"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

Until we have legislation adopted into law to ensure fiduciary accountability and transparency in public affairs we will continue to have human rights breached because the existing crown immunity and lack of any independent oversight invites corruption to flourish.

"Question authority, and think for yourself" - Timothy Leary

"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

"Information is the currency of democracy" - Thomas Jefferson

‎"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - Margaret Mead

"The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself."

"I = m c 2 [squared] where "I" am information" - Timothy Leary

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen

"The internet is a TV that watches you"

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Lawyers - setting the price of justice, for those who can afford it:

Following the receipt of this Minute from the Human Rights Review Tribunal in April Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent have repeatedly attempted to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue with lawyers John Gwilliam and Nathan Bourke, to no avail.

Of particular interest, and the cause of considerable offence to Mr Mihaka, is the statement "There is a real possibility Mr Mihaka is confused."

It is clear that Mr Mihaka is not confused; Mr Dickie is confused.  NZ Police and the Courts seem to be also confused.

Two week ago we emailed lawyers Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke thus:
Tena korua,
As discussed with you both previously, Dun urgently needs assistance with the proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and apparently hasn't received any response from Nathan Bourke.  His evidence is required to be filed in HRRT and is overdue.  Dun feels that in addition to HNZC discriminating against him, NZ Police have also discriminated against him, and also the Courts, and there is strong evidence to support this.  Attached is page 2 of the Minute of the HRRT dated 8 April regarding the question of whether Mr Gwilliam or Mr Bourke is going to represent Mr Mihaka. 

Many people believe that the issue of the major discrepancies in Warren Dickie's evidence - which were apparently not even mentioned at either appeal - warrant further scrutiny because it is clear that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and Dun did not receive a fair trial, as happens to other Maori every day in Courts throughout the country.

Neither Nathan Bourke's file or Brett Crowley's contained the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 June 2014, and neither Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley apparently noticed that the Summary of Facts was in direct contradiction to the evidence that Mr Dickie gave in Court.  These serious discrepancies were not addressed at either appeal, not even sighted by Mr Mihaka or his lawyers until very recently, and were vitally relevant to the matter of Mr Dickie's credibility. 
Now that we have received a copy of Mr Dickie's original statement to Police it is clear that his evidence is inconsistent to the point of being totally contradictory and simply not credible, and that there is relevant and important evidence which has not been addressed by any of the Courts at which the matter has been filed.  It seems that the reason these discrepancies were not brought to the attention of the High Court or the Court of Appeal is that none of the lawyers involved asked Mr Mihaka if he'd ever received Disclosure and if so where it was - the statement the complainant gave to Police and the Summary of Facts are in total contradiction to the evidence given by the complainant on oath and it is unbelievable that this was never brought to the attention of the Court - it is vitally relevant to the credibility of the complainant and it is insulting and abusive that Mr Mihaka continues to be labelled "confused" when it is perfectly clear and absolutely indisputable that the complainant, HCNZ, NZ Police and the Courts are confused!
Mr Dickie's statement to Police is at this link.  It states that the alleged assault occurred around nine or nine thirty at night, as he was getting ready to go to bed, and that Mr Dickie applied unwanted physical force to Mr Mihaka as Mr Mihaka was asleep.  Page 3 of this statement in particular warrants further scrutiny - several aspects of it are in direct contradiction to Mr Dickie's evidence on oath, Mr Dickie would more than likely have been unable to see whether or not one or both of Mr Mihaka's hands were on his throat due to human anatomical vision capabilities for one thing,

The NZ Police Summary of Facts (sic) likewise claims that the alleged incident occurred at around nine to nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was asleep:

- Furthermore, the allegation refers to Mr Mihaka as "Nathan Mihaka" a name he has always rejected and stated that he finds offensive in the extreme, and he believes that Police continue to refer to him by this name deliberately in order to cause ongoing offence - and there is clear and indisputable evidence of this.

- And note how the Police display bias - they ignore the fact that Mr Dickie "tapped him on the shoulder" while Mr Mihaka was asleep - stated in the statement to Police by Mr Dickie but omitted from the Summary of "Facts" (sic).

Now here is the evidence Mr Dickie gave on oath regarding the time this alleged incident occurred - a completely and utterly different version of events - events he now alleges happened "in the morning, when I got up around 7:30 or thereabouts . . . when I . . . turned the jug on to make a cup of coffee":

There is also clear evidence of exaggeration and embellishment on Mr Dickie's part - first Mr Dickie claims that Mr Mihaka applied force to him for "thirty seconds to one minute" and then doubles this for effect to "one to two minutes".  When asked what happened immediately afterwards Mr Dickie states he can't remember.  This memory failing is a repeated refrain in the evidence given in Court by Mr Dickie - it is clear that Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka, and the fact that Mr Dickie claims to have twice applied force to Mr Mihaka once allegedly at 7 - 7:30 in the morning and again at 9 - 9:30 at night, and is clearly so confused about things that he doesn't know when the incident took place let alone if it took place, clearly establishes REASONABLE DOUBT!

