Let's Get Growing NZ shut down unlawfully while Sanitarium and Fonterra corner the market - teaching corporate welfare and the handout mentality:

"Water rights - what water rights?
- Let them eat cake!"

The FOCKCers, Friends of Caring Kiwi Communities, was formed last century, we've been doing the hard yards and putting our money where our mouths are - and where the hungry kids are - teaching local children gardening, and so much more.  Unlike dodgy corporate sponsored handouts of mainly dairy products and processed sugar laden carbs, by a corporation owned or controlled by the Seventh Day Adventist Church, who believe that slaves cannot enter heaven among other things as I understand it, we teach self sufficiency, build self esteem and grow potential through teaching and supporting kids and their families to grow their own food, focusing on fresh fruit and vegetables, and supporting children and their families, and others in the community, to establish their own gardens and encourage community gardening in every community.

We also deliver an extremely successful suicide prevention program through our gardens, establishing our gardens in schools, and helping children to grow their own food, and to grow it at home as well as at school, and encouraging people to enjoy and participate in community gardening, providing primary health care in the community - physical and mental.

Key, Parata, John Hayes, Ron Mark and the others pulling the strings are covering up for liars and bullies, and if we allow liars and bullies to run schools, it results in a lot of suicide. We have over twice the national average, regularly.  That's also due to the fact that the local Police are infected with a rotten 

We were running extremely successful programs in our community for a number of years, despite heavy opposition from these private interests. Our community centre was shut down by a few incompetent and corrupt local 'politicians' - one of which was Georgina Beyer, the FOCKCers saved the community gardens, but the opposition has been well documented and it shows that vulnerable children are being exploited and taxpayer funding ripped off and defrauded, and wasted when it could be better spent (at least some of it) on more worthwhile initiatives providing better value for money, like ours.

We teach and support children - and anyone in our community, including many of those sentenced to Court ordered 'community work' - to establish community gardens, and gardens in the back yards of low income homes. We teach children self sufficiency, rather than a handout mentality.

We've been asking our local MP, John Hayes, to address the matter of the blatant bullying at the South End school - and the performance of that school and others in Carterton including Dalefield School, and in particular the matter of the FOCKCers Let's Get Growing program at the South End school, where we witnessed - yet again - how these 'initiatives' are controlled and ripped of by private interests and that those interests are the priority, not the interests of the tamariki.

We don't just teach gardening, we teach REAL life skills, thinking, planning, teaching people to grow their OWN kai.

We've been documenting the waste of money and the bullying and dysfunctional governance of the South End school and local Council and other community organisations since last century, and the evidence is clear to see. We deliver an extremely effective suicide prevention program, and it's ironic to say the least, that the government ignores the blatant bullying and dysfunction going on right under their noses, and hands out cash to their corporate and religious mates.

How to achieve your goals and live your dreams:

Canadian Col Chris Hadfield shows that if you want it enough you can achieve anything, and that the more we learn the more we realise just how much we don't know:


So sing your own song . . .



. . . or anything else that inspires you . . .

Criminal Bar Association of NZ v Attorney General - legal aid laws found to be unlawful.

The policies of the New Zealand government regarding legal aid have been found to be unlawful. 

Paragraph 133 (page 44) of the Court of Appeal decision re Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General includes this wee gem, regarding access to justice in New Zealand - "But the issue is not what is desirable as a matter of sound public administration, but what is lawful."  Glad we cleared that up.  To hell with sound public administration and all that nonsense ;)  - I heard a Justice on the bench of the Supreme Court utter the words "We [he and his fellow Justices and Judges] rewrite the law not infrequently."  Watching the way words are used in Courts is a most interesting Occupation . . . more so than most of the fiction we're fed by the mass media . . .

CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND v ATTORNEY-GENERAL:

(CA606/2012) [2013] NZCA X.

