Kelvyn Alp's call for review of decision successful:

After five years Kelvyn Alp, founder of the OURNZ Party has been the only politician in New Zealand to get any results from the ongoing complaints to the Ombudsmen the Board of Trustees of the South End School in Carterton and others, about the blatant bullying, and slanderous and defamatory allegations being made by the Board and others associated with the school and the community, previously complained of by a number of senior lawyers and referred to by them as "politically motivated corruption", against former members of staff who made a huge contribution to the school, not only feeding the kids, but teaching and supporting the students to grow their own kai, prepare it, preserve it, trade it, as well as a number of other important life skills, including an extremely successful suicide prevention program.

The Privacy Commissioner's Office and Dawn Swan in particular have been involved in the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice regarding this matter.  After initially attempting to resolve the matter with the Board, in accordance with appropriate policies and procedures, I complained to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner after I received this letter from the Board of Trustees of the South End School, which contains the false allegation that I had been recently charged by Police with an offence involving a child - I have never been charged with any offence involving a child in my life and I told the Deputy Principal of the South End School several weeks prior to receiving this astounding letter:

Dawn Swan repeatedly lied about the facts regarding the matter, and refused to investigate the matter at all, instead conjuring up a fictional version of events in her own mind including the preposterous allegation that I was the one who had told the Board the slanderous and defamatory allegations.  Dawn Swan maintained this lie in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and so did the Board of Trustees.

Thanks to the commitment and integrity of Kelvyn Alp the Ombudsmen were forced to reopen the investigation into these complaints, and forced to admit the truth, which has now opened a much larger can of worms, revealing clear and indisputable evidence that Kelvyn Alp and I were right all along - and not delusional at all - the evidence proves indisputably that there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice regarding these matters which has involved tax payer corruption at the highest levels, including former Chief Ombudsman Beverly Wakem, who repeatedly refused to investigate the claims against Dawn Swan and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner despite all the evidence of blatant corruption in the manner in which Swan repeatedly claimed that I was the source of the allegations and that the school had sought or received no information from Police - which was a blatant lie as Kelvyn Alp pointed out.

Thanks to the perseverance and professionalism of Kelvyn Alp I finally received this pathetic excuse for an 'apology' from the Board of Trustees:

This rude letter is signed by none other than Elaine Scully, school secretary and Chief Witch Hunter.  It should be signed by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Logan Bathurst, Elaine Scully should have been sacked after she was forced to apologise for calling a young Maori student a "lying little bitch" several years ago.

Elaine Scully owes me several other apologies too, and they are long overdue.

For a start she owes me an apology for wasting Police time and making a false complaint to Police regarding her delusional allegations that I "stole" correspondence regarding the bullying and unlawful sacking of Wayne Rogers, a former groundsman at the South End School, from the letterbox of former Board member Emily Brown.  I did no such thing - I was handed the letters by the parent of a child who was in the same class as one of Emily Brown's four children, and both children have the same first name.  Emily Brown gave the letters to the wrong child, and the child's mother (and the child, if necessary) will confirm this in sworn evidence in a Court when the time comes.

On 1 May 2011 I sent the following email to the Statutory Manager appointed by the Ministry of Education, who had identified that the Board was incompetent and appointed the Statutory Manager:

Hi Ken,

I understand that you are the Statutory Manager appointed to the South End School, and have been asked to write to you regarding issues around the management and administration of the school.

I was recently handed correspondence between the school and Wayne Rogers, regarding the termination of his employment at the school, which seems to mirror the way I was treated (attached).  I've also been contacted by a number of people who have also complained about the school, including the family of a young girl who was called a "lying little bitch" - as in "You're nothing but a lying little bitch" by Elaine Scully, who is also responsible for this confidential correspondence ending up in my hands and the hands of a number of other people.  Many people said that Mrs Scully, Mr O'Leary, Ms Powell and other staff and members of the Board of Trustees have been spreading rumours throughout the community that I am a child abuser, and making similar allegations about Wayne Rogers.

