Friday, June 10, 2022
Monday, March 22, 2021
The Spiders Web
There are at least three washing machines in the average home these days: the dishwasher to wash the dishes, the one in the laundry that washes the clothes and things, and the brainwashing machine, the television.
'Kiwis' sit in front of the brainwashing machine watching the fluff and nonsense that it emits, night after night - and all day in some cases - all funded by the advertising and entertainment industry and political lobbyists, masquerading as "the media". Mediating between the public and reality. The average 'kiwi' would have no idea who Joel Benjamin is.
He made this film on a budget of $4,000 and I don't see any evidence that any of that came from Te Mangai Paho.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Wilful abuse of process by the Ministry of Social Development:
A recent Minute issued by the Social Security Appeals Authority is scathing in its criticism of the Ministry of Social Development. In fact, it is so scathing that it is hard to imagine a more damning indictment of a government department.
In addition to the recent reported criticisms regarding the numerous breaches of privacy of their clients, a recent Minute from the Social Security Appeals Authority shows that the Ministry has recently been severely criticised by the SSAA regarding its habit of using fake names for its Benefit Review Committee members since at least 2015.
The Minute from the Authority further castigates the Ministry for a "memo" which the Ministry sent "In confidence" to the Authority regarding current proceedings. Such memorandum are required to be sent to all the parties, in the interests of open justice. The Authority has demanded that a copy of the memo be provided to the plaintiff and a copy of the Minute be served on the Chief Executive personally.
Likewise, the principles of open and natural justice require judges to be real people and use real names, and the idea of secret court processes and secret judges is entirely repugnant, and demonstrates a damning lack of integrity, and most concerning arrogance by the Ministry in this blatant abuse of process.
The Social Security Appeals authority has described it as an abuse of process in their Minute, and ordered the Ministry to provide the 'memo' which was sent "in confidence" to the Authority to be provided to the plaintiff, and be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive.
The actions of the Ministry are outrageous, as the Minute from the Authority confirms, and that the arrogance which is evident in Mr Van Ooyens actions is most concerning in light of the fact that the Ministry was warned against the practise over two years ago.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights forbids the use of secret courts and faceless judges.
"In confidence" seems to stand for the fact that the Ministry is confident it can get away with this sort of blatant abuse of process on a regular basis, particularly as they were warned against it over two years ago, simply ignored the warning and continued in confidence that the warning didn't apply to them for some reason" says Mrs Raue. "It would appear that all clients who have unwittingly been judged by Benefit Review Committee members using fake names are entitled to a rehearing and the NZ Beneficiaries and Unemployed Workers Union and Transparency NZ are writing to the Minister and the Chief Executive to ensure that those people are identified, notified, and facilitated.
We also commend the work done by Mr Graham Howell of the Wellington Benefit Rights Service for assisting the client in this case, and the new Chairman of the Social Security Appeals Authority."
Transparency New Zealand is writing to the United Nations about this matter and will assist the plaintiff in taking further action regarding the actions of the Ministry.
The plaintiff has been the victim of a campaign of bullying by Ministry of Social Development spanning many years, and has suffered extreme hardship as a result. This Minute vindicates her and confirms what she has been saying all along.
This matter also raises a number of questions about access to justice and human rights, and the implications are wide ranging, including the questions about how many other MSD Remote Client Unit review decisions include false names of the committee members. It seems every one of them is entitled to a rehearing.
Here is the Minute. The name of the appellant has been redacted - but only for the time being. Click on the images to view, and click "ctrl" key and "+" key simultaneously to enlarge the images, a direct link to the pdf file can be accessed here.
Here's where it starts getting really interesting. "It is difficult to imagine a more effective way of undermining public confidence in the independence of the Authority than for it to acquiesce in the Chief Executive's delegate's actions." Indeed it is.
Watch this space.
In addition to the recent reported criticisms regarding the numerous breaches of privacy of their clients, a recent Minute from the Social Security Appeals Authority shows that the Ministry has recently been severely criticised by the SSAA regarding its habit of using fake names for its Benefit Review Committee members since at least 2015.
The Minute from the Authority further castigates the Ministry for a "memo" which the Ministry sent "In confidence" to the Authority regarding current proceedings. Such memorandum are required to be sent to all the parties, in the interests of open justice. The Authority has demanded that a copy of the memo be provided to the plaintiff and a copy of the Minute be served on the Chief Executive personally.
Likewise, the principles of open and natural justice require judges to be real people and use real names, and the idea of secret court processes and secret judges is entirely repugnant, and demonstrates a damning lack of integrity, and most concerning arrogance by the Ministry in this blatant abuse of process.
The Social Security Appeals authority has described it as an abuse of process in their Minute, and ordered the Ministry to provide the 'memo' which was sent "in confidence" to the Authority to be provided to the plaintiff, and be brought to the attention of the Chief Executive.
The actions of the Ministry are outrageous, as the Minute from the Authority confirms, and that the arrogance which is evident in Mr Van Ooyens actions is most concerning in light of the fact that the Ministry was warned against the practise over two years ago.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights forbids the use of secret courts and faceless judges.
"In confidence" seems to stand for the fact that the Ministry is confident it can get away with this sort of blatant abuse of process on a regular basis, particularly as they were warned against it over two years ago, simply ignored the warning and continued in confidence that the warning didn't apply to them for some reason" says Mrs Raue. "It would appear that all clients who have unwittingly been judged by Benefit Review Committee members using fake names are entitled to a rehearing and the NZ Beneficiaries and Unemployed Workers Union and Transparency NZ are writing to the Minister and the Chief Executive to ensure that those people are identified, notified, and facilitated.
We also commend the work done by Mr Graham Howell of the Wellington Benefit Rights Service for assisting the client in this case, and the new Chairman of the Social Security Appeals Authority."
Transparency New Zealand is writing to the United Nations about this matter and will assist the plaintiff in taking further action regarding the actions of the Ministry.
The plaintiff has been the victim of a campaign of bullying by Ministry of Social Development spanning many years, and has suffered extreme hardship as a result. This Minute vindicates her and confirms what she has been saying all along.
This matter also raises a number of questions about access to justice and human rights, and the implications are wide ranging, including the questions about how many other MSD Remote Client Unit review decisions include false names of the committee members. It seems every one of them is entitled to a rehearing.
Here is the Minute. The name of the appellant has been redacted - but only for the time being. Click on the images to view, and click "ctrl" key and "+" key simultaneously to enlarge the images, a direct link to the pdf file can be accessed here.
Here's where it starts getting really interesting. "It is difficult to imagine a more effective way of undermining public confidence in the independence of the Authority than for it to acquiesce in the Chief Executive's delegate's actions." Indeed it is.
Watch this space.
 |
| Tigger, our very diligent local correspondent |
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Human Rights Review Tribunal - Gordon Holmes v Housing NZ Corporation
Below are four published decisions of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding complaints from Gordon Holmes. These decisions illustrate the futility of making complaints through a flawed system to a faulty and ineffective Tribunal which is a waste of taxpayers' money and a damning indictment on the colonial "justice system".
