WCC - Irony, hypocrisy, or both?

Today it was announced that Wellington City Council has paid over a million dollars towards the hype leading up to the premier of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit - well J R R Tolkein's Hobbit actually, but you'd be forgiven for thinking Peter Jackson was the creator.  It's no problem to close streets for the erection of the Weta sculptures in the city, a twelve metre high sculpture of Gollum has been installed at the airport and silhouettes of Hobbits dominate the skyline in Wellington these days, but isn't it funny how times change . . .

It wasn't long ago that the Wellington City Council waged war on another Peter Jackson, for erecting a sculpture of Albert Einstein in Courtenay Place (- at his own expense):
From the Dominion Post, August 2005:

"BEAUTY, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder -- a lesson being learned the hard way by Wellington bar owner Peter Jackson.
He has been embroiled in a David and Goliath-type battle with Wellington City Council over a polystyrene Albert Einstein sculpture he commissioned to hang outside The Lab in Dixon St.
The council claims the artwork is an eyesore and has refused to grant resource consent. But the defiant publican is refusing to remove it.
He said he was prepared to cop a fine for his stand and was even considering an Environment Court appeal.
The 2.5-metre sculpture cost $2000. It was attached to the outside of the Hope Gibbons Building last year.
But the council demanded Mr Jackson apply for consent, claiming it was a sign because it featured the bar's name and breached planning regulations.
He duly applied, but council officers declined consent in June, ruling that Einstein was a visual affront, damaging the architectural and heritage values of a protected heritage building.
Down but not out, Mr Jackson objected and the matter went to a hearing last month.
Facing off against a team of council officials, he said there were countless signs down Courtenay Place. But the council last week dismissed Mr Jackson's objection and upheld the decision to deny him consent. It said the sign was inappropriate and detracted from the building's visual amenity.
"It just seems ridiculous," Mr Jackson said yesterday.
He had no intention of removing the sign as it could affect his business.
Council planning group manager Jane Davis said Mr Jackson had 15 working days to lodge an appeal before the sign had to be removed.
If he refused, the council could issue an abatement notice before seeking a court order.

Silence in the Court: Vince Seimer appeals contempt ruling in the Supreme Court:

On 19 July 2012 Vincent Ross Seimer was granted leave to appeal the finding of contempt of Court regarding publication of the decision of Judge Helen Winkelmann that the Urewera accused were to be denied the right to trial by jury, on Mr Seimer's website, Kiwisfirst.com.  

The approved ground to appeal was whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases.

In the Supreme Court yesterday (15 November 2012), Siemer v Solicitor General SC 37 2012 (CA  417/2011  [2012] NZCA139) discussed the question of whether judges in New Zealand have inherent powers to suppress criminal court judgements - powers not provided in statute or the common law, and whether it was just to imprison a person who did not breach a lawful order.

The hearing challenged a Court of Appeal ruling (CA607/2011 [2012] NZCA 188) which declared NZ judges have this inherent power.  As it is, Judges in New Zealand enjoy immunity from public scrutiny or fiduciary accountability, and the rule of the validity of legitimate public interest has long been enshrined in law and upheld for centuries as the foundation of justice - justice must be seen to be done.  The Supreme Court appeal was heard before Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ, who have reserved their decision (this post will be updated after the decision is received).

Publisher Vince Siemer was convicted and sentenced to six weeks in Mt Eden prison for publishing the December 2010 judgement of Judge Winkelmann in R v Bailey (Emily Bailey, Urewera trials) which denied 18 New Zealand citizens their statutory right to trial by jury, despite the fact that the evidence against the accused was illegally obtained, like a lot of Crown evidence put forward in New Zealand Courts recently - it's a disturbing trend, and one not to be encouraged.  Judge Winkelmann then suppressed her decision so nobody would know that she had denied the defendants their right to a jury trial.