Police should have realised that Mr Dickie was not a reliable witness but they simply arrested Mr Mihaka the minute he opened his door when they knocked, demonstrating the usual politically and racially motivated bias.  The email to the lawyers continues thus:
Mr Mihaka has received disrespectful messages from Mr Bourke in the past, some of these messages indicate a clear refusal to accept reasonable instructions from Mr Mihaka, Mr Mihaka was under the impression that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, which is also what Mr Bourke told me, which is in contradiction to the bill Mr Mihaka has received for Mr Bourke's services; notwithstanding that, Mr Mihaka wishes Mr Bourke to finish the proceedings he started in the HRRT and has instructed Mr Bourke to do that.

We also reject the opinion that there is nothing Mr Mihaka can now do to challenge the unjust decision to convict him of assaulting Mr Dickie and formally instruct you to apply for a recall of the decision of France J on the grounds that the Courts failed to address the major discrepancies and factual errors referred to in the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 July, the prosecution Summary of Facts, and the evidence given on oath by the complainant.  To spell it out:  Mr Dickie's statement to Police (which Judges wrongly stated was made the day after the alleged assault) and the Summary of Facts (sic) both allege that the 'incident' occurred at around nine or nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was already asleep.

The complainant's evidence in Court was that the assault happened at around seven thirty in the morning after Mr Dickie got up and made coffee and Mr Mihaka was still asleep - NOT at night when Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed - the exact opposite of what he told Police in fact. 

Clearly Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka!  The only "fact" regarding an assault which is agreed is that Mr Dickie applied force deliberately to Mr Mihaka while Mr Mihaka was asleep.
Then there is the issue of the utterly non factual "information sharing" between NZ Police and Housing New Zealand Corporation and the defamatory allegations that Mr Mihaka "uses methamphetamine" and is a "serious cannabis smoker" and lives in a suspected "P house"!  Not to mention the equally untrue allegation made by HNZC ( - when considering whether to evict Mr Mihaka) that Mr Mihaka actually ADMITTED assaulting Mr Dickie - Mr Mihaka has always strenuously DENIED the allegation!
It seems that the relationship between Mr Bourke and Mr Mihaka broke down due to communication issues and misunderstandings.  Mr Mihaka and I have done all we can to facilitate the resolution of these matters and facilitate meaningful and constructive communication.  We note that Meredith Connell and Mr Gwiliam have been in communication and would appreciate it if Mr Gwilliam would ask Mr Bourke why he has failed to even respond to our messages and schedule an appointment as soon as possible to meet with Mr Mihaka and I as soon as possible, as Mr Bourke has failed to even respond to Mr Mihaka's messages and instructions, and we wish to discuss the issue of his bill, and the fact that he told Mr Mihaka and I that he was acting pro bono.
Mr Mihaka says that he gave Mr Bourke a copy of the book Whakapohane for the specific and explicit purpose of Mr Bourke understanding the legal basis for Mr Mihaka's clear and explicit instructions to Mr Bourke, and the relevance of Mr Mihaka's history of constructive and meaningful peaceful protest and political activism, the relevance of the so called "flag debate" and the fact that over $26,000,000 was apparently spent ignoring the fact that despite the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, John Key completely ignored the fact that OUR flag, Te Kara o Te Whakaputanga, Te Hakituatahi, has never been decommissioned, we have TWO official languages, and TWO official flags, and Maori are being oppressed and treated with bias and prejudice - directly related to the credibility of Mr Dickie and the credibility of Mr Mihaka and the allegations of drug use and criminality.  Mr Mihaka also explained to Mr Bourke the relevance of the book to the dialogue between him and Mr Dickie leading up to the alleged incident.  Mr Mihaka feels that if Mr Bourke is not going to accept his instruction or even bother communication with us any further regarding these matters, especially when the evidence is so indisputable and the course of action is clearly to apply for a recall of France J's judgment on the grounds that the discrepancies were never addressed and they are directly relevant to the issue of credibility and they were not addressed because the duty solicitor never passed on the Disclosure to anyone, Mr Mihaka would like the book returned as soon as possible please.  If none of the lawyers involved are going to apply for the recall of the judgment I will, and I need the book to do that.  Mr Bourke's messages to Mr Mihaka are unquestionably disrespectful and inappropriate (he refers to me as a crazy person in one of them), rather than make a formal complaint about this Mr Mihaka would prefer to meet face to face with me, Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to discuss the matter of the HRRT proceedings and the recall of France J's decision, which is more than reasonable in my humble opinion.