These decisions are relevant to the manner in which the Tribunal is dealing with Te Ringa Mangu (Dun) Mihaka, the complaints bear remarkable similarity - they refer to information sharing between Police and Housing NZ Corporation and unfair policies and practices, and both include the involvement of General Counsel Karaka Tuhakaraina and raise serious questions regarding the integrity and competence of Karaka Tuhakaraina and the Tribunal.
These decisions are relevant to the manner in which the Tribunal is dealing with Te Ringa Mangu (Dun) Mihaka, the complaints bear remarkable similarity - they refer to information sharing between Police and Housing NZ Corporation and unfair policies and practices, and both include the involvement of General Counsel Karaka Tuhakaraina and raise serious questions regarding the integrity and competence of Karaka Tuhakaraina and the Tribunal.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Julian Batchelor's public liability insurance - or lack of it -
This is the application to occupy a portion of the road that FNDC omitted to provide - not hard to see why they didn't want to release it - note the blank space where the information regarding the public liability insurance is supposed to be recorded in the top portion of this form, and referred to in paragraph nine -
Komiti spokesperson Katherine Raue sent the following email to Alice Astell of the FNDC legal department this morning, so far there has been no response. Watch this space - this post will be updated with any response received from Alice and the legal department of the Far North District Council.
Please provide this information without further delay.I have also requested all information from Far North District Council regarding the recent repairs to the road which were carried out last year, and all information regarding previous applications for consents filed by Mr Batchelor including the application for the original retaining wall.Tena koe Alice,This document you provided yesterday, the Application for Licence to occupy a portion of the road dated 24/08/2013, refers to "red lines" and "yellow areas" yet you have supplied a black and white copy - please forward a colour copy of this document without delay - and all information regarding the public liability insurance in the names of the Licensee and Licensor which is referred to in the top portion of the application and also in paragraph nine on the first page - I specifically request that you provided - without further delay - full details of this Insurance Policy including the Policy number and the name of the insurer as required in this document and all details of the Policy including the date it was taken out, the terms and conditions of the Policy and any expiry date if applicable, and all other information about this application, including all measurements taken by FNDC of the road and the proximity to the boundary, all photographs of the survey pegs and evidence of the boundaries, etc, and any infringements of the boundaries in the work actually done.
Katherine Raue
Kaitiaki o Opourua
We await the response with interest. Far North District Council have a fiduciary duty to ensure that Mr Batchelor had taken out public liability insurance -
"The licensee MUST indemnify Council for any usage by the applicant of the licensed area and take out a public liability insurance policy in the joint names of the Licensor and the Licensee [sic] for their respective rights and interests. The amount of cover under that policy must be not less than FIVE MILLION DOLLARS."This post will be updated with any response from FNDC and the failure to provide one will be referred to the Ombudsmen along with the other complaints regarding these matters.
More information is available on this site - http://capebrett.blogspot.co.nz/
Julian Batchelor's creative accounting - isn't this FRAUD?
On his websites Mr Julian Batchelor states that he plans to develop three blocks of land in the Bay of Islands, at Rawhiti.
On his websites Julian states that the land is owned by a trust.
In an email to the Far North District Council dated 19 October 2015 he claims he's the Director of "a charity":
Mr Batchelor is a real estate agent, a property developer, and he is the director and shareholder in a number of limited liability companies, including Grace Alone Oke Bay Holdings Limited. He certainly knows the difference between a trust and a limited liability company, and it appears that he may have recorded false details on his application to the Far North District Council or on his website claiming that the properties are owned by a trust or a charity, because Mr Batchelor has recorded that the property is in fact owned by a limited liability company of which he is the sole Director and shareholder, as can be verified at the Companies Office website - Mr Batchelor appears to be committing fraud.
It's clear by looking at Mr Batchelor's own websites that this little cult of his is aimed at generating a large income which is solely controlled by him.
 | |
| An example of the money generating propaganda that fills Mr Batchelor's websites - he claims it's all "a charity". |
 |
| I wouldn't trust this man as far as I could push him! |
Photographs recently provided with the two Official Information Act files linked to above are at this link.
Peter de Graaf of the Northern Advocate recently reported on these matters and we are awaiting developments currently, his report is at this link. The comments below the report reveal an alarming level of ignorant racism, but provide a good opportunity for tangata whenua to have their say about these matters.
There is another interview with the komiti spokesperson by Dale Husband of Irirangi Waatea at this link.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Judicial inquiry - Bill Sticking:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review pursuant to the Judicature Amendment Act 1972
BETWEEN Katherine Raue
Plaintiff
AND NZ Police
First respondent
AND IPCA
Second respondent
________________________________________________________
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
________________________________________________________
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
1 In 2003 Police charged me with Bill Sticking, alleging that I had put a notice on the building on High Street Carterton, between Seddon St and Wakelin St, known as the Ron Wakelin building, between certain specified dates, despite the fact that they had received no formal complaint, let alone one from anyone authorised to make one. They proceeded with a prosecution against me knowing that there was no formal complaint from anyone authorised to make one, there were no grounds to charge me, no grounds to proceed with the prosecution, and knowing that it was against the public interest to lay the charge, and knowing that it was in the public interest to lay charges including fraud and theft against the persons complaining about the alleged Bill Sticking. A number of lawyers have written to the Police and IPCA regarding these matters and they have stated and provided evidence to the fact that the actions of Police were politically motivated and corrupt, as well as prejudiced and biased.
I request the Court to review the actions of Police regarding the charge of Bill Sticking, and in the context of the campaign of other unfounded charges, and the Police refusal to investigate the serious allegations made by me and my lawyers regarding Georgina Beyer, the Carterton District Council and the Carterton Community Centre.
There was no formal complaint to Police regarding the bill sticking, and no evidence to support laying the charge. Laying the charge, proceeding with the prosecution and then not turning up to the hearing were all blatant abuses of the Court process as well as me personally.
This application for review is also about the refusal of Police to investigate formal complaints made against the persons who Police allege were the complainants regarding the Bill Sticking charge. Police also unlawfully served me with a trespass notice regarding the Carterton Community Centre in an initial effort to interfere in political and civil matters, for which they were later forced to apologise. These actions were also politically motivated.
Police had a duty to investigate formal complaints regarding the allegations of fraud by the people who complained about the alleged Bill Sticking. These allegations were the subject of the notice which Police allege I stuck onto the building - there was never any evidence whatsoever that I stuck the notice to the building, the actions of Police were politically motivated, as stated by a number of senior lawyers who have been involved in these matters, and Police deliberately attempted to pervert the course of justice. Police had a duty to investigate the allegations of fraud which were the subject of the Bill allegedly stuck to the Wakelin Building, they had no grounds whatsoever to charge me for Bill Sticking and they knew it. There was no evidence to support the charge of Bill Sticking, there is and always was considerable evidence in support of the formal complaints of fraud and theft of the mail etc made by me and others against the persons who complained to Police about the notice calling a public meeting to discuss the fraud at the former Carterton Community Centre, including disgraced former Member of Parliament Georgina Beyer, who was at that time the Patron of the Centre, and who interfered in the Police investigation into these matters in order to avoid prosecution of friends and associates. Beyer and other local body politicians were among those committing the fraud and theft, and these were the people who complained to Police about the Bill Sticking.