The judgment was ordered suppressed from the public, and no reasons were given for the suppression by issuing Judge Helen Winkelmann.  The reasons given for denying the jury trial were (1) a jury would find it difficult to sit through the trial which was expected to be long, and (2) a jury would likely use "improper reasoning processes".  And nobody is allowed to know about this, apparently.  It has already been established that the evidence was illegally obtained, as it was in a number of other cases, including the much publicised Hollywood style raids on Kim Dotcom and the Switched On Gardener franchise, among others.

This bears remarkable - and chilling - similarity to the recent contempt heaped on the Court by ex "Dr" Brenda Sally Rimkeit, who successfully perverted the course of justice, and acted as Judge AND jury, by corruptly claiming that Katherine Raue was unfit to stand trial or represent herself (or even plead) on charges of Perverting the Course of Justice on the basis that: "Ms Raue is unfit to stand trial. She currently has a mental impairment which is Delusional Disorder. Ms Raue has stated on a number of occasions during this assessment period that she feels capable of representing and defending herself against the current charges. She has suggested that her main line of defence is that the charges are the result of corrupt acts by certain parties and that she will name these parties in Court. My concern is that if she proceeds to represent herself at Court she may, through her delusional belief system, falsely accuse certain parties of wrongdoing."  I most certainly did intend accusing the NZ police of wrongdoing - as I am ENTITLED to do under the law!  And I would most certainly have proved that was the case too, the evidence is elsewhere on this site.

Section 138 if the Criminal Justice Act 1985 was repealed on 5 March 2012.  At the time of Mr Seimer's alleged offence, this section stated:

"138:  Power to clear court and forbid report of proceedings:
(1)Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3) and of any other enactment, every sitting of any court dealing with any proceedings in respect of an offence shall be open to the public.
(2)Where a court is of the opinion that the interests of justice, or of public morality, or of the reputation of any victim of any alleged sexual offence or offence of extortion, or of the security or defence of New Zealand so require, it may make any 1 or more of the following orders:
(a)an order forbidding publication of any report or account of the whole or any part of—
(i)the evidence adduced; or
(ii)the submissions made:
(b)an order forbidding the publication of the name of any witness or witnesses, or any name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the witness or witnesses:
(c)subject to subsection (3), an order excluding all or any persons other than the informant, any Police employee, the defendant, any counsel engaged in the proceedings, and any officer of the court from the whole or any part of the proceedings.
(3)The power conferred by paragraph (c) of subsection (2) shall not, except where the interests of security or defence so require, be exercised so as to exclude any accredited news media reporter.
(4)An order made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2)—
(a)may be made for a limited period or permanently; and
(b)if it is made for a limited period, may be renewed for a further period or periods by the court; and
(c)if it is made permanently, may be reviewed by the court at any time.
(5)The powers conferred by this section to make orders of any kind described in subsection (2) are in substitution for any such powers that a court may have had under any inherent jurisdiction or any rule of law; and no court shall have power to make any order of any such kind except in accordance with this section or any other enactment.
(6)Notwithstanding that an order is made under subsection (2)(c), the announcement of the verdict or decision of the court (including a decision to commit the defendant for trial or sentence) and the passing of sentence shall in every case take place in public; but, if the court is satisfied that exceptional circumstances so require, it may decline to state in public all or any of the facts, reasons, or other considerations that it has taken into account in reaching its decision or verdict or in determining the sentence passed by it on any defendant.
(7)Every person commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 who commits a breach of any order made under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or evades or attempts to evade any such order.
(8)The breach of any order made under subsection (2)(c), or any evasion or attempted evasion of it, may be dealt with as contempt of court.
(9)Nothing in this section shall limit the powers of the court under sections 139 and 140 to prohibit the publication of any name.