Mr Mihaka reiterates his instruction to Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to assist him with the proceedings in the HRRT - the matter is urgent, the date Mr Mihaka's evidence was due to be in has passed and HNZC and NZ Police continue to obfuscate and delay providing vital information such as which Police officer told HNZC the untrue allegations about Mr Mihaka, and what exactly "iwi liaison officer" Michael Tahere told HNZC, who told HNZC that Mr Mihaka admitted the allegations, HNZC continue to aggressively assert - via their tax payer funded lawyers, Meredith Connell, who Mr Gwilliam has been in communication regarding these matters - that HNZC don't need a reason to evict Mr Mihaka while the HRRT ironically accuses Mr Mihaka and I of being "disingenuous" and displaying "a degree of artificiality" in our communications - is is clear that the reason for the eviction was the ALLEGED assault and the false allegations of Police and Mr Dickie!  There is a significant degree of artificiality in the evidence against Mr Mihaka and the manner in which he has been treated by NZ Police and the colonial Police/Crown Court legal system which Maori have been unlawfully subjected to since the days of the armed constabulary storming Parihaka, and the numerous ways the Crown have discriminated against Maori and denigrated their credibility and mana since their arrival on these shores - all Mr Mihaka asks is a FAIR hearing and the right to have these serious discrepancies in the case for the prosecution, this NEW EVIDENCE, addressed by the Court, because the alleged assault is CLEARLY the reason for the eviction despite the disingenuous and artificial arguments to the contrary from Meredith Connell and HNZC - who refuse to name the Police officer who told them Mr Mihaka uses methamphetamine and lives in a P house, which no doubt influenced their decisions to instigate the action and continue with it in the face of the evidence that it was unsafe, unsound and unjust to do so.

Mr Mihaka clearly needs a lawyer to explain to the Court and Tribunal what "reasonable doubt" is, this is clearly a very serious miscarriage of justice and Mr Mihaka needs a lawyer to assist him properly, and URGENTLY.  Clearly if Mr Mihaka had been in possession of the information that has come to light recently he would have called witnesses, and cross examined witnesses, far more effectively - despite the fact that he should have had a lawyer or at least an amicus, Mr Mihaka was clearly disadvantaged by the fact that despite being a self represented defendant conducting his own defence in his native language, the very sensible suggestion of Judge Hastings that an amicus be appointed was completely ignored by Judge Kelly, and this clearly caused significant disadvantage and prejudice to Mr Mihaka - if he had been in possession of the information he was entitled to under the Criminal Disclosure Act he would have been able to defend himself effectively - this is NOT justice and Maori did NOT sign up to this form of oppressive and unjust "governance"!  Mr Bourke has a fiduciary duty to Mr Mihaka, and to the Court and the HRRT, and we insist that he fulfill this duty under the supervision of Mr Gwilliam.

There is also the matter of Police abandoning Mr Mihaka in the middle of the National Park recently, overnight on a narrow and dangerous road verge in freezing cold conditions, without a working phone or any ability to heat his car.  This is further evidence of the outrageous harassment of Mr Mihaka by NZ Police - and their CONSCIOUS bias against Maori, and unreasonable, prejudiced and biased treatment of him by certain Police officers.  Despite Mr Mihaka complying with compliance conditions Police continue to enforce $800 worth of fines after forcing him to spend the night in freezing conditions - this is outrageous and we request assistance to deal with this latest injustice.  Attached are two recent letters from Mr Mihaka's doctors regarding these matters, Mr Mihaka currently has no means of transport and it appears that WINZ have unjustly refused his application for assistance with this, his doctor has written two letters about this unacceptable situation, and we request assistance URGENTLY regarding these matters. 

I can be contacted on 021 04 818 93 but can NOT access voice messages reliably at the moment, and by email, we look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible regarding these matters as Mr Mihaka's evidence is now overdue and Police are still not providing the information he is entitled to - attached also is page 4 of 5 of the complainant's statement - Mr Mihaka is entitled to an unredacted copy of this under the Criminal Disclosures Act, Police know this, and it is ridiculous that Mr Mihaka is forced to write endless letters about these matters just to get what he should have been given before he was tried in the Court!  Mr Dickie's statement is attached, as are two relevant pages of the transcript of evidence, and it can be clearly seen that while Police and Housing Corp are alleging Mr Mihaka is a "serious cannabis smoker" there is a very serious, significant and absolutely indisputably relevant discrepancy between what Mr Dickie told Police happened and what Mr Dickie then said in Court, and it is clearly Mr Dickie who is confused!  Despite Mr Mihaka's ALLEGED actions being described as "inexplicable" by France J - reinforcing the complete lack of any elements such as mens rea or even actus reus - what is inexplicable is why Mr Dickie felt the need to apply physical force to Mr Mihaka when Mr Mihaka was asleep - TWICE if we are to believe both the statement to Police and the evidence given in Court.  The use of the word "inexplicable" by France J is extremely apt - Mr Dickie's allegations do not stand up to scrutiny and his memory is clearly confused and selectively vacant.  Mr Mihaka attempted to explain to Judge Kelly exactly what he and Mr Dickie were talking about in order to enlighten the Court to the background of the allegation and was repeatedly shut down - the subject of the conversation was vitally relevant and it is unacceptable that Mr Bourke also shut Mr Mihaka down and refused to raise that issue and others as instructed, we insist that he do so without further delay and explain why Mr Mihaka is forced to pay his bill as well as Mr Crowley's when we were under the clear apprehension that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, and it is clear that the matter of the conflicting evidence given by Mr Dickie and the elements of credibility and reasonable doubt were not addressed.  