2 A local lawyer, Ken Daniels, wrote to Police several times regarding the facts that I had not admitted to committing the 'crime' of Bill Sticking as Police claimed, that the charge should never succeed, that it could never succeed, and that Police had failed to provide proper disclosure to me, including any evidence of a complaint to Police by anyone, or a copy of the notice Police alleged I stuck on the building. Mr Daniels also wrote to Police demanding an apology after the charge was dismissed and making a number of formal complaints, all of which Police either ignored or dismissed without giving any credible reasons for the decisions. There is considerable evidence of a large volume of communication regarding these matters and I am disadvantaged by a lack of resources as a direct result of Police actions including a refusal of Police to provide copies of all information they hold about me despite the assurances of the Privacy Commissioner that the information was available for collection. Police have refused to provide the information regarding this so called complaint, the so called investigation of the alleged complaint, or the prosecution of the charge, for the simple reason that the information incriminates the Police and their political associates.
3 This application requests a review of the Police decision to prosecute and to proceed with the prosecution, particularly after receiving legal advice that the charge could never succeed. The context of these actions must be taken into account also - Police should have charged the persons complaining about the alleged Bill Sticking with fraud, theft, making false oaths and declarations and theft of the mail of the Carterton Community Centre Inc, among other things - as confirmed by the numerous letters from senior lawyers - regarding the frauds involving the funds of the Carterton Community Centre and the various 'organisations' acting 'under its umbrella'. Ample evidence to support such prosecutions of fraud and theft of the mail etc have been provided to Police who continue to refuse to provide any information whatsoever regarding any investigation into the formal complaints of fraud, theft of the mail, etc.
4 Police state the following in response to a request as to whether Police received a complaint regarding the alleged Bill Sticking: " . . . with regard to the bill sticking, I can confirm that there was a formal complaint from the Postal Service. However, this was not put to paper and I am not prepared to name the person who complained." What nonsense! If the complaint "was not put to paper" it wasn't a formal complaint! As the accused I have a right to know who made the allegation against me and exactly what it said. I and a number of lawyers made formal complaints in writing to Police against the Postal Service and the people associated with the Community Centre and the District Council regarding the fraud and malfeasance, theft of the mail, assaults, etc, Police refused to accept these complaints or investigate them - while they proceeded with a charge of Bill Sticking in the full knowledge that the charge had been corruptly laid.
The letter continues to justify the laying of criminal charges, despite the context of the matters proving otherwise, like the lawyers letters, and this matter is well documented, which is why I have requested all information Police hold about me, because it is extremely incriminating of the Police, which is why they have refused to provide it to date, despite the Privacy Commissioner telling me it was available for collection Police continue to refuse to provide it to this day.
5 The Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ron Wakelin building and Police knew it, which is why they withdrew the charge on the day of the hearing, after wasting thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money and public resources on a malicious, vindictive, unfounded, politically motivated prosecution. Because like the lawyers said, the charge of Bill Sticking was never going to succeed, it was impossible for it to succeed, and Police abused their power and resources in laying the charge and proceeding with it for so long and failed to give any good reason for the officers involved failing to turn up to Court or for withdrawing the charge on the day of the final hearing. This was a blatant abuse of process and there were a number of abuses of the Court process and abuses of power, and there is clear evidence that this was part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on the part of certain local Police officers and their friends and associates.
6 In addition to this travesty of justice, Police refused to take a complaint of theft of the mail against the Manager of the local Postal Service, Paul Fafieta, after he changed the locks on the Community Centre mail box without lawful authority, thereby preventing the lawful keyholders of the mailbox (myself, the lawfully elected Secretary and Finance Officer) from accessing the mail. In addition to changing the lock without authority the Postal Service manager provided a key to the new lock to the persons who were the subject of the complaints of fraud and malfeasance involving the Community Centre, the District Council and Georgina Beyer. The persons to whom the manager provided the key to the mail box had no lawful authority to access the mail of the Carterton Community Centre and the Police had been provided with evidence of that.
7 Police not only refused to investigate the complaint of theft of the mail, they also refused to investigate a number of other related complaints, including a number of complaints of fraud and malfeasance involving persons associated with the Community Centre, the District Council and dishonourable former MP Georgina Beyer - the fact that Beyer has been unable to get a job since 'her' sudden exit from parliament speaks for itself. The exit from parliament coincided with the widespread release of evidence of Beyer's involvement in these matters.
8 Due to the volume of correspondence regarding these matters, which is an indication in itself of the sheer amount of taxpayers money and public resources that Police have wasted, and the fact that I have no resources to provide numerous copies to the various parties to these proceedings, I would respectfully ask the Court to accept them in the form given, which is in electronic form, by way of a hyperlink to each annexed document refered to in this application.
9 The context of the laying of the charge of Bill Sticking is that after having very little to do with Police for most of my life, I suddenly became the target for certain local Police officers who began harassing me and laying a number of unfounded charges against me which were maliciously laid rather than laid in good faith. Police knew perfectly well that I hadn't committed the alleged crimes most of the time, and the rest of the time, as with the Bill Sticking, they just took a gamble, and treated the matter as if it was - and is - a game. Police have demonstrated prejudice and bias to the degree where it clearly reaches the standard of perverting the course of justice deliberately. The Information laid against me stated that Police had just cause to suspect that I had committed a criminal offence when Police knew that was untrue, and there have been a number of similar instances of this blatant corruption.
In addition to the complaints of theft of the mail, Police received several formal complaints regarding fraud assault, and other criminal malfeasance, such as making false oaths and declarations, etc, involving the persons involved with the Carterton Community Centre and the District Council. Police refused to investigate the complaints made by me or the lawyers who supported me, and instead launched extensive investigations into any and allegations against me - including an allegation of Bill Sticking involving the Ron Wakelin building which had nothing whatsoever to do with "the Postal Service" despite the statements of Police. This is well documented.
It cost me a considerable amount of time and money as a direct result of the charges Police laid against me and I request the Court grant relief, and take into consideration the repeated denials of Police regarding the numerous complaints regarding the matter. I was not charged with affixing a "Bill" to the Post Office building I was charged with allegedly affixing it to the Ron Wakelin building and there was no evidence whatsoever that I affixed any notice anywhere which is why Police failed to turn up to the hearing.
10 Complaints to the Police and IPCA are delayed, denied, defered, and 'disposed of'. The excuses given by Police and IPCA in response to complaints regarding these matters are simply not credible and they are evidence of serious dysfunction and corruption involving local Police officers, and a failure to adequately deal with complaints by Police or the IPCA, or PCA as the organisation was known.
