"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"

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Warnings about omnibus tax law changes:

Accountants are sounding the alarm about the government's new 'omnibus' tax law changes, claiming they are a get out of jail free card - looks like they based the changes on the Australian GST Act!

The Australian Goods and Services Tax Act 1999 is a hefty piece of legislation to try and make your way through, but it's well worth it when you arrive at section 165.55, which states the following example of creative use of the Queen's English:


[The] "Commissioner may disregard scheme in making declarations. 
         For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may: 
                     (a)  treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and 
                     (b)  treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as: 
                              (i)  having happened at a particular time; and
                             (ii)  having involved particular action by a particular entity; and
 
                     (c)  treat a particular event that actually happened as: 
                              (i)  having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or
                             (ii)  having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."
This is not unlike the recent decision of the NZ Court of Appeal in the matter of Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General in which the Honourable Judge uttered this:
"But the issue is not what is desirable as a matter of sound public administration, but what is lawful."

Syria - Plan B - the Saudi solution:


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. © Jorge SilvaOn 19 September 2016, following "peace talks" in March, US Secretary of State John Kerry admitted bombing Syria, but still tries to blame the victims.

The following day an aid convoy was bombed in what appears to be a blatant war crime.

While Donald Trump, America's answer to 'Dirty Harry' Duterte and Hilary Clinton continuing slugging it out, Kerry says
"Washington “acknowledges and regrets” the fatal airstrike on Syrian government troops by coalition jets, but blamed Syrian President Assad for “bombing people indiscriminately” and blocking the delivery of humanitarian aid."
The media continue to wag the dog, with the Guardian proclaiming that the US blame Russia for the attack but spinning the report with the headline to make it appear as though the UN statement that IF CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE it COULD amount to a war crime - it clearly IS a war crime - it looks from the report as though the UN are saying more than they actually are.

Meanwhile, on Planet Key, John and Bron, leaders of the local Saudi Arabia Mutual Appreciation Society, are still hopeful that their little multi million dollar bribe to the Saudis will pay off, with John "warning the US of the dangers of not ratifying the TPP" - apparently citing his own experience with the Saudis following the very thinly veiled blackmail and bribery scandal around Key's 'gift' of an abattoir and millions of dollars of New Zealand tax payers' money to "a Saudi businessman" who was allegedly "disaffected in some way" by some vague reference to some imaginary "a decision of the previous government" - led by UN hopeful Helen Clark. 

After Key arrogantly announced that the abattoir deal WILL go ahead despite unanimous outrage from voters - Key announced yesterday "Let's see whether we get there with the Gulf, but I feel a bit more confident than I did" about the imaginary non existent trade deal with the bloodthirsty regime.




 The question now is, who's really driving the "peace process" and in which direction?  Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister recently announced that it was time for "Plan B".  
“It was made clear that Bashar al-Assad has two choices – either he will be removed through political process or he will be removed by force,” 
Adel al-Jubeir addressed reporters after the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) meeting co-chaired by Russia and the US.
“We believe we should have moved to a ‘Plan B’ a long time ago,” he said. 
“If they do not respond to the entreaties of the international community... then we will have to see what else can be done.”

A picture provided by SPA shows Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef (1st row R), US Secretary of State John Kerry (1st row L), Saudi Defence Minister and Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (2nd row R) and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir touring at the King Khalid Military City. (AFP)



Monday, September 19, 2016

State of the Nation - Key government ridiculed by pretty much all and sundry:

While the United Nations challenges the New Zealand government's record of discrimination against children who live in poverty, the United States is shaming them on their failure to protect other endangered species, local law experts such as Sir Ron Young and Roimata Smail heap stinging criticism of the so called 'New Zealand justice system'.

Sir Ron says that in a number of ways the right to a fair trial are being undermined, and the public's right to a criminal justice system which is fairly and properly funded so that they can be confident in the system is also being compromised.

I would add that the problem is not just lack of funding, but a problem with the way in which the funding is allocated and used, and the issue of Police discretion, prosecutorial misconduct and the misuse of prosecutorial discretion, the problems with seeking judicial review of improper prosecutorial decisions, failures of IPCA and PCA to address complaints regarding improper prosecutorial decisions, and other related matters which members of the public like Kate Raue and Dun Mihaka are challenging.

Ministry of Justice information reveals that a Judge and Court staff were forced to lock themselves in after Police ignored calls to attend a massive gang brawl at the Tokoroa Court - two months after a security shake up - the media reported that Police were "too busy" to attend, but that was changed shortly thereafter to "too under resourced" - yeah, right.

The ongoing saga of MAF/MoBIE and their fatal Achilles leak continues, bringing the government further into ridicule.  In response to questions about MoBIE's actions "It was regrettably flawed and we must move on," Ministry for Primary Industries Director-General Martyn Dunne said.  Dunne would not comment on whether anyone had lost their job over the incident.   Dunne refused to answer questions about whether anyone had lost their job stating:  "There will be change and there has been change, people have moved around."  If incompetent and corrupt staff are weeded out in properly conducted investigations at the first sign of complaints, instead of "moved around" like Catholic priests accused of child abuse, it would save the taxpayer MILLIONS, instead, incompetence and corruption and covered up, and aided and abetted, in the public AND private sectors and both incompetence and corruption are now endemic and out of control, particularly in the public sector and public private partnerships.

While people like Owen Glenn pontificate about New Zealand's shameful domestic violence statistics, appointing men like disgraced 'retired' Supreme Court Judge Bill Wilson QC to "study" the accounts of the victims - in between his sideline career as a boxing promoter and ghost writer for the Sunday Star Times.  You seriously could NOT make this up.



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.

Regards,

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.

Regards
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.

Regards,

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.

Regards,

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.