A Kiwi blogger's last-ditch effort to overturn his convictions for a series of "hate-filled" posts and harassment of several people, including a former parliamentarian, has been dismissed by New Zealand's highest court.
The internet renegade was also convicted by a jury of breaching two suppression orders in a high-profile homicide case.
But the man who has continually been self-represented in the courtroom claims the evidence against him is "false" and fabricated by police to "fit him up".
After the Court of Appeal dismissed an earlier challenge in July, Dermot Nottingham tried to take his case to the Supreme Court.
A repeated argument of his was one of his victims, a former MP, lied when giving evidence during his trial in April and May 2018.
Before the Court of Appeal hearing, Nottingham accused the ex-politician of perjury as he unsuccessfully sought the cellphone records, emails and medical notes of three of his victims - believing it would prove his allegation.
Nottingham also accused other witnesses of perjuring themselves at his trial.
Further claims he submitted to the Supreme Court - in his bid for a second hearing - were that the trial judge and prosecutor were wrong to tell the jury that truth was "of limited assistance" to them in determining whether what occurred was harassment.
Nottingham contended that other acts, such as telephone calls, were relied on by the prosecution but there was no evidence substantiating his involvement.
The charges for the name suppression breaches, Nottingham claimed, should have failed because his responsibility for the blog post was never established.
Sexual grooming ex-OT worker granted permanent suppression
Who was pulling the strings of jailed trio and crooked cop?
Rabbit thief unmasked: Why finance exec's case was kept secret
Nottingham, a large man who was hospitalised for a week during the trial, said his physical health also affected his ability to stand trial.
In the Supreme Court's judgement this month, however, Justices Susan Glazebrook, Mark O'Regan and Ellen France said Nottingham's claims raised "no question of general or public importance".
"Nor does anything raised by Mr Nottingham give rise to the appearance of a miscarriage of justice arising from the court's assessment."
They dismissed the appeal - meaning the blogger's convictions for five criminal harassment charges and two breaches of court suppression will stand.
• Blogger's convictions for 'malicious and misogynistic attacks' on former MP, business people stick
• 'Malicious and nasty' blogger accuses former MP of perjury, asks court to release their emails
• Blogger dodges prison over court suppression breaches, harassment campaigns
Much of Nottingham's material "could at best be described as virulent opinion with only a tangential connection to anything arguably true", the Court of Appeal earlier said.
"As the Crown said in closing, the posts were littered with 'hate-filled [invective]' and were strongly misogynistic."
In one instance of harassment, Nottingham sent one of his victims a scene from the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction showing a person being shot in the head.
The High Court suppression orders Nottingham breached were for the Stephen Dudley manslaughter case .
In a flagrant breach, his blog site identified and published photos of the two teenage defendants - who both have permanent name suppression.
As a result of Nottingham's disregard for the suppression orders, police began investigating the blog and found what was described as "several campaigns of harassment".
Nottingham would be found guilty of ordering, or himself conducting, online attacks on business people, civil servants and a former member of Parliament.
Photos were taken of his victims and their homes, while allegations were published online falsely claiming drug abuse and corruption.
All of those targeted by Nottingham's harassment have been granted permanent name suppression.
At his sentencing, Nottingham continued to blame his victims and said, "if they had been honest ... none of this would have occurred".
Nottingham also claimed the Crown lacked the "smoking gun" or "electronic footprint" to prove their case against him.
Evidence from a detective, he said, was "fabricated and prejudicial".
At trial, Nottingham called former Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to give evidence and refute what the detective said.
Slater said it was impossible to do anything online without leaving "footprints everywhere", but the Court of Appeal found the Crown's circumstantial evidence was "very strong, if not overwhelming".
Police found text messages and internet history showing Nottingham attempted to obtain and research information about the Dudley case. A search of computers Nottingham had access to also identified several court documents from the case.
And seven hours before publication of the blog, Nottingham wrote to the police officer heading the Dudley inquiry.
Nottingham, who was sentenced to home detention and community work , had special conditions imposed on him, which forbid him from using any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without prior approval from a probation officer.
Despite these conditions, the Herald was aware of a Twitter profile linked to Nottingham which was actively posting content this year. The social media account has now been suspended.
A Facebook page linked to Nottingham's blog also appears to have been removed.
In 2003, Nottingham faced a possible contempt of court charge after publishing a video online of a High Court judge's driving offence while it was before the courts.
Correction: Nottingham called former Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater to give evidence during the District Court hearing, not the Court of Appeal hearing as an earlier version of this story reported.