I draw the Courts attention to the Courts ruling in Appeal to the Ban of Malayan Singapura and note how written warnings of rule breaking are required to be issued by the Local Council.  

Specificly the section 2 of the Ruling:
A second issue to be considered is the validity of the warnings given to Malayan Singapura, and whether they the consideration given to them by the Local Council was reasonable and adequate. 

In this section The Court established three basic requirements for warnings:

"One issue is that not all warnings considered were issued by proper authorities. 
...
A second issue is that not all alleged warnings should qualify as such, in the opinion of the Court.
...
A third issue is that, even in those cases were warnings were arguably unambiguous, they did not clearly cite the rules that were being broken, and instead limited themselves to ordering that specific behaviour cease, without reference to the laws or ordinances that supported such order. "
(emphasis added)

To now declare such a warning that meets all three of these requirements as consituting spam would nullify the Local Council's legal duty to moderate the RMB and contradict the courts very own directives.

For NHC to falsely and publicly declare the receipt of official warnings are spam does not make them spam, and the false allegation that I have engaged in "Telegram Spam" while carrying out my legal duty is clearly  defamatory on the face of it.

I await the High Courts determination of justiciablity of this case.