Mr Mihaka's letter to the Supreme Court clearly states his views regarding his legal representation and they do not preclude or prevent Mr Bourke recommencing his action in the HRRT or any of the other requested courses of action.  As Mr Mihaka states it is Mr Crowley who he holds mostly responsible for the oversight of the lack of provision of the Disclosure etc.  There is evidence that the Disclosure was given to the Duty Solicitor and that it was never given to Mr Mihaka or Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley - and now Police are withholding and redacting the last four lines of it when they finally DO provide it - after considerable delay.  It is also clear that the response from the NZ Police to Mr Bourke's letter (attached) regarding the defamatory allegations of HNZC regarding information allegedly received from NZ Police regarding Mr Mihaka is completely unacceptable, and this also needs to be followed up by Mr Bourke.  HNZC need to correct the information recorded by Karaka Tuhakaraina in the email to Kathy Furfie, which clearly formed part of the basis for decision making regarding the eviction - Mr Mihaka has NEVER EVER admitted assaulting Mr Dickie - MR DICKIE HAS ADMITTED TWICE APPLYING UNWANTED PHYSICAL FORCE TO MR MIHAKA - WHILE HE WAS ASLEEP.
A serious miscarriage of justice has occurred and is being compounded on a daily basis, attached are two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor regarding the situation currently impacting on him due to unjust decisions of a Crown governance system which has been imposed unlawfully on tangata whenua, and continues to discriminate, oppress, incarcerate and kill a growing number of Maori every year, every day, in Crown Courts and Tribunals throughout the country, Mr Mihaka's situation requires addressing urgently and I believe that you have a duty to him - and also to the Court and the HRRT, to assist him with these issues.  He was left overnight in the freezing cold on the side of the road over a very minor administrative matter that another officer had given him compliance for due to the trivial nature of the "infringement" and now he is expected to pay $800 - that is NOT justice that is DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE and BIAS against Mr Mihaka and there is strong evidence to suggest that these actions are politically motivated.  Personally I feel discriminated against by Mr Bourke referring to me as "some crazy person" - this is completely unacceptable.  I'm not crazy, Mr Mihaka is not "confused", a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, there is evidence which has not been considered by the Courts, because it has not been available to Mihaka, who was lawfully entitled to the information, and to a fair trial.
Nga mihi,
Katherine Raue
for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka
Attached to this email were seven documents:  Two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor, one to Work and Income supporting Mr Mihaka's request for assistance with some minor repairs to his car which he requires to get to his medical appointments, etc, and the other to whom it may concern regarding the actions of Police in leaving Mr Mihaka on the side of the road all night at National Park for a trivial "infringement".  Also attached were Mr Dickie's statement to Police, the Summary of Facts, two pages of the Court transcript regarding Mr Dickie's conflicting evidence, the correspondence between lawyer Nathan Bourke and Police regarding the defamatory allegations contained in the claim by HNZC regarding information received from Police regarding Mr Mihaka's alleged drug use, and one page of the Minute from the Chairman of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding the question of which lawyer is going to represent Mr Mihaka. 

It seems that none of them are.  It seems that there's one law for some and another law for others, particularly those more privileged. 

Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka demonstrating the correct way to bow to the Crown

A haka boogie exponent tries unsuccessfully to emulate Mr Mihaka's historic statement

Monday, February 29, 2016

Update on formal complaints, application for judicial review etc:

Tena koutou, emails recently received from the Far North District Council provide further information, but not much.  Still incredibly vague and inadequate:

18 February 2016

Tena koe Katherine,

Further to my last message concerning 4 outstanding items of information, Mr Batchelor has recently met with Council staff and agreed to try and find the Public Liability insurance policy for you. I have some details of the road repair in 2013 and attach a plan showing the position of road repair, a photo showing the damaged road prior to repair, and retaining wall then constructed on the seaward side of the road.

I have reminded monitoring staff that I still need to hear from them about the possible marine pollution.


Detlef Davies
Local Government Lawyer
Far North District Council
18 February 2016
Tena koe Detlaf,

Thank you for this information.

1.  Has Mr Batchelor provided any of the information requested in the letters to him from the FNDC - there have been several letters, and several deadlines, the last being the 23rd December, and the information requests differed in each of the letters.

2.  Has Mr Batchelor provided ALL the information requested in the letters from FNDC.  On 6 January 2016 FNDC confirmed that NONE of this information had been provided, we've received none of it, so assume it hasn't - where is it?