I received a letter from the Board of Trustees which is attached.  Also attached is a note of thanks I received at the end of the year (2008).  The last paragraph of the letter to me, and the thank you note, make a mockery of the school's current position on the matter, and of the Court proceedings brought against me by Rod O'Leary and the former groundsman Thomas Smith.

I've also received copies of correspondence between the school and the Armstrong family about me, which frankly disgust me because they contain nasty and untrue accusations.  Furthermore, Board of Trustees member Emily Brown came to the Armstrong's home and made a number of derogatory statements about me and about how Emily had contacted Police and mental health authorities about me after I politely requested that she arrange a meeting between and the Board about this correspondence I had received containing the untrue allegation that I was a danger to the children.  Emily Brown is an adulterous liar, who has acknowledged (and boasted about) the fact that she was having it off with George Smith while still married to and living with her husband.  Emily's mother and brother committed suicide, and it disgusts many people in the community that she is going around to homes like the Armstrongs, spreading her nasty spiteful UNTRUE rumours, and causing hatred and division in the community.  She claimed to be representing the Board on this visit, which disgusted us even more.  She should resign from the Board immediately, her adultery and lies disgusts decent people in the community.  

I request the immediate return of everything I brought to the school, including the large sign, tools, hoses, plants, etc.

I request that the school write immediately to [name deleted to protect privacy] and apologise to him for distributing his correspondence and breaching his privacy.  He deserves the job as groundsman for all his voluntary work for the school!  The way the Board treats volunteers is disgraceful!

I request that you inform me immediately: 

(1) specifically what information (referred to in the correspondence) the school received about me that led them to believe I was (or "could have been") a danger to the children, and 

(2) from whom specifically the Board (or O'Leary) received this information.

The correspondence to the Armstrongs is outrageous, the two letters to them clearly contain allegations that I am a danger to the kids, O'Leary knows perfectly well that I never told him any such thing, and that there was no meeting until AFTER I received the letter sacking me, ex Deputy Principal Dallas Powell knows this too. They know perfectly well that the local corrupt police officer told him the lies about me being charged, not me, as he is not dishonestly inferring!  The visit to the Armstrong's by Emily Brown was equally outrageous and she should resign immediately because of that alone - how dare she go around the community breaching my privacy and spreading lies like this!!!?  How unprofessional!  I requested a meeting with the Board!

I request an immediate meeting with the Board to discuss the letter which I received from Gavin Kennedy. The last paragraph promises me my job back if I am "acquitted of the charges withdrawn" - there never were any charges as everyone knows, and I want my job back without further delay please.

I understand you were appointed on 1 October 2010.  How is it then that Wayne Rogers was hired and fired by Rod O'Leary and the Board if you were specifically appointed to manage employment issues (among other things)?

I look forward to your urgent response.
Kate Raue
Let's Get Growing NZ

Transparency in New Zealand

Shortly afterwards I received this email from Elaine Scully - further evidence of her incompetence and of the dishonesty of the Board and the other parties, the Privacy Commissioner, Ombudsmen, etc, who all denied any information about me existed - more and more is being revealed all the time while they continue to blatantly lie:

Hi Ken

We have had the attached email in from Kate. 

I spoke with Emily yesterday to try and ascertain how she got the attached letters.  Emily is sure she has stolen them from her letterbox.  Unfortunately for us, Emily has admitted that she often doesn’t clear her letterbox (which is on the main street) for days at a time. 

I have not responsible for this info getting into Kate’s hands as she states.  I phone Emily or leave a message on her answerphone every time I drop mail into her letterbox.  The only other way I give her board info is to hand it to her son Zac and ask him to take it home (this is usually non important info).

We have phoned the Police and asked them to come down to track this for us.

Any advice?  Do you want me to inform all the board members about what is happening?  Ray [Ray Craig, former Chairman of the Board of Trustees] was in the office this morning so I have informed him.

Cheers

Elaine.