11 Police continue this campaign of persecution against me, and more general dysfunction and outright corruption, to this day, refusing to charge offenders with assaulting me, burglary and theft, etc, recently. I intend to have these matters reviewed further, but this application is for a review of the decision of the Police to charge me with Bill Sticking, review of the various decisions to proceed with the matter, which amounted to abuse of the Court process, abuse of power acting without lawful authority, negligence, and perverting the course of justice deliberately, and the decision of Police, including the officer in charge of the case or the alleged, non existent, complainant or witnesses to not attend Court on the day of the hearing.
12 Among the various correspondence from lawyers to Police and other relevant information are the following:
"I am pleased at the dismissal of the charges against you it is clear that a number of charges should never have been laid." "Never had responses to a lot of things." "It is clear you have been a lightning rod for Police attention" - Ken Daniels
Reveal basis for charges - further evidence of repeated laying of unfounded charges.
"It is clear that these actions were politically motivated" - Michael Appleby
13 After Police refused to accept, acknowledge or investigate a number of formal complaints of serious criminal offending involving local 'elected' officials and public servants, a member of parliament and several persons associated with the local District Council, Police decided instead to lay a complaint against me of Bill Sticking in regard to a notice allegedly stuck to the Ron Wakelin building between certain dates, knowing that there was no evidence whatsoever of any authorised complaint. Furthermore, Police were interfering in civil matters - I was told by the officer in charge of the case that he was arresting me for defamation - until I explained to him that definition is a civil matter. Whereupon Police wrote to me alleging that the notices amounted to "harassment of two individuals" but refused to name the individuals.
14 Further context to the Bill Sticking charge is as follows: On 8 May 2001 a complaint was made to Police by lawyer Mark Hinton of Wollerman Cooke and McClure. On 11 June 2001 Police wrote to my lawyer, Kamil Lakshman, advising that they had established that the complaint of Wollerman Cooke and McClure was unfounded and I had not committed any crime.
15 The wife of the Manager of the Postal Service is none other than Colleen Fafieta, and she has long been emloyed at Wollerman Cooke and McClure, which raises the further issue of a conflict of interest in that regard. Paul and Colleen Fafieta are friends and associates of the persons associated with the Community Centre and the District Council, as are many of the lawyers at Wollerman Cooke and McClure, who were the Community Centre's lawyers, and who should have been taking instruction from me, as the remaining executive member of the committee, holding the lawful positions of Secretary and Finance Officer, not persons who were not even on the committee and who were clearly committing fraud and lying. Several of the Police officers involved in these matters also had conflicts of interest in that they were friends and associates of the alleged complainants and had friendships and relationships with them of many years, which is one of the problems in small communities where some Police officers have conflicts of interests involving their friends and associates which are not managed or addressed and which seriously affect their decision making as is clearly the case regarding these matters.
16 Police alleged I stuck a notice to the Ron Wakelin building, following the illegal takeover of the Carterton Community Centre after I was punched in the face by the chairman of the committee in response to legitimate inquiries into several fraudulent financial transactions involving persons associated with the Centre and with the District Council. These inquiries were the subject of at least two community petitions calling for the books to be audited and several formal complaints to Police by me and several lawyers. Police refused to accept the complaints or record them or investigate the allegations or acknowledge the indisputable evidence. Police wrote a letter claiming that because Georgina Beyer and members of the Carterton District Council had discussed the matters Police believed no offences had been committed - as if Beyer and the Council were above the law somehow.
17 Police were forced to charge the chairman of the committee with assault after staff at the Medical Centre next to the Community Centre, where the assault took place, called Police and confirmed that I had two teeth broken in the assault. Despite this serious injury, Police let the offender off with Police Diversion scheme, after lying to the Court and telling the Court the offender had written an apology - the offender was boasting about the assault and about the fact that Police were going to ensure he got off without even a conviction - while Police charged me with Bill Sticking for calling for a meeting to discuss these matters.
18 Also around this time Police were refusing to charge Mayor Gary McPhee and his associate, a Council employee, for the violent drunken home invasion of a local residence and assault on the occupants and witnesses to the attack. Police also allowed and in fact encouraged McPhee to interfere with witnesses and offer bribes to the victims and thinly veiled threats amounting to blackmail in order to prevent the escalation of the complaints about the attack. Police refused to provide information about this matter and refused to charge the offender, claiming that there had been no complaints, which was and is emphatically refuted by the victims and witnesses including me - I witnessed the attack, I made a formal complaint to Police and I witnessed the other occupants of the flat making formal complaints which Police refused to record.
19 The notice Police finally provided to the Court, the notice for which I was charged with Bill Sticking, advertised a public meeting to discuss the fraud and mismanagement at the Community Centre and to obtain a mandate from the community regarding the illegal takeover of the Centre by the people who had committed the fraud, assault and other offences. Police didn't turn up to Court on the day of the hearing because they knew perfectly well that not only would the charge of Bill Sticking never succeed, but it was very likely that comment would be made by the Judge as to why the Police were charging the Finance Officer and Secretary of the Centre with Bill Sticking for calling a meeting after being assaulted and locked out of the Centre unlawfully after reporting the fraud etc to the Police, instead of charging the people who were committing the assaults, fraud, etc. The evidence of the fraud is clear and indisputable and it is completely unacceptable that no action has been taken regarding this ongoing dysfunction and corruption involving local Police, and it is completely unacceptable that this corrupt campaign to discredit a political candidate by laying false charges against them and protect their favoured politicians by refusing to charge them and making comments to the media infering that the victims of violence are criminals and the perpetrators of the violence are heroes.
20 After lawyer Ken Daniels wrote to Police requesting an apology regarding the matter, Police responded with the attached correspondence, which is an insult to the intelligence. It clearly shows that senior officers continue to be in denial regarding the true facts of the matter, it is not an apology at all - it indicates that the writer continues to be under the delusional belief that if the officers and their witnesses had turned up to Court the charge would have succeeded which is complete and utter rubbish! The Court would have quickly established that the Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ron Wakelin building and that the wife of the manager of the Postal Service was employed by Wollerman Cooke and McClure who were corruptly taking instruction from persons who had no authority to instruct them regarding the affairs of the Centre and who were clearly guilty of fraud involving the Centre's many bank accounts. This correspondence also alludes to the "ongoing animosity between you and other people associated with the Carterton Community Centre." "It was one we very much wanted to prove" "disappointed in the officers concerned" shows a need for urgent review of the Police - prioritising Bill Sticking over allegations of serious fraud involving a member of parliament and persons associated with the local District Council and other persons, fraud involving charity funding and government funding, and at the same time as Police were perfectly happy to grant the man who punched me in the face in response to legitimate enquiries regarding the fraud and smashed two of my teeth - Police Diversion. Very much wanted to prove Bill Sticking, but happy to let a violent bully commit an aggravated assault causing grievous bodily harm get away without conviction. Happy to ignore serious fraud, but very much want to prove a charge of Bill Sticking that never stood any chance of succeeding which was obvious to anyone including the Court.