"The Court of Appeal’s judgment holds that the Policy is unlawful in two respects. The first is that the Policy was made by the Secretary. By the Policy the Secretary effectively dictates to the Commissioner in respect of the grant of legal aid for most criminal cases. That is unlawful because the Legal Services Act makes it clear that the grant of legal aid in individual cases is the function of the Commissioner, and one which the Commissioner is to exercise independently. 

In this part of its judgment the Court emphasises the importance Parliament placed on the independent exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. The prosecution of crime is carried out by the Solicitor-General as an independent law officer of the Crown, to avoid any appearance of political decision making in relation to public prosecutions. Parliament considered it important that the granting of legal aid to those accused of crime be controlled by an independent person, as the Act provides. It is inappropriate that the Secretary dictate to the Commissioner how he should perform that independent function."

There are summaries discussing the implications of the decision on the Scoop website, and elsewhere.

This is a letter  received from Tony Ellis a couple of years ago, after asking him to assist me to do something about the continued - indisputable corruption of the IPCA and police and the blatant corruption which resulted in the Crown suddenly deciding it would offer no evidence against me after corruptly locking me in a mental asylum for criticising local police:

"In respect of complaining about the IPCA, there is no process I know of short of the High Court in litigation.

However a new Authority is about to be appointed Sir David Carruthers previously Parole Board Chairperson, and before that Chief District Court Judge.  

You could complain to him that his staff have not done their job, as a new broom he might be interested. 

Other matters
Given . . .  changes in Legal Aid funding I should advise you I am not going to be able to take your case on legal aid. 

I have been doing criminal legal aid files for some time, but with the introduction of fixed fees and the associated administrative burden now required for legal aid, in order to make a living I am forced to reduce the amount of legal aid cases I can do.
Partly as  result of this tightening in the year ended March 2011 , i.e. 12 months ago and that I had my worst year ever earning less than the average wage, $50,000, as a result I have been forced me to reconsider the number of cases on legal aid I can take. 

In the civil area, where your case falls, the paperwork required from the Legal Services Agency is onerous.

It is does not surprise me that of 4000 lawyers willing to take legal aid prior to 31 December 2011 now only about 2000 will.

I regret given the time delay and still not having all your files,  and the new legal aid regime that trying to take on your case requires more time than I have.
Regrettably the payment offered form civil legal aid (which you of course are likely to be required to repay) does not provide a fair reward for work done.
Whilst I do not like to reduce the decision to a financial one, I regret having to be more selective in taking legal aid cases, and have turned down 10 in the last month, your potential case is not even ready to be considered and in addition to financial considerations I regret I don't have the time.

I will return your files.

Tony Ellis."

It hardly seems to matter though, because when the government doesn't like the law, it just changes it.  I heard Justice Peter Blanchard say in the Supreme Court one day - "We change the law not infrequently."

And as lawyer Andrew Geddis said recently, we owe it to ourselves to be outraged.

More news reports about similar attempts to limit access to justice here and overseas at these links:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/local-papers/kapiti-observer/opinion/8721359/Shedding-light-on-legal-aid-changes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/09/observer-editorial-legal-aid-cuts

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/06/crown-court-judges-oppose-legal-aid-reforms

National tables new Bill in the House: WARNING - explicit language

Great stuff from Jackson J Wood in response the the National government passing legislation to legitimise criminal activity, committed by government departments, against New Zealand citizens, including the Search and Surveillance Act, and the Bill regarding caregivers of the disabled. 

"How, you might ask, could you create a family care policy that does not risk later being overturned by the courts? The obvious answer would seem to be to make sure that the policy is not unlawfully discriminatory. 

But the Government thinks there is a far, far better way to respond. In the legislation it had Parliament enact, it simply told the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the courts that they are not allowed to look at the Government's family care policy and decide whether or not it is unlawfully discriminatory. 