3.  What enforcement action has been taken against Mr Batchelor regarding his ongoing and contemptuous refusals to provide any of this information?  What action has Far North DIstrict Council taken with regard to prosecuting Julian Batchelor for this ongoing contempt?  I insist that a prosecution is initiated without further delay!

3.  I requested all information regarding monitoring and enforcement, all correspondence with Mr Batchelor - none of this has been provided - have there been any enforcement penalties applied apart from the abatement notice whatsoever?  Would you please provide a schedule of all payments received by FNDC from Julian Batchelor regarding this property.

4.  The road was repaired in 2015.  This was widely witnessed.  Clearly staff need to look harder for this information, as they do regarding the insurance policy.  I understand your email as indicating that you intend to provide further information regarding the 2013 road repairs, please reiterate with staff involved in locating this information that these requests are urgent, and overdue and we require all the information about the repairs in 2013 and 2015 please.

5.  Due to previous communications destroying any illusion of good faith bargaining on behalf of some of Council's staff and Mr Batchelor, would you please obtain a full copy of the insurance policy from him - not just the policy number and the name of the provider and reiterate that this request is URGENT.

6.  There are a number of other outstanding issues, but in the interests of expediency regarding the priorities outlined above I will follow those up with you shortly.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Katherine Raue

29 February 2016
Tena koe Katherine,

Further to earlier correspondence, we understand that Julian Batchelor will contact us as soon as he has located the Public Liability Insurance Policy.

Information so far received about the road work carried out in 2015 consists of a long list of jobs done in Rawhiti Road between 2012 and 2015. I have separated the items for 2015 and attach the list on which the items in red are those which were within 200 metres of no. 147. I expect that the event in which you are most interested is the one on 23rd November 2015 relating to landslip but please confirm this. Please also advise specifically what detail you would like to know about this event and I will refer back to Roading.

As regards the possible effect of materials being washed into the sea, I am advised by Sam in Monitoring that the situation is ongoing and no conclusions have been drawn so far. He mentions that NRC have been involved in the discussion concerning erosion and sediment issues sorted out at no. 147. We can confirm that 2 recent meetings with officers in Kerikeri on building matters and on planning consents were productive and it is expected that Mr Batchelor will co-operate with the requirements of Council.

On the question of possible sea pollution, since this information will take more time, Council is exercising its right to extend the time for complying with this request for a further 14 days from the current expiry date which is tomorrow, until Tuesday 15th March 2016. This extension is made under section 14 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. You have the right to complain to the Ombudsman about this extension but the reasons for its request is that information on this particular question is not yet available. This extension also applies to the production of Mr Batchelor’s insurance policy if he manages to find it.

Finally please note that I will be away from tomorrow for 3 weeks so the file will be passed back to Alice Astell to handle during that period; please write to her on alice.astell@fndc.govt.nz.


Detlef  Davies
Local Government Lawyer
Far North District Council

"I am advised by Sam in Monitoring that the situation is ongoing and no conclusions have been drawn so far. He mentions that NRC have been involved in the discussion concerning erosion and sediment issues sorted out at no. 147. We can confirm that 2 recent meetings with officers in Kerikeri on building matters and on planning consents were productive and it is expected that Mr Batchelor will co-operate with the requirements of Council.

On the question of possible sea pollution, since this information will take more time, Council is exercising its right to extend the time for complying with this request. 
This extension also applies to the production of Mr Batchelor’s insurance policy if he manages to find it
This is an insult to ratepayers, to taxpayers, and to tangata whenua in particular.  Ngapuhi didn't sign up to this and we expect the Crown to take action against Julian Batchelor, who is not tangata whenua and has not consulted at all with tangata whenua, not fob us off with excuses like this.  The erosion and sediment issues are not "sorted out" and that would appear to be an outright lie or strong evidence of a delusional disorder.  There is certainly no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the issues have been "sorted out".

The complaints to the Ombudsmen, and others including Kelvin Davis and other members of parliament, are in the process of being escalated and an application for judicial review is being filed without further delay.

Further information regarding this matter can be found at this link.

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Foul, Fiendish, Cruel and Brutal Crime - A Wicked Whangarei Wife-slayer:

Maori spiritual beliefs have always been very important to tangata whenua.  Particularly with regard to our waahi tapu, spiritual places, urupa, burial grounds where our tupuna rest and other sacred and historic sites.  It is therefore deeply, deeply offensive to discover the evidence of the history of the house which Julian Batchelor currently occupies at Rawhiti and which is the site of Mr Batchelor's unconsented works and breaches of the local bylaws.

A woman was murdered in this house by her husband, in front of her children, in a particularly sad, and vicious, attack.

The plot thickens however - the murderous husband pleaded not guilty of bashing his wife five or six times in the back of the head with an axe, embedding it about six inches in her skull, in front of the witnesses, because his wife wouldn't give him money.  The murderer's favorite son, 13 year old Herbert, witnessed the gruesome deed, before his father shouted "Goodbye" and rushed out the door.