21 The actions of Police have been politically motivated, as lawyers have previously stated, and the evidence of this is now indisputable. Letters from R Drew and Georgina Beyer are damning and it is in the public interest that these matters are reviewed without further delay.
22 The delays in applying for review are twofold: Firstly the refusal of Police to provide information required in order to accurately formulate the complaints, combined with the campaign of false charges against me, charges laid without foundation or evidence to support them and laid vexatiously and maliciously, charges which are invariably either withdrawn or dismissed, this has occupied a considerable amount of time as I have invariably had to defend myself against these charges. Secondly the refusal of lawyers to assist based on the fact that I can not pay them - I am now unemployed because Police are telling lies to my employers and others in the community, and since the illegal takeover and closure of the Community Centre people who are unemployed can't access resources required to compose legal claims and collate the supporting evidence. The local Community Law Centre manager is extremely unhelpful and lawyers such as Dr Tony Ellis can no longer act for clients who are not in a postition to pay, the decision regarding the matter of the Criminal Bar Association v The Attorney General recognised that changes to legislation have disadvantaged certain persons accessing sufficient legal aid. This has been also exacerbated by systemic failure of public institutions such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Office of the Ombudsmen to deal effectively with these matters. Police are also refusing to do anything about my formal complaints regarding assault and intimidation against me at the address where I formerly lived, and where much of my property remains, including evidence regarding these matters such as the documents attached to this application, which I have only been able to access recently by recovering a computer drive with scanned copies of the evidence on.
23 There was no evidence against me to support a charge of Bill Sticking, there was not even a valid or formal complaint - the Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the building which Police alleged I stuck the notice onto, and Police knew it. Police refuse to accept this despite the indisputable evidence.
24 There was indisputably sufficient evidence to charge the manager of the Postal Service with theft of the mail, and sufficient evidence to charge persons associated with the Carterton Community Centre Inc with fraud and theft, as a number of lawyers have confirmed. Police refuse to accept this despite the indisputable evidence.
25 There was no evidence to support a charge of Bill Sticking against me and there was no valid complaint - the actions of Police are politically motivated and indisputably corrupt.
Police simply ignored these complaints. Here is the blatantly arrogant and corrupt response from the area commander -
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review pursuant to the Judicature Amendment Act 1972
BETWEEN Katherine Raue
Plaintiff
AND NZ Police
First respondent
AND IPCA
Second respondent
________________________________________________________
APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
________________________________________________________
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT
1 In 2003 Police charged me with Bill Sticking, alleging that I had put a notice on the building on High Street Carterton, between Seddon St and Wakelin St, known as the Ron Wakelin building, between certain specified dates, despite the fact that they had received no formal complaint, let alone one from anyone authorised to make one. They proceeded with a prosecution against me knowing that there was no formal complaint from anyone authorised to make one, there were no grounds to charge me, no grounds to proceed with the prosecution, and knowing that it was against the public interest to lay the charge, and knowing that it was in the public interest to lay charges including fraud and theft against the persons complaining about the alleged Bill Sticking. A number of lawyers have written to the Police and IPCA regarding these matters and they have stated and provided evidence to the fact that the actions of Police were politically motivated and corrupt, as well as prejudiced and biased.
I request the Court to review the actions of Police regarding the charge of Bill Sticking, and in the context of the campaign of other unfounded charges, and the Police refusal to investigate the serious allegations made by me and my lawyers regarding Georgina Beyer, the Carterton District Council and the Carterton Community Centre.
There was no formal complaint to Police regarding the bill sticking, and no evidence to support laying the charge. Laying the charge, proceeding with the prosecution and then not turning up to the hearing were all blatant abuses of the Court process as well as me personally.
This application for review is also about the refusal of Police to investigate formal complaints made against the persons who Police allege were the complainants regarding the Bill Sticking charge. Police also unlawfully served me with a trespass notice regarding the Carterton Community Centre in an initial effort to interfere in political and civil matters, for which they were later forced to apologise. These actions were also politically motivated.
Police had a duty to investigate formal complaints regarding the allegations of fraud by the people who complained about the alleged Bill Sticking. These allegations were the subject of the notice which Police allege I stuck onto the building - there was never any evidence whatsoever that I stuck the notice to the building, the actions of Police were politically motivated, as stated by a number of senior lawyers who have been involved in these matters, and Police deliberately attempted to pervert the course of justice. Police had a duty to investigate the allegations of fraud which were the subject of the Bill allegedly stuck to the Wakelin Building, they had no grounds whatsoever to charge me for Bill Sticking and they knew it. There was no evidence to support the charge of Bill Sticking, there is and always was considerable evidence in support of the formal complaints of fraud and theft of the mail etc made by me and others against the persons who complained to Police about the notice calling a public meeting to discuss the fraud at the former Carterton Community Centre, including disgraced former Member of Parliament Georgina Beyer, who was at that time the Patron of the Centre, and who interfered in the Police investigation into these matters in order to avoid prosecution of friends and associates. Beyer and other local body politicians were among those committing the fraud and theft, and these were the people who complained to Police about the Bill Sticking.
2 A local lawyer, Ken Daniels, wrote to Police several times regarding the facts that I had not admitted to committing the 'crime' of Bill Sticking as Police claimed, that the charge should never succeed, that it could never succeed, and that Police had failed to provide proper disclosure to me, including any evidence of a complaint to Police by anyone, or a copy of the notice Police alleged I stuck on the building. Mr Daniels also wrote to Police demanding an apology after the charge was dismissed and making a number of formal complaints, all of which Police either ignored or dismissed without giving any credible reasons for the decisions. There is considerable evidence of a large volume of communication regarding these matters and I am disadvantaged by a lack of resources as a direct result of Police actions including a refusal of Police to provide copies of all information they hold about me despite the assurances of the Privacy Commissioner that the information was available for collection. Police have refused to provide the information regarding this so called complaint, the so called investigation of the alleged complaint, or the prosecution of the charge, for the simple reason that the information incriminates the Police and their political associates.
3 This application requests a review of the Police decision to prosecute and to proceed with the prosecution, particularly after receiving legal advice that the charge could never succeed. The context of these actions must be taken into account also - Police should have charged the persons complaining about the alleged Bill Sticking with fraud, theft, making false oaths and declarations and theft of the mail of the Carterton Community Centre Inc, among other things - as confirmed by the numerous letters from senior lawyers - regarding the frauds involving the funds of the Carterton Community Centre and the various 'organisations' acting 'under its umbrella'. Ample evidence to support such prosecutions of fraud and theft of the mail etc have been provided to Police who continue to refuse to provide any information whatsoever regarding any investigation into the formal complaints of fraud, theft of the mail, etc.