It was questioned whether in fact section 138 even applied to judgements, and Ms Laracy, appearing for the Crown, accepted that the Court of Appeal would have probably overturned Judge Winkelmann's decision.  The difference between actual risk and hypothetical risk was discussed, as well as the questionable necessity of suppression given the existence of strict liability contempt.  The Criminal Procedure Act 2011 contains new provisions, the Criminal Justice Act and the Bail Act also contain relevant sections.  The question of whether the Court imposed the Order under inherent jurisdiction or under its powers under section 138 was discussed, and whether if Judge Winkelmann had no jurisdiction to make the Order there was no contempt.  The Solicitor General apparently decided that Judge Winkelmann didn't have the power to make the order, and struggled with seeing how fair trial rights were implicated by Judge Winkelmann's decision being in the public arena.  Powers must be exercised for a legitimate purpose.  It was put to the Court that the law requires the Judge to give a valid reason for suppression and not to exercise arbitrary excessive power.  The reason given was that Judge Winkelmann felt that the jury would not be able to come to grips with the complexities of the case apparently - and she obviously felt that the public of New Zealand were not sophisticated enough to hear about it either.  It stretches the bounds of credibility to suggest that the Judge was not influenced by political pressure that sought to keep the details of how the evidence against the accused was illegally obtained from public scrutiny - therefore jeopardising a fair trial.

Tony Ellis appeared for Mr Seimer, his summing up was brief.  He put it to the Court that there was no claim that the publication of the decision was a threat to justice and that the Order could not be justified as being in the interests of justice, that the Judge failed to give an adequate reason, that she exercised excessive arbitrary power, that it was against the fundamental rule of law that the Court be unaccountable, unappealable and the Judge above criticism while Vince Seimer goes to jail for reporting a trial that is in the public interest and in the interests of justice to be open and transparent.  He put it to the Court that there was no criminal or civil jurisdiction in fact, and that a person should be able to challenge an Order if it is unlawful.  He asserted that the Judge had no jurisdiction, either inherent or under section 138 (which applied at the time of the alleged offending), and that the law is "obscure, uncertain and unclear."

It's vitally important to democracy and fundamental to justice that Court hearings are open to public scrutiny and that Judges are transparent and accountable for their decisions.  We await the decision.

Child abuse: "It's a Maori problem" - Christine Rankin:

I made a formal complaint to TVNZ and the Broadcasting Standards Authority after Chrisine Rankin claimed on national television that "child abuse is a Maori problem and it's time Maori faced up to it.  The complaint was not upheld on the grounds that "not many people would have been offended by the comments".  This one's for you Christine, and all the other know it all's who claim to "represent abused kids" - while exploiting the system for their own profit, it's time people faced up to THIS:

From the Native School Teachers Log Books, this one from Karioi Native School, for the WAI262 report, 2000. All Log Books held at the National Archives:

After a large amount of forbearance I have to resort to the ‘stick’ in earnest. Fred Rameka and Richard Mau on being ‘stood out’ for talking, played and laughed and generally made a ‘good joke’ of it. I gave them each 2 sharp strokes…
B Hawkins, 18 February 1898

Te Pohi a new boy came to school. He was inclined to be impudent & one day I told him to go into the cupboard for doing what he had been told not to do. He was sulky & refused so obstinately that it was necessary to cane him. Since then on Nov 4th (1899) Paora was caned for disobedience.
Agnes Grant, c November 1899

On 5th April (1900) I was obliged to cane Taupiri again for deliberate disobedience
& sulkiness.

On Wednesday 4th July (1900) I caned Taupiri for sulking & she has since been very amiable. Agnes Grant.

On April 16th (1900) Riwaru a very small boy who had only been a short time at school refused to go into the cupboard when I told him to go. He had no idea of obedience in school & I thought the stick would be less lightly to frighten him than the cupboard & so gave it instead. Agnes Grant, c April 1900

On Feb 13th (1901) I caned Iwi for impudent & deliberate
disobedience…On Feb 22nd (1901) I was obliged to cane Iwi again for insubordination. She has been better since.
Agnes Grant, c February 1901

In the case of the little girl who is partly a negress I have to my regret been obliged to make an entire exception to my usual methods of management. I have tried with the this child special kindness, special rewards, speaking to her alone, laughing at her, putting her in the corner, giving her impositions, keeping her in till nearly dark, shutting her up alone, expelling her for a week & caning her, & the last seems to be the only thing which really appeals to her & makes her try to do better.
Agnes Grant, c December 1902