Daniel Hammon was arrested a short time later after being located hiding in a pile of timber on the docks.  When he was taken into custody and searched, evidence came to light showing that the marriage was not a happy one.  Life must have been very difficult for women in days gone by and Mrs Hammon was not alone in finding it hard to feed her children.  The evidence was in the form of a letter from a Whangarei legal firm representing Mary Hammon, which requested that Mr Hammon make some effort to maintain his struggling wife and dependent children, urging him to agree to a separation, and requesting him to refrain from molesting his wife.  Mr Hammon had been sleeping in a tent with his son Herbert, while Mrs Hammon shared a room with a woman who boarded at the Huimai Boarding House, the scene of the crimes - past and present.

It seems that the family had previously owned a farm, that they all had worked very hard on the farm, the children being referred to as "little farm slaves", but that after becoming unwell, Mr Hammon had "become mentally afflicted."

Justice Cooper presided over the jury trial.

"The evidence of Doctor Duke, who it will be remembered figured in the Court some time back as the Defendant in a suit for slander, brought against him by a woman from Paparoa, and in which the Doctor, who conducted his own case, was hit for damages, was to the effect that Hammon suffered from a disease which most lunatics have.

The disease was obstruction of the circulation, the effect of which was to produce melancholia, irritation and mania.  What Hammon had done was what might have been expected.

Then the Doctor went on to explain at length how Hammon had had an explosion of nerve force - which no doubt is the "brain storm" which played such a prominent part in the Thaw case.

It was brought out in evidence that Hammon's father was a drunkard and that he had a sister who was insane,that he had brothers who were mentally deficient, and Doctor Duke went on to say that the families of the insane and epileptic stock, the stock of drunkards, were all liable to this Obstruction of the Circulation.

Doctor Dukes explained that he had studied at the Bedlam Asylum for three months and that that was 15 or 20 years ago."

"After questioning the Doctor for some time, the learned Crown prosecutor broke new ground when he questioned in the following manner - and as if things weren't bad enough, here's where it gets even more sordid -

The Crown Prosecutor:  I suggest to you that you are hardly in a position to give an unbiased professional opinion.  Hah!
Did you write to the prisoner two days after he committed this rash act?

Witness:  Yes.

The Crown Prosecutor:  I think this is the letter you wrote him (reading the letter) -
     "Dear Mr Hammon, May I express my sympathy with you in the sad position your rash act has placed you.  I know what you had for years to put up with. I know you had much patience and affection for your wife.  She was not altogether to be blamed.  It was Mr Smith before her - "

Witness ( - hastily interrupting) -
    "Mr Smith, what is that - "

The Crown Prosecutor:  "Your writing is like mine - difficult to read"

Witness:  "LET ME READ IT!"

The Crown Prosecutor: (continued)
    "It was your health bothering her, but if you had been a bigger man, and beaten her into submission at first you would have had more peace and more respect from your wife.  Will you tell your lawyer that perhaps I could help him.  But don't say to anyone that I offered to, it would do me a lot of harm.  Let your lawyer ask me as a medical attendant and I will write and tell him what I could say.  That is, if you care to cling to life, for really there is little to live for if a man be unhappily married, and I am sure you need not fear to meet your judge.  He will understand the temptations and trials of this wicked world.  Man is born to sorrow here and no wonder if sometimes he loses his head.  Kind regards, Yours sincerely, E. S. Dukes."
"I think you can hardly give an unbiased opinion."

After a bit more argy bargy the Judge intervened and desired to know how it came about that the letter was in the possession of the Crown.  Which was a jolly good point.

The Crown Prosecutor explained that the prisoner had received the letter from the gaoler, and after reading it, had handed it back to the gaoler.  Who presumably supplied it to the Crown Prosecutor . . .

"A VERY INSANE THING TO DO!" according to Doctor Dukes.

Perhaps the liveliest moment of the trial was when lawyer Skelton briefly cross examined another expert witness, alluding to the fact that he had apparently released a man from psychiatric care who went on to commit some terrible crime after he drank alcohol after the expert witness told him not too - this witness was of the opinion that Hammon was sane when he murdered his wife and that he intended to harm her.

The accused was found guilty, recommended to mercy, and sentenced to death.

This is interesting.  Seven years previously, in Wellington, the same Judge adjusted the black cap, and passed sentence of death on Claude Paget, found guilty of the murder or a young girl in Ingestre Street, Wellington.  In that case, however, the Executive of the day commuted the death sentence to one of life imprisonment.