4 Police state the following in response to a request as to whether Police received a complaint regarding the alleged Bill Sticking: " . . . with regard to the bill sticking, I can confirm that there was a formal complaint from the Postal Service. However, this was not put to paper and I am not prepared to name the person who complained." What nonsense! If the complaint "was not put to paper" it wasn't a formal complaint! As the accused I have a right to know who made the allegation against me and exactly what it said. I and a number of lawyers made formal complaints in writing to Police against the Postal Service and the people associated with the Community Centre and the District Council regarding the fraud and malfeasance, theft of the mail, assaults, etc, Police refused to accept these complaints or investigate them - while they proceeded with a charge of Bill Sticking in the full knowledge that the charge had been corruptly laid.
The letter continues to justify the laying of criminal charges, despite the context of the matters proving otherwise, like the lawyers letters, and this matter is well documented, which is why I have requested all information Police hold about me, because it is extremely incriminating of the Police, which is why they have refused to provide it to date, despite the Privacy Commissioner telling me it was available for collection Police continue to refuse to provide it to this day.
5 The Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ron Wakelin building and Police knew it, which is why they withdrew the charge on the day of the hearing, after wasting thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money and public resources on a malicious, vindictive, unfounded, politically motivated prosecution. Because like the lawyers said, the charge of Bill Sticking was never going to succeed, it was impossible for it to succeed, and Police abused their power and resources in laying the charge and proceeding with it for so long and failed to give any good reason for the officers involved failing to turn up to Court or for withdrawing the charge on the day of the final hearing. This was a blatant abuse of process and there were a number of abuses of the Court process and abuses of power, and there is clear evidence that this was part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on the part of certain local Police officers and their friends and associates.
6 In addition to this travesty of justice, Police refused to take a complaint of theft of the mail against the Manager of the local Postal Service, Paul Fafieta, after he changed the locks on the Community Centre mail box without lawful authority, thereby preventing the lawful keyholders of the mailbox (myself, the lawfully elected Secretary and Finance Officer) from accessing the mail. In addition to changing the lock without authority the Postal Service manager provided a key to the new lock to the persons who were the subject of the complaints of fraud and malfeasance involving the Community Centre, the District Council and Georgina Beyer. The persons to whom the manager provided the key to the mail box had no lawful authority to access the mail of the Carterton Community Centre and the Police had been provided with evidence of that.
7 Police not only refused to investigate the complaint of theft of the mail, they also refused to investigate a number of other related complaints, including a number of complaints of fraud and malfeasance involving persons associated with the Community Centre, the District Council and dishonourable former MP Georgina Beyer - the fact that Beyer has been unable to get a job since 'her' sudden exit from parliament speaks for itself. The exit from parliament coincided with the widespread release of evidence of Beyer's involvement in these matters.
8 Due to the volume of correspondence regarding these matters, which is an indication in itself of the sheer amount of taxpayers money and public resources that Police have wasted, and the fact that I have no resources to provide numerous copies to the various parties to these proceedings, I would respectfully ask the Court to accept them in the form given, which is in electronic form, by way of a hyperlink to each annexed document refered to in this application.
9 The context of the laying of the charge of Bill Sticking is that after having very little to do with Police for most of my life, I suddenly became the target for certain local Police officers who began harassing me and laying a number of unfounded charges against me which were maliciously laid rather than laid in good faith. Police knew perfectly well that I hadn't committed the alleged crimes most of the time, and the rest of the time, as with the Bill Sticking, they just took a gamble, and treated the matter as if it was - and is - a game. Police have demonstrated prejudice and bias to the degree where it clearly reaches the standard of perverting the course of justice deliberately. The Information laid against me stated that Police had just cause to suspect that I had committed a criminal offence when Police knew that was untrue, and there have been a number of similar instances of this blatant corruption.
In addition to the complaints of theft of the mail, Police received several formal complaints regarding fraud assault, and other criminal malfeasance, such as making false oaths and declarations, etc, involving the persons involved with the Carterton Community Centre and the District Council. Police refused to investigate the complaints made by me or the lawyers who supported me, and instead launched extensive investigations into any and allegations against me - including an allegation of Bill Sticking involving the Ron Wakelin building which had nothing whatsoever to do with "the Postal Service" despite the statements of Police. This is well documented.
It cost me a considerable amount of time and money as a direct result of the charges Police laid against me and I request the Court grant relief, and take into consideration the repeated denials of Police regarding the numerous complaints regarding the matter. I was not charged with affixing a "Bill" to the Post Office building I was charged with allegedly affixing it to the Ron Wakelin building and there was no evidence whatsoever that I affixed any notice anywhere which is why Police failed to turn up to the hearing.
10 Complaints to the Police and IPCA are delayed, denied, defered, and 'disposed of'. The excuses given by Police and IPCA in response to complaints regarding these matters are simply not credible and they are evidence of serious dysfunction and corruption involving local Police officers, and a failure to adequately deal with complaints by Police or the IPCA, or PCA as the organisation was known.
11 Police continue this campaign of persecution against me, and more general dysfunction and outright corruption, to this day, refusing to charge offenders with assaulting me, burglary and theft, etc, recently. I intend to have these matters reviewed further, but this application is for a review of the decision of the Police to charge me with Bill Sticking, review of the various decisions to proceed with the matter, which amounted to abuse of the Court process, abuse of power acting without lawful authority, negligence, and perverting the course of justice deliberately, and the decision of Police, including the officer in charge of the case or the alleged, non existent, complainant or witnesses to not attend Court on the day of the hearing.
12 Among the various correspondence from lawyers to Police and other relevant information are the following:
"I am pleased at the dismissal of the charges against you it is clear that a number of charges should never have been laid." "Never had responses to a lot of things." "It is clear you have been a lightning rod for Police attention" - Ken Daniels
Reveal basis for charges - further evidence of repeated laying of unfounded charges.
"It is clear that these actions were politically motivated" - Michael Appleby
13 After Police refused to accept, acknowledge or investigate a number of formal complaints of serious criminal offending involving local 'elected' officials and public servants, a member of parliament and several persons associated with the local District Council, Police decided instead to lay a complaint against me of Bill Sticking in regard to a notice allegedly stuck to the Ron Wakelin building between certain dates, knowing that there was no evidence whatsoever of any authorised complaint. Furthermore, Police were interfering in civil matters - I was told by the officer in charge of the case that he was arresting me for defamation - until I explained to him that definition is a civil matter. Whereupon Police wrote to me alleging that the notices amounted to "harassment of two individuals" but refused to name the individuals.
14 Further context to the Bill Sticking charge is as follows: On 8 May 2001 a complaint was made to Police by lawyer Mark Hinton of Wollerman Cooke and McClure. On 11 June 2001 Police wrote to my lawyer, Kamil Lakshman, advising that they had established that the complaint of Wollerman Cooke and McClure was unfounded and I had not committed any crime.