You may need another moment to let the implications of this sink in. This legislation tells the judicial branch it is not allowed to look at the Government's decisions now and in the future as to who will be paid to see whether these unlawfully breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
In other words, the judiciary's primary function _ to declare the meaning of law and its application in particular cases _ has been nullified. Furthermore, the judiciary's role as protector of individual citizens in terms of ensuring that they are being treated in accordance with the laws of the land has been removed. 

While the stakes may be small in the immediate case, this is about as big a deal as it gets in terms of our constitution. 

For what has happened here is, as far as I know, unprecedented in recent constitutional history. And the Government's decision to take this action came in spite of Attorney-General Chris Finlayson warning that the legislation is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act's right to justice.
That did not stop the National Government rushing this bill through all stages of law-making and on to the statute books in but a single day, with no opportunity for public discussion or outside criticism."

Transparency International raking it in to spread propaganda at the taxpayer's expense:

Transparency International New Zealand posted a 'news' story on Voxy yesterday stating its "emergent overall findings" into its "National Integrity Systems review" "found that high standards of independence, integrity and accountability were generally met, although areas for improvements were noted. New Zealand also scores highly for fiscal transparency."  (The fact that they had to resort to Voxy to get this propaganda out speaks volumes in itself.)

 The story states a further report will be provided in July, with the full report concluding August 27th. The public are invited to provide feedback through the local autonomous chapter's website, but the site has been down since the story appeared. The New Zealand government has less of a problem getting TINZ's ear than the public.

The TINZ review's $400,000 budget is being funded by Crown agencies, including the Auditor General. TINZ Review Director Suzanne Snively (pictured) reports biweekly to Solicitor General Michael Heron or Attorney General Chris Finlayson and advises she will be paid $50,000 for her efforts. The story maintains the work is "welcomed by Minister of State Services Jonathan Coleman and Labour spokesperson for State Services Phil Goff". Ms Snively, an American whose most notable achievement could be making a personal fortune off NZ government contracts, currently as Principal of More Media Ltd, advised kiwisfirst (the source of this article, and many others of interest to the public of NZ) last month that she considers New Zealand to be virtually corruption free.

When confronted with survey results which revealed New Zealanders are twice as likely to pay bribes as Australians, she suggested the result was skewed by Australians' ignorance of how corrupt things are across the ditch.

She says she prefers to think positively and claimed much of the dispute with TINZ's findings comes from people focused on the negative - including Kiwisfirst publisher Vince Siemer. Director Snively freely admitted her private company exists on government contracts, but stated this and the Crown's funding of TINZ's review posed no conflict because the review was "objective" and controlled by "22 researchers" independent of the funders. Asked if researchers were paid, Snively responded "some are and some are not". Asked what the methodology was that made the review objective, Ms Snively could only state the review was inclusive of the entire country.

 Transparency International New Zealand has been under a cloud of suspicion for years. Three years ago, Ministry of Transport bureaucrat Claire Johnstone was running the show along with her husband, active police detective Ash Johnstone. On Sinclair Robertson Associates' website - the private consultancy the Johnstones also ran - Mr Johnstone was listed as doing background checks for their private industry clients and the homepage proudly pronounced "We deliver strategic development services for a variety of clients, ranging from iwi groups to central and local government, not-for-profit organizations and small to medium sized enterprise. We have particular expertise in analyzing and presenting an organisation's business case. This has allowed us to raise equity or access grant funding from government for many of our clients." 

According to Snively, the chapter had 52 members at the end of last year and 12 directors. Most members are either public sector bureaucrats or contractors to the NZ government. Membership requests are routinely turned away, although Snively stated she has only turned down two memberships in the last nine months. Media Law Journal blogger Steven Price advised he had to go through an interview to join last year but Ms Snively disputes this, saying it is simply customary for TINZ directors to have coffee with prospective members as a welcome due to most prospects being already known to the members and that Mr Price apparently misconstrued the process.

At least Mr Price was not arrested, as Vince Seimer was when he tried to join.