The defence case in that matter, although ably raised though it failed, was the defence of insanity.  (Daniel Hammon apparently defended himself on the same premise with the 'assistance' of Dr Dukes).  At that time lawyer Tom Wilford was able to use with every advantage the remarkable, interesting, and weirdly strange evidence the alienists, who is America a short time prior had endeavoured, and eventually with some success, to support the plea of insanity for the notorious millonaire murderer Harry Thaw.  Following this His Honour was said to be deeply interested in the "mysteries of the mind", indicating that the Hammon trial must have been of great interest to him.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Most pitiful excuses ever - Far North District Council Legal Excuses Officer gobbles up ratepayers money to come up with this?

To FNDC, Ombudsmen, Ministers of the crown, etc, 1 Feb 2016:

The document provided to me seven days ago, 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 - seven days ago I specifically requested that you provide - 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.

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 relating to this property including the application for the original retaining wall and the application to put the house on the land, all evidence relating to plumbing, drainage, all information FNDC hold regarding 147 Rawhiti Road.  The information request is an ongoing one and requires the provision of all information acquired or created as and when it is acquired or created, including all updates on the situation and what FNDC is doing regarding the recent pollution of the sea.  There has been no substantial acknowledgement or response regarding these complaints and this is unacceptable.  This is a formal complaint regarding your decision to withhold information and the actions and decisions of the Far North District Council in regard to applications, consents, complaints, including the refusal to act in regard to concerns raised months ago by the Hapu Resource Consent Unit Officer, refusal to respond to requests for information and undue delay in providing the information requested, etc, at 147 Rawhiti Road.

Please provide this information without further delay.
Katherine RaueTe Komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua


Behold, the response, received this afternoon:

Tena koe Ms Raue,
Thank you for your email, the contents of which I note.

Regarding your query concerning the copy of the Licence application that I sent to you on 26 January. I received your email on Thursday 28 January and with the statutory holiday (Northland Anniversary Day on Monday 1 February) this is the first opportunity I have had to respond to you. The copy of the plan I emailed to you was in fact a colour copy but unfortunately of pretty poor quality in that the colour-marked area was very faint. I have therefore attached another copy for your information (having re-highlighted the coloured areas referred to) and I hope this makes things clearer for you.

Regarding your request for a copy of the public liability insurance policy. I have consulted property legalisation/roading staff together with IT department staff, and I am advised that the link to this document on Council’s ‘Pathways’ system is irretrievably broken and cannot be accessed. Our IT department have exhausted all reasonable options (including a search of the entire ‘S’ drive) and I am therefore obliged to decline your request under section 17 (e) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the LGOIMA) as the information requested despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found. 

 You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information about how to make a complaint is available at www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802 602. Please find attached a copy of a letter regarding the policy and Council’s approval of the licence as a result and I am advised that there is no further available information concerning this application.

Regarding your request for information regarding the recent repairs to the road which were carried out last year. I have discussed your request with key roading staff. To enable them to investigate this matter and ensure an accurate response is given to your query, please can you clarify the section of road you are referring to and the months/period last year, if known. Your request will then be actioned. Please note that if it takes a substantial amount of time for staff to research and collate this information, Council is entitled to make a reasonable charge of the supply of information under the LGOIMA. I shall notify you in advance of the estimated charge if there is one.

Regarding your request for “all information regarding previous applications for consents relating to this property including the application for the original retaining wall and the application to put the house on the land, all evidence relating to plumbing, drainage, all information FNDC hold regarding 147 Rawhiti Road”.  As I explained in my email to you of 19 January, you have now been provided with the information held on Council files. That information was supplied to you in good faith and free of charge.

I am seeking final confirmation as to whether there is any information regarding the original retaining wall at all and will revert as soon as I am in a position to do so. In relation to  “what FNDC is doing regarding the recent pollution of the sea”, I have referred your enquiry to our monitoring compliance team who will provide you with an update on this situation soon.

Regarding your reference to the ‘undue delay’, you have the right to complain about any perceived delay to the Ombudsman (on the details mentioned above & previously).

Finally, I note you indicate (when signing off) that you are writing on behalf of Te Komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua.  As you know, Council were informed by the Te Komiti in early January that you had “been removed from your role as spokesperson for for Te Komiti O Kaitiaki O Opourua [and] discharged from dealing with this Kaupapa/case any further". Please could you confirm the present position.
If you wish to discuss your official information request with us, please feel free to contact me.


Alice Astell
Legal Services Officer
Far North District Council
 - cc [Person 1 and Person 2]