Both Matenga and Te Aonui preferred the cane to the strap & we decided that in future I should try if one hit was sufficient & only give more when it proved quite necessary. I explained to them that my reason for caning on the calf of the leg was that I had heard of the bones of the hand being injured by caning. Grant 1902

I had much trouble with carelessness in pen & ink writing & Arthur & Waru were punished for this offence: the result was a marked improvement in their written work.
Agnes Grant, c April 1904

I also had to give Ema the strap. Ema is the child with negro blood who has always been such a difficult child to manage. Agnes Grant, c July 1903

Punished Sam French (4 cuts in back) for scratching a desk with a piece of glass also 2 cuts his sister for doing same.
D Hamilton, 9 July 1895

Gave Hone 5 on each hand with strap, for his absence yesterday.
W Leach, 31 August 1903

Okoha 1900–1904 (BAAA 1003/2k) William Hemi received corporal punishment for using bad language, followed by disobedience & defiance leading to a ‘scene’.
Bertha Baigent, 24 October 1900

Punished Willie Walker & Edwin Hemi for want of application. Both these boys are bright & intelligent but have become somewhat lazy over their work & do not use their brains sufficiently.
Bertha Baigent, 14 March 1901

Gave Rowney, W Waha & M A Murray a hand each for running away from school in the afternoon to eat peaches.
Teacher, 19 March 1890

Gave Tutere a good cut across the back for rank disobedience.
Teacher, 11 November 1890

Marella Rider asserts she was caned but that is not correct. The cane came in contact with her because of her various movements.
Alexander Mackenzie, 23 November 1897

The Committee wish only English to be spoken in school and playground.
Alexander Mackenzie, 1 July 1899

Papawai 1898–1903 (BAAA 1003/4a)
Percy Tilson recd 4 strokes of the cane for idleness.
P H Clemance, 10 February 1898

Basil Burch for coming to school with extremely dirty hands received 2 strokes with the cane. P H Clemance, 5 June 1899

Have expelled Edward Noble for impertinence. I left the room for a minute & when I returned I found him calling out to the teacher Miss Porter and would not be quiet. I boxed his head & he was then impudent to me & when told to be quiet refused & I then said that I would punish him more. He said he would like to see me try. I expected if I hit him again he would hit me so I told him to leave the school. The expulsion is of course subject to Committee consent.
Alfred Walsh, 6 June 1901 (pencil note by Harry Kirk in log book with comment dangerous practise above reference to boxing pupil’s head)

Hine, Mango, Ane and Miriana for persistent telling, copying, and trifling, each received one stripe on shoulders.
A Wilson, 21 June 1900

Ane and Powhiri caned on shoulders for persistent trifling.
A Wilson, 7 August 1900

Powhiri, for persistent talking, caned on shoulders.
A Wilson, 13 August 1900

Te Oke I light stroke with the cane for persistent disobedience. She is only about 8 years old.
A Wilson, 27 August 1900

Had to cane Tiini Wetere for persistent telling.

Ane Wiremu kept in for persistent telling, refused to answer for the space of half an hour – one stripe on each hand. After an interval still refused to answer or to hold out hand – caned on shoulders. Then made answer.
A Wilson, 20 September 1900

Caned Ngaha, Hautana, Tumate and Whati also Honai during morning
school for persistent whispering. A Wilson, 25 October 1900

In afternoon Hine Tarawhiti, being offended because her little sister was not allowed to sit next to her, declined to work. After a considerable interval I spoke to her and she declined to answer, finally answered insolently. Caned her across shoulders and sent a note to her mother asking her to come over. Father is unfortunately away. After sobbing a lot she left her seat declaring she would take her sister away. I had to give her two more cuts before she
would return to her seat.
A Wilson, 21 May 1901

On Thursday Sept 15th (1900) I caned Paora Matenga for sulks. I had been
having a great deal of trouble with sulks, so I caned him in front of the school in hopes the others would take a warning. It made a great impression
& all the girls wept aloud in sympathy for him. I find sulks very difficult to
deal with.
Agnes Grant, c September 1900

I have read several this morning, hundreds of incidents of child abuse by Pakeha teachers at Native Maori Schools from 1880 - 1930.