15 The wife of the Manager of the Postal Service is none other than Colleen Fafieta, and she has long been emloyed at Wollerman Cooke and McClure, which raises the further issue of a conflict of interest in that regard. Paul and Colleen Fafieta are friends and associates of the persons associated with the Community Centre and the District Council, as are many of the lawyers at Wollerman Cooke and McClure, who were the Community Centre's lawyers, and who should have been taking instruction from me, as the remaining executive member of the committee, holding the lawful positions of Secretary and Finance Officer, not persons who were not even on the committee and who were clearly committing fraud and lying. Several of the Police officers involved in these matters also had conflicts of interest in that they were friends and associates of the alleged complainants and had friendships and relationships with them of many years, which is one of the problems in small communities where some Police officers have conflicts of interests involving their friends and associates which are not managed or addressed and which seriously affect their decision making as is clearly the case regarding these matters.
16 Police alleged I stuck a notice to the Ron Wakelin building, following the illegal takeover of the Carterton Community Centre after I was punched in the face by the chairman of the committee in response to legitimate inquiries into several fraudulent financial transactions involving persons associated with the Centre and with the District Council. These inquiries were the subject of at least two community petitions calling for the books to be audited and several formal complaints to Police by me and several lawyers. Police refused to accept the complaints or record them or investigate the allegations or acknowledge the indisputable evidence. Police wrote a letter claiming that because Georgina Beyer and members of the Carterton District Council had discussed the matters Police believed no offences had been committed - as if Beyer and the Council were above the law somehow.
17 Police were forced to charge the chairman of the committee with assault after staff at the Medical Centre next to the Community Centre, where the assault took place, called Police and confirmed that I had two teeth broken in the assault. Despite this serious injury, Police let the offender off with Police Diversion scheme, after lying to the Court and telling the Court the offender had written an apology - the offender was boasting about the assault and about the fact that Police were going to ensure he got off without even a conviction - while Police charged me with Bill Sticking for calling for a meeting to discuss these matters.
18 Also around this time Police were refusing to charge Mayor Gary McPhee and his associate, a Council employee, for the violent drunken home invasion of a local residence and assault on the occupants and witnesses to the attack. Police also allowed and in fact encouraged McPhee to interfere with witnesses and offer bribes to the victims and thinly veiled threats amounting to blackmail in order to prevent the escalation of the complaints about the attack. Police refused to provide information about this matter and refused to charge the offender, claiming that there had been no complaints, which was and is emphatically refuted by the victims and witnesses including me - I witnessed the attack, I made a formal complaint to Police and I witnessed the other occupants of the flat making formal complaints which Police refused to record.
19 The notice Police finally provided to the Court, the notice for which I was charged with Bill Sticking, advertised a public meeting to discuss the fraud and mismanagement at the Community Centre and to obtain a mandate from the community regarding the illegal takeover of the Centre by the people who had committed the fraud, assault and other offences. Police didn't turn up to Court on the day of the hearing because they knew perfectly well that not only would the charge of Bill Sticking never succeed, but it was very likely that comment would be made by the Judge as to why the Police were charging the Finance Officer and Secretary of the Centre with Bill Sticking for calling a meeting after being assaulted and locked out of the Centre unlawfully after reporting the fraud etc to the Police, instead of charging the people who were committing the assaults, fraud, etc. The evidence of the fraud is clear and indisputable and it is completely unacceptable that no action has been taken regarding this ongoing dysfunction and corruption involving local Police, and it is completely unacceptable that this corrupt campaign to discredit a political candidate by laying false charges against them and protect their favoured politicians by refusing to charge them and making comments to the media infering that the victims of violence are criminals and the perpetrators of the violence are heroes.
20 After lawyer Ken Daniels wrote to Police requesting an apology regarding the matter, Police responded with the attached correspondence, which is an insult to the intelligence. It clearly shows that senior officers continue to be in denial regarding the true facts of the matter, it is not an apology at all - it indicates that the writer continues to be under the delusional belief that if the officers and their witnesses had turned up to Court the charge would have succeeded which is complete and utter rubbish! The Court would have quickly established that the Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ron Wakelin building and that the wife of the manager of the Postal Service was employed by Wollerman Cooke and McClure who were corruptly taking instruction from persons who had no authority to instruct them regarding the affairs of the Centre and who were clearly guilty of fraud involving the Centre's many bank accounts. This correspondence also alludes to the "ongoing animosity between you and other people associated with the Carterton Community Centre." "It was one we very much wanted to prove" "disappointed in the officers concerned" shows a need for urgent review of the Police - prioritising Bill Sticking over allegations of serious fraud involving a member of parliament and persons associated with the local District Council and other persons, fraud involving charity funding and government funding, and at the same time as Police were perfectly happy to grant the man who punched me in the face in response to legitimate enquiries regarding the fraud and smashed two of my teeth - Police Diversion. Very much wanted to prove Bill Sticking, but happy to let a violent bully commit an aggravated assault causing grievous bodily harm get away without conviction. Happy to ignore serious fraud, but very much want to prove a charge of Bill Sticking that never stood any chance of succeeding which was obvious to anyone including the Court.
21 The actions of Police have been politically motivated, as lawyers have previously stated, and the evidence of this is now indisputable. Letters from R Drew and Georgina Beyer are damning and it is in the public interest that these matters are reviewed without further delay.
22 The delays in applying for review are twofold: Firstly the refusal of Police to provide information required in order to accurately formulate the complaints, combined with the campaign of false charges against me, charges laid without foundation or evidence to support them and laid vexatiously and maliciously, charges which are invariably either withdrawn or dismissed, this has occupied a considerable amount of time as I have invariably had to defend myself against these charges. Secondly the refusal of lawyers to assist based on the fact that I can not pay them - I am now unemployed because Police are telling lies to my employers and others in the community, and since the illegal takeover and closure of the Community Centre people who are unemployed can't access resources required to compose legal claims and collate the supporting evidence. The local Community Law Centre manager is extremely unhelpful and lawyers such as Dr Tony Ellis can no longer act for clients who are not in a postition to pay, the decision regarding the matter of the Criminal Bar Association v The Attorney General recognised that changes to legislation have disadvantaged certain persons accessing sufficient legal aid. This has been also exacerbated by systemic failure of public institutions such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Office of the Ombudsmen to deal effectively with these matters. Police are also refusing to do anything about my formal complaints regarding assault and intimidation against me at the address where I formerly lived, and where much of my property remains, including evidence regarding these matters such as the documents attached to this application, which I have only been able to access recently by recovering a computer drive with scanned copies of the evidence on.
23 There was no evidence against me to support a charge of Bill Sticking, there was not even a valid or formal complaint - the Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the building which Police alleged I stuck the notice onto, and Police knew it. Police refuse to accept this despite the indisputable evidence.
24 There was indisputably sufficient evidence to charge the manager of the Postal Service with theft of the mail, and sufficient evidence to charge persons associated with the Carterton Community Centre Inc with fraud and theft, as a number of lawyers have confirmed. Police refuse to accept this despite the indisputable evidence.
25 There was no evidence to support a charge of Bill Sticking against me and there was no valid complaint - the actions of Police are politically motivated and indisputably corrupt.