Tena koe Alice,

I founded the komiiti and can not be removed at a meeting to which I was not even invited, or advised of despite repeated requests for the time and the place it was to be held, let alone given an opportunity to speak in my defence against allegations which are nothing but lies. 
I have the full support of my kaumatua.  Regardless of the divisive tactics of you and Darren Edwards or anyone else employ, I represent the komiti I founded, and the members of the hapu who support my actions.  Any members such as Jacqueline and Natasha who wished to leave that komiti and form another are welcome to do so, they have been replaced.   I remain spokesperson for the komiti I founded and will continue in that role, with the mandate from my kaumatua, and other members of our hapu and whanau.  As for being "umbrellered under" any legal entity, that's fine, but I have every right (and in fact I have a duty) to form and run a komiti to address this kaupapa and I my kaumatuas have confirned that.
As you have shared my communication with others, I request that you provide me with all communication you have received from all these other people without further delay, as previously requested.  These people have no authority to "discharge me from this kaupapa".
Finally, I totally reject your excuses regarding my information request as to the existence of Julian Batchelor's five million dollar compulsory public liability insurance and insist that you provide this information without further obfuscation - Council has a mandatory legal obligation to maintain public records and your excuses are frankly not credible.  Please contact Julian Batchelor and ask him to provide the information forthwith and without delay, also please obtain the back up data, and please ensure this information is provided without further delay.  You simply need to contact Julian Batchelor and take action to ensure that he provides the information immediately - there is simply no credible excuse not to do so and Far North District Council has a fiduciary duty to do so.

Katherine Raue
Te Komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua 

So basically Julian Batchelor wants to permanently occupy all the land right up to the actual road as well as all the land in the near vicinity, whether he actually owns it or not - the cheek of this man is unbelievable.

As is the cheek of the Far North District Council Legal Excuses Officer.

I am now applying for judicial review of the decision to refuse to provide the information about the five million dollars worth of compulsory public liability insurance - this excuse provided by Alice in the wonderland that is the ratepayer funded Far North District Council is outrageous and completely unacceptable.

Email sent today to manager of Barfoot & Thompson, Greenhithe:
Tena koe Mr Rose,
I spoke with your wife Michelle yesterday regarding the issue of Mr Julian Batchelor's advertised Christian charity which is included in his Barfoot profile (copy attached).  We are reviewing Mr Batchelor's compliance and consultation with hapu and tangata whenua following recent concerns regarding developments on a property which Mr Batchelor claims is owned by a Christian charity, and variously Mr Batchelor claims that the property is owned by a limited liability private company in his applications to local government.

We would appreciated it if you would please provide all information held by Barfoots or by your agent Julian Batchelor regarding any and all Christian charities, other 'charities' and limited liability companies, etc, that Mr Batchelor is involved in, including the trust deed, constitution, rules, stakeholders, etc, including Stop Promoting Homosexuality International.  Also please clarify the 'ownership' of the three blocks of land at Rawhiti occupied by Mr Batchelor, the claims of a Christian charity are clearly contradictory to Mr Batchelor's claims that the land is owned by a limited liability private company. 
In addition, Mr Batchelor was required to have mandatory $5,000,000 public liability insurance indemnifying both himself and the Far North District Council, and he was required to name the provided, the policy number and other details - these details have not been provided.  Please provide this information without further delay - did Mr Batchelor have the required $5,000,000 insurance or not, and if so, who with, what is the policy number and what are the terms.

Yours faithfully,
Katherine Raue,
Te Kaitiaki o Opourua

 We await a response from Mr Graham Rose of Barfoot and Thompson, Mr Bachelor, and the Far North District Council Legal Excuses Officer as well as all Ministers of Local Government and the Ombudsmen.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

FNDC - criminally negligent? Email sent to legal department today:

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.

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.
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.
Please provide this information without further delay.

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.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Julian Batchelor's creative accounting:

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":

Here he proclaims that he is the director of "a Christian Charitable Trust":

 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".
It seems that even other Christians can't stand Mr Batchelor and don't think much of his hard sell approach either.  His claims (and those of his sycophantic disciples) are outlandish - "The video was released recently and went viral in New Zealanad when a radio announcer gave the website address and the server crashed under the huge demand of kiwis trying to watch it."  Yeah, right.  If that were true, there would be evidence of it on search engines, there isn't.  The only evidence of a radio announcer taking any interest in Julian Batchelor is the interview between Dale Husband of Irirangi Waatea and spokesperson for te Komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua, Katherine Raue.

I wouldn't trust this man as far as I could push him!
Further information recently disclosed documents the progress of these matters well, showing that despite repeated concerns from the hapu Resource Management Unit and te Komiti o Kaitiaki o Opourua and many of the tangata whenua Julian Batchelor has deliberately and repeatedly broken the law and shown nothing for utter contempt for both the law and the tangata whenua - he has stolen gravel from the side of the road using a hired digger and truck and taken it up to use on his property instead of buying his own gravel, he's dumped soil and other rubbish directly onto the road, the reserve, and anywhere else he feels like dumping it, which has caused massive pollution to the sea - he seems to think he's a law unto himself as well as God's chosen messenger.

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

Application for Judicial Inquiry - Bill Sticking charge



        IN THE MATTER OF     an application for judicial review pursuant to the Judicature                         Amendment Act 1972

        BETWEEN        Katherine Raue

        AND                  NZ Police
                                   First respondent

        AND                  IPCA
                                  Second respondent




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 Rd
R D 2
Masterton Police

30 December 2003

Dear 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 -