Today Maori are blaimed everywhere for abusing their children, they have had wonderful role models in the Pakeha have they not?!! I am incensed at the cruelty these stories record, and in the handwriting of the teachers who have done this!!

Kelvyn Alp's call for Ombudsmen to reopen inquiry into South End School bullying, dishonesty and incompetence:

Kelvyn Alp was one of the many politicians courting my vote at the last election, and like all the others I asked him to come to Carterton and investigate the incompetence, refusal to investigate complaints, and corruption involving local police and so called community leaders, as well as IPCA, Ombudsmen, Privacy and Health and Disability Commissioners, etc.  Unlike the others, he took up our invitation, and he did come and look into it.

He looked at the evidence, looked at the South End School Gardens, saw our plants and equipment, and the evidence regarding the unjust termination of the employment of both myself and another staff member, serious breaches of our privacy, serious false allegations - deliberately and knowingly false, including malicious and vexatious litigation, and spoke with people concerned and viewed complaints to the school from other parents regarding the actions of the Board.

Mr Alp then reviewed the responses to our complaints, and relevant correspondence etc, and then wrote a formal complaint to the Ombudsmen himself regarding the obvious corruption, dishonesty and bullying regarding the governance of the school and the manner in which my complaints were covered up and the facts deliberately and dishonestly manipulated by the Board of Trustees, the (ex) Principal and Deputy Principal and others:

from: Kelvyn Alp kelvynalp@ournz.net.nz
to: complaint@ombudsmen.parliament.nz
cc: kateraue@gmail.com
date: 24 May 2012 12:59
subject: Formal Complaint
mailed-by: ournz.net.nz
Dear Sir/Ma’am

This is a formal complaint regarding the actions of the Board of Trustees of the South End School, Carterton.
1. The school sent Katherine Raue the attached letter, falsely alleging that she had recently been charged by police with an offence involving a child. 

2. The letter also says that "As a board we hope that either the charges are withdrawn or you are found not guilty as this would remove our problem.  We appreciate the work and enthusiasm that you bring to the school garden and hope that we can be in a position to resume this work in the near future." 

3. Evidence shows that Mrs Raue immediately informed the school that the allegation was untrue (and had in fact advised the Deputy Principal when the DP raised the matter with her verbally weeks before the letter was even written) and requested a meeting with the Board of Trustees.   

4.  The request was refused and the Board began to act in a hostile (and unlawful) manner toward Mrs Raue. 

5. Evidence shows that a Statutory Manager was appointed shortly after this to address other matters of governance, and that there was a subsequent incident involving a member of the public being wrongly given a confidential letter intended for another worker at the school regarding his complaint about the similar termination of his own employment, and there seems to have been a pattern of poor performance of the Board of Trustees and some staff. 

6. The letter should never have been sent, Mrs Raue informed the Deputy Principal (Dallas Powell) that the allegation regarding the charge was untrue prior to the letter even being written, after Ms Powell advised her that she had seen the notes and minutes of the meeting at which the police told the board they had charged her. 

7. The suggestion which was later made, that Mrs Raue told anyone such a thing is preposterous and defies logic, she did NOT say any such thing and the evidence strongly supports the fact that the police and the members of the board made up the story!  Letters from a number of lawyers indicate that this is part of a wider problem involving local police 'sharing information' inappropriately with various "community organisations", and dealing inappropriately and with prejudice regarding many serious complaints.   

8. I note that Mrs Raue was recently acquitted of all eight of the charges which she was clearly falsely accused of, and that this too is part of a pattern of malicious and vexatious litigation instigated against her by the local police, who are currently under inquiry for serious misfeasance which appears to be related to these matters.  I also note that Mrs Raue was acquitted of the charge regarding the unsupported allegations that Mrs Raue called staff "thieving crooks" after no evidence was given in support of the charge - again. 

9. I also note that evidence described by the Deputy Principal appears to have been destroyed by the Board of Trustees, including the notes of the meeting made by the staff representative, and that neither of those staff members have been required to make statements regarding who said what.  It is not credible that the Board would write a letter such as this, terminating employment of a valued contributor to the school, and the physical and mental health of the students, purporting to be caused by such a serious allegation, without recording the reason for the decision anywhere in the minutes etc. 

