04.2007 13:19

The article in question is being hidden, the mirrors might take a while to catch up.

Please address matters of this nature to the private contact list:

imc-uk-contact@lists.indymedia.org.uk

admin

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

Rod

05.04.2007 10:36

Rod,

Who wrote the article? Do you mean the person that published it on Indymedia or their source?
What do you mean when you say the US authorities know him well?
I hope you are not threatening somebody that publishes on Indymedia.
Can you elaborate, because if I was innocent and somebody wrote something untrue about me I would explain why and how it is not true, not just threaten to take action.
I am not accusing you of anything, I just think you have not explained yourself.
For example, why is this person well known to the US authorities and why should we care?
The US authorities are loonies as far as we can see.
Could you please elaborate.

Sarah

Would act quickly on this

05.04.2007 12:33

Just had a look at the September article he's referring to. If anyone at Indymedia has any legal sense they'd get it deleted from the archive *right now* before legal action screws this whole site up. It's pretty dumb they allowed it to be published to start with.

The reason? Some bloke makes a series of allegations saying this New Zealand broadcaster Rod is a paedophile. The writer then cites evidence given in a Grand Jury case - which, even he points our, did not indict Rod.

I've no idea even if this case has taken place. But if a bloke's been found innocent by a court, then he's officially innocent. If the guy who put the allegations on here had *new* evidence that might be different, but instead he's citing stuff that has already been regarded as rubbish by a grand jury.

I've never heard of this Rod bloke before (this is UK Indymedia - allegations about some broadcaster in New Zealand seem somewhat irrelevant) and there's nothing immediate to back it up either way.

But with allegations like that, Rod does not actually need to defend himself - all he needs to do is say they are damaging to his reputation (which they very obviously are). It's up to his accuser to prove that they are true, which seems unlikely given what he's said so far.

Norville B

Sure

05.04.2007 17:11

You can take it down, but Rod has not done himself any favours in my opinion.
Seem's to me these two guys have history and the US authority thing is just weird, I dont understand why he wrote it, is it a threat to Indymedia?
Why didnt he just write a letter to Indymedia instead of posting this strange response, then Indymedia could have apologised publicy.
I just find it weird.
I have no idea who Rod is and have barely read the article, I just find Rod's response weird.
Il read the article again.