Moreton RdR D 2CartertonMasterton Police30 December 2003Dear Sirs,I have been charged with “billsticking” by the Police, and intend defending the charge. At my first Court appearance the duty solicitor asked the Police for full disclosure by Police concerning my case (on my behalf) and I was provided with a few pages. When I got home I realised that there was no copy of the notice I am alleged to have stuck, and no evidence of the complaint Constable Cunningham had referred to, no photocopy from his notebook, etc, so I rang your office to check that I had been provided with everything I was entitled to, and was told that everything had been provided to me.At my second appearance the duty solicitor noted that indeed the disclosure did not appear to be complete, and I rang your office again and went through what had been provided to me page by page over the phone and again was told that was all the material.Mr Ken Daniels, who was the duty solicitor, then wrote to your office asking for the information and you provided additional information, which you had not supplied to me, and had indeed denied the existence of.This is totally unacceptable, please provide me with all the information immediately as you should have done in the first place, and then explain why you didn’t provide it when I first requested it, and why you denied it even existed the second time I requested it.People are entitled to justice whether they have a solicitor or not. Our precious community resources are being wasted with this malicious prosecution and continuing corruption within the Carterton Police and the ineptitude of the Masterton Prosecutions section. I’d like to take this opportunity to remind you that I am still waiting for Mr Feinson to apologise to me and pay reparation for the damage caused when he assaulted me and you let him off with diversion, and lied to me and the Judge.Why don’t you read the legislation properly for once before advising victims to just rise above it and seek reparation in the civil court, because the way I read the Accident Insurance Regulations this course of action would be a waste of time and money (no wonder the Police thought of it).The Carterton Police have also consistently refused to properly investigate serious allegations of fraud, theft, obtaining funds by false pretence, pecuniary gain, forgery utterance, making a false declaration, theft of mail, etc, allegations which are backed up by a large petition and supported by the majority of the community. They have instead chosen to harass me, serve me with illegal trespass notices, investigate blatantly false complaints against me causing extreme humiliation and distress, culminating in this pathetic charge – laid under the Summary Offences Act to ensure I don’t get legal aid to defend it. The whole community is watching the Carterton Police with utter disgust. Oh, apart from John Crawford’s cowardly little group of supporters.I have had no response to letters to the Police of: 8.12.02, 23.7.03, 29.9.03, 21.10.03, 5.11.03 or 6.11.03. Why is this?One of these letters contained a request for the names of the two people who have complained to the Police of harassment by me, and I repeat the request, who are they?I repeat the complaints against John Crawford and the group of people claiming to represent the Carterton Community Centre, complaints of theft and unlawful possession of the property of that incorporated society, and the other complaints against this group which I have previously made, which are supported by a growing petition. The Companies Office confirmed recently that Mr Crawford has less than fifteen supporters while I clearly had the unequivocal support of the community at the last legally held meeting (18 April 01), and I clearly have it still because hundreds of people have now signed the petition calling for a proper inquiry into these serious crimes and the Police are making fools of themselves in our town and it is no wonder there is no respect for the Police in Carterton and people want to burn down the Police station, I note Mr Koers letter printed in the paper recently said “I don’t trust some Police officers” – neither do most people in Carterton that know what’s going on. Encouragingly, more and more are taking an interest all the time.Yours sincerely,Kate Raue.
26 August 2004
Dear Sir
Re: Katherine Raue
There have been numerous items of correspondence written between Kate Raue and yourself and correspondence with the Police Complaints Authority over a number of issues that she has raised in recent times.
I must confess that I have not given what I believe was sufficient attention to some of the matters that Kate Raue had raised with me in the past mainly I suspect because the matters appeared to be far too complex and involved and I tended not to see any relevance in some of the complaints that she was making.
On a recent visit to me however and after spending some time looking at documentary evidence that she showed me, I largely changed my view and believe that there genuinely are matters of concern that do need to be investigated.
I have not got to the bottom of all the matters Kate Raue complains about but there is one instance that does seem to suggest that there has been fraud at the Carterton Community Centre which has diverted funds designed for one purpose deliberately to another.
I enclose with this letter a copy of the accounts which appear to represent income and expenditure from the Carterton Community Centre for the financial year 01 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 as they related to the Community Gardens. You will notice how in the income received, there was a sum of $9,000 received from the Tindall Foundation. It is assumed that this money was received following an application for a grant from that Charitable Foundation. The monies would have been requested and received for purposes relating to the Community Gardens in Carterton. The sum of $9,000 was received in April of 2000.
The following month in May there was a payment of $6,000.00 paid from the Community Gardens account for a personal grievance payment. The information that apparently exists although I have not personally seen it is that there were insufficient funds to pay a personal grievance from the Community Gardens and the funding that was obtained from the Tindall Foundation was immediately paid out as at least part payment on that personal grievance. The payment apparently could not be made at an earlier stage and the fundng received from Tindall Foundation was a necessary receipt to enable the payment to be made to settle the personal grievance.
If the above set of circumstances is accurate then there is no doubt whatsoever that there was a fraudulent use of the monies received from the Tindall Foundation. There had been no budgeted allowance made for personal grievances. This can be seen from the budget column in the expenditure part of the accounts where an amount of only $220 was allowed for the twelve months involved. A payment of $6000 was needed and this was paid directly from the charitable donation.
I believe that the affairs of the Carterton Community Centre are in disarray. There is currently an application before the High Court to have them wound up because of insufficient numbers. There are numerous other complaints as well about the way in which members of the public including members were excluded from meetings etc. This letter does not purport to address all those issues but I am deeply concerned after having seen the information supplied to me by Kate Raue that monies received for one purpose be used for an incorrect purpose.
I have been advised that a similar improper payment may have been made in respect of the account that was run for the disadvantaged members of the community. This apparently exists under the copy of the account also enclosed which is headed up VOSP 2000 – 2001. You will see also that there is a “miscellaneous” payment of $1,000.00 made in September of 2000 following receipt of a substantial amount fromWINZ funding. It is understood that this also was a payment to an individual who claimed to have a personal grievance.
I am not an accountant (as will be obvious) but I believe there are sufficient genuine concerns raised here to warrant some investigation. These are community funds which were largely received from charitable donations which appear to have been siphoned off improperly.
I should add that according to Kate Raue there was possibly legal advice given to the people running the Carterton Community Centre that they should not make personal greivance payments in the way that they did. This is another matter that may need to be looked into because it would make the payments even less appropriate if they were done contrary to legal advice.
I appreciate the fact that earlier complaints may have been thought to be ill-founded or frivolous or for whatever reason were not properly investigated but I believe that there actually does exist hard evidence to suggest that a reopening of the investigation should be made with urgency. As I have said the Community Centre and its funds are currently subject to a High Court Application.
If it is more convenient for you to do so I would be happy to act as a go-between between yourselves and Kate Raue so that I can request further details from her.
Are you able to assist with what I believe is now a genuine complaint?
Yours faithfully
Ken Daniels
Police simply ignored these complaints. Here is the blatantly arrogant and corrupt response from the area commander -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)