10. The remedy sought is that stated in the final paragraph of the letter sent to Mrs Raue, prompt reinstatement and access to the garden she established.   

11. This matter has gone on long enough, justice must be done without delay and I request that you uphold this complaint, and that the board honours its promise to reinstate Mrs Raue if the charges were withdrawn - there never were any charges and the letter is based wholly on a false allegation.
Yours faithfully,

Kelvyn Alp
Party Co-Leader

Mobile: +6427 286 8789
Skype: kelvynalp
Email: kelvynalp@ournz.net.nz
Website: www.ournz.org.nz

"Truth is more important than public belief, and any man who feels the need to adjust his knowledge so as to receive public approval is a man unworthy of trust."--Toltec motto

"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."---Gerald Massey

This has resulted in the Ombudsmen reopening the investigation into these complaints.  Let's hope they put truth before authority - there can be no justice, no authority, and no peace, without justice and truth.

The longer the problem is not dealt with, the worse it gets.  We have young people committing suicide at over twice the national average rate - in a country with some of the highest rates in the world an the issue of who is teaching them and what they're teaching and how is vitally important to the question of why we have such outrageously high suicide rates.  The original complaint regarding the actions of the South End School has now become much worse with the latest very serious false accusations from members of the Board of Trustees involving how I came to receive personal, private and confidential correspondence regarding the unjust termination of the employment of ANOTHER member of the staff of the South End School.  No wonder a Statutory Manager was appointed!  Unfortunately, it appears that the other staff member was sacked by the Board - or the Principal - and not the Statutory Manager, who was appointed to deal with matters of finance and governance.

This problem of having complaints deliberately and dishonestly fobbed off is tax payer funded criminal corruption - it is routine and widespread perversion of the course of natural justice and it is resulting in extremely dysfunctional communities.  Local police make up complaints about law abiding people and ignore, condone and cover up serious crimes committed by their mates and the mates of their colleagues and associates, as was the case for so many years regarding the complaints of Louise Nicholas, Arthur Allan Thomas, etc.

Victims of abuse in the Wairarapa are treated appallingly, they need all the help they can get and the school gardens are not only teaching kids to grow their OWN kai, cook it, preserve it and trade it, we're teaching them virtues like honesty, commitment, patience, discipline, organisation, kindness, courage, confidence, and many other virtues that will stand them in good stead throughout their lives.

The message being given to victims of bullying and abuse is "Talk to someone" - well we're that "someone" - Friends of Caring Kiwi Communities (The FOCKCers), building strong and healthy communities, encouraging families to get to know one another, support one another, and help build strong healthy communities together - putting the Unity back into our commUnities.  The gardens are sanctuaries in our schools and communities, run by caring, trained, professional facilitators who take appropriate action to assist victims to access the support they need.  We're immensely grateful for the support of Kelvyn Alp and the OURNZ party, who believe in REALLY caring for our kids, what they're being taught, and the environment they're learning in.  Walking the walk, and helping Kids Get Growing.

I spoke with the Statutory Manager, Ken Wilson, today and advised him that in accordance with the letter from the Board of Trustees and the fact that our plants and equipment are still on site, we will be resuming our work in the school garden immediately, and continuing that work over the holidays, and we expressly requested that Mr Wilson advise Mr Ray Craig and others on the Board of Trustees to refrain from physically bullying and threatening us when we do so as he did last time.  I also asked that an immediate apology be provided from Elaine Scully and Emily Brown regarding the latest false accusations regarding how I came to receive the highly confidential correspondence between the school and Mr R the groundsman, who was sacked in a similarly unjust manner and had his privacy breached in the same manner as I did.  I can verify the source of the information and I certainly did NOT steal it from Emily Brown's letterbox and nor would I ever do such a thing -  am deeply offended by these continued attacks on my character and reputation and request apologies from those concerned without further delay, they should have been provided months ago when I first provided the evidence of my statements.