 Ms Snively does concede the chapter has been run poorly in the past but says she is committed to increasing transparency and membership, declaring it imperative that the chapter increase its funding from memberships and individual donations. She says the non-for-profit's failure to comply with the Incorporated Societies Act and confusion over its Constitution are due to poor administration prior to her becoming involved.

 Last month, within a week of being informed by kiwisfirst that TINZ had failed its statutory obligation to register its rules as an incorporated society, a December 2009 amended version of its rules were filed with the New Zealand Companies Office. The Berlin parent organisation expressed concern about the lapse and said it would investigate.

Update on the Governor General's Award for Persistent Predatory Paedophilia:

Hard evidence for all the above statements is here:

Summary document (29 pages): http://bit.ly/ourNZexperience

This link contains the pdf summary document including comments on these NZ atrocities from about 100 “experts” in NZ and internationally – over 30 professors and doctorates, MPs from NZ and the UK, a Baroness in the House of Lords, a judge unconnected with the case, Buckingham Palace, a Cardinal and a Bishop, top psychologists, and global experts in their fields.

Website (including photos of the guilty): http://www.consumersvoicenz.com

Website introducing the court experiences: http://kate-raue.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/stranger-than-fiction-cyf-does-it-again.html

Infographic: Comparison of approaches to paedophilia in Australia, the UK and New Zealand: http://bit.ly/Infographic-paedophile-approaches

Infographic: New Zealand’s Shame: http://bit.ly/NZshame

The Close Up programme on TV1 30 May 2012:

Part 1 (8 minutes): http://bit.ly/TVNZ-StJohnPaedophile-1

Part 2 (7 minutes): http://bit.ly/TVNZ-StJohnPaedophile-2

The St John paedophile gang and the St John NZ Paedophile Protection Network:

http://consumersvoicenz.com/2013/02/21/did-st-john-ambulance-nz-conduct-a-cover-up-of-a-pedophile-protection-network-within-their-organisation/

Cover story of Investigate magazine – The Girl who wants to Divorce her Family: http://www.investigatemagazine.com/archives/2006/03/investigate_oct.html

TVNZ One News on 30 May 2012 - Shock after counsellor approves underage relationship:

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/shock-after-counsellor-approves-underage-relationship-4904575

Press release published on 22 January 2012 - St John’s Ambulance promotes award for alleged child sex offender:

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=2273

We remain determined to expose these atrocities, and to work tirelessly to introduce legislation enshrining fiduciary duties and an effective process for enforcing them.

Employees exposed to asbestos disciplined for speaking out about it:

Employees who spoke out against their bosses for being unknowingly exposed to asbestos at Christchurch Hospital have been summoned to a disciplinary meeting for breaching their contracts by talking to the media. Industrial abseilers Liam Milner & Neil Silcock, who were exposed to asbestos while working on the roof of the hospital in April, believe they could have unknowingly put patients at risk to the poisonous substance while walking through active wards and raised their concerns in the press yesterday.

After the story the pair received an intimidating letter from their employer, exterior building firm Goleman.
The letter invited the men to a disciplinary meeting today to discuss an allegation of serious misconduct. It said Goleman denied the allegations published in The Press and the company was "gravely concerned that you appear to have discussed this matter with the media".

"We are concerned that the above breaches your employment agreement".
Official test results confirmed obtained by The Press confirm the Goleman subcontractors were exposed to white asbestos on the hospital roof site.

The Canterbury District Health Board received positive test results from a sample of the material on the roof on April 2. It informed Goleman and requested it stopped work on the site.

The site was not shut down by Goleman & the staff say they were not told of the positive result or warned about any health or safety issues.

It was not until April 10, when a group of 10 concerned workers approached Fletchers, one of the principle contractors for the hospital repairs, that the site was shut down.

The government is investigating & Goleman could face penalties of up to $500,000 if charges are laid.
Milner, Silcock & two former Goleman employees , who resigned after they found out they had been exposed to asbestos, sougt legal advice before providing documents and written statements to Labour MP Clayton Cosgrove, who then informed the press.

"Our lawyer stated that this was a public health issue so it didn't matter what was said in our contracts", Milner said.

Cosgrove said the letter was "outrageous".  "Rather than dealing with the problem and its massive health risks, Goleman is going to shoot the messenger".
Goleman general manager Luke Goleman could not be reached last night for comment on the disciplinary process.

Radio New Zealand reports that industrial abseiling contractors have grave fears they have spread white asbestos through Christchurch Hospital.
The contractors were repairing the hospital's roof and says the company, Goleman, knew about the asbestos 10 days before the workers were told.
A sample of the roof tested by Chemsafety on 2 April confirmed the presence of white asbestos. But work continued on site until employees reiterated their concerns to the project manager, Fletcher, about 10 days later.
Abseiler Liam Milner says Goleman handled the problem very badly.
"Extremely poorly - they got very defensive, didn't want to take any responsibility or own up to any mistakes being made. And then just basically harassed us and tried to make it go away and keep it under covers."
The site was shut down by Fletcher on 10 April. Goleman would not comment on what measures it took over the asbestos.
Canterbury DHB chief executive David Meates said on Monday he is certain that staff and patients have not been exposed to the health hazard.
"We are absolutely confident that there has been no risk of exposure. There are some access areas that the contractors have been going out and those are the only likely areas there could have been any possible traces."
But another contractor, Neil Silcock, said workers were given swipe cards allowing them wide access to the hospital.
He said he worked on the site for about two weeks and during that time was in frequent contact with staff and patients.
Mr Silcock said he is concerned that he has unknowingly spread contaminated dust via his clothes and equipment through the hospital.

Menzies Hallett, Warwick Nunns, and the Evidence Act:

The conviction of Menzies Hallett, the man who shot Turangi service station worker Rodney Tahu is long overdue.  It also raises serious questions about how a person who admitted committing murder so many times, to so many people, got away with it for so long.

So I looked up the Evidence Act 2006, and the Evidence Amendment Act 2011, before finally discovering the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) (as at 29 June 2009) , and the relevant section 29, which was repealed in 2006, seven years before justice finally caught up with Menzies Hallett, 33 years after he murdered Rodney Tahu in cold blood.

TV footage of Hallett in Court shows him smirking throughout his trial, and the remarkable last minute retraction of his confession was a final utterly despicable attempt to further pervert the course of justice.

Looking at all the evidence it seems that while the changes to the Evidence Act certainly contributed to Hallett being brought to justice, but all in all, it seems that the real reason Hallett got away with it for so long is that he had friends in high places, and that he was protected by those friends, for many, many years.

This photo is particularly chilling, Hallett is on the far right and his close friend Warwick Nunns is second from the left, with his hands on the child, who looks less than thrilled about it all.  Warwick Nunns decided not to go to Police after Hallett told him that he murdered Rodney Tahu because he "didn't think it would add anything to their investigation" - really - REALLY?

This week, Warwick Nunns finally gave evidence in Court that helped to convict Hallett.  The comments of Warwick Nunns (and a perusal of the Acts) show that there was nothing stopping Police calling Nunns as a witness, or any of the other people he confessed to outside of the legally protected periods of his marriages, years ago.  Nothing whatsoever.

Nunns's comments also reveal a very chilling propensity to simply ignore his friend's confessions of murder.  a monstrous act of enablement which he was not alone in committing.  How many monsters like Menzies Hallett, Warwick Nunns, Ewen MacDonald, etc, are walking around in our communities, enjoying charmed reputations that are not deserved?  How many psychotic murderers are there lurking behind thin veneers of respectability - how many, like Michael Francis Murphy, are being aided and enabled by the NZ Police prosecution service, and others in high places?

And how many other pieces of legislation are there like the Evidence Act that are beyond their use by date? (- the Incorporated Societies Act for a start - enacted in 1908 if I remember rightly)