I emailed Scully on the 3rd March 2011 asking for an apology and I'm still waiting.  She gave the letters to another Zac by mistake.  This is absolutely typical of the dysfunction, bullying, incompetence and corruption of the governance and the Board of Trustees of the South End School, the ministry of Education, the ERO, the Privacy Commissioner, the Ombudsmen and the corrupt New Zealand Police!

In an interesting coincidence, on the 25th November 2013 the local 'news' paper, the Wairarapa Times-Age, who are in the business of spreading politically biased happy clappy 'news' for all their mates and slandering everyone else, printed a 'story' titled "Big day for fixit man Super Mario, caretaker at South End School"  - the author of this 'report' is quoted as being none other than Elaine Scully.  Scully is not a journalist, and this isn't news - unlike the matters involving myself and Mr Rogers.  The article, which featured a photo of Mario Geremia (a very 'good friend' of Mrs Scully) wearing a silly hat, states:

"South End School's caretaker Mario Geremia celebrated his birthday at school this year and was made guest of honour at morning tea by the staff.  His hat reads "Super Mario" as there is nothing he can't do and he has our school looking perfect all the time.  He can construct and build, is a brilliant photographer, keeps the grounds immaculate and can repair anything.  We are truly blessed to have him here as a staff member.  The hat was presented to him by the staff and the children all sang happy birthday to him when they saw him in the playground on the day of his birthday.  Photo supplied."

And what is particularly disturbing and 'coincidental' about this is that the editor of the Wairarapa Times-Age, a little weasel of a man called Andrew Bonnallack, has steadfastly refused to report on Kelvyn Alp's demand for the Ombudsmen to reopen the inquiry and the subsequent overturning of former Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem's decision, or the revelation that I was right all along about the source of the slanderous defamatory lies that have done so much damage to my reputation and employment prospects for the last six years or more, or the recent pathetic excuse for an apology - while the WTA prints propaganda on behalf of Chief Witch Hunter and Gossip Spreader Elaine Scully instead!

Even more disturbing is that a man called Geoffrey Ball aka Godfrey Ball was recently charged with a number of sexual assault charges involving young and vulnerable victims and Police had stated that more victims were coming forward as a result of publicity regarding the complaints.  On 7th August 2014 Godrey/Geoff Ball committed suicide according to news reports.  His death notice, which was published in the Wairarapa Times-Age on 13th August 2014, states that he was the friend of one "Mario Geremia".

A growing number of other politicians are choosing to ignore what's really going on in our schools and government organisations like the Privacy Commissioner's Office, the Ombudsmen, IPCA etc, luckily, Kelvyn Alp is a man of action, not idle rhetoric, he sorts things out and gets results, gets the truth, instead of just fobbing people off like so many others.

Here's a link to the latest disgraceful response from the Office of the Ombudsmen - seem to have a problem embedding it . . .



This is an ongoing litany of lies, I never took a child to a supermarket without permission and both the school and the Police have repeatedly denied that they shared any information about me - repeatedly stating that no such information existed - so where is this information about this latest pack of lies?  - Where is the information that the school and the Police have been denying the existence of all this time??? 

Where is ANY information about this "information sharing" - this little gossip session - this witch hunt!  WHICH Police officers took it upon themselves to call public meetings to slander and defame me for criminal and political purposes?

The Board of Trustees claim that the Minutes of the Board meeting(s) at which the matter was discussed and the decision to send the letter was made "have been destroyed" - that's called "destroying evidence for the purpose of perverting the course of justice"!

And what of corrupt Privacy Commission investigator Dawn Swan - who invented the cock and bull story that it was ME who told the school the nonsense that Police had recently charged me with an offence involving a child?  Swan continues to collect her big fat paycheck to this very day, while she continues to refuse to acknowledge that I didn't tell anyone I'd been charged with an offence involving a child, let alone apologise for it!

And what of Dame Beverley Wakem, former Chief Ombudsman, who corruptly signed off on the previous "investigation" - cover up - of my complaint into these matters - New Zealanders should not be forced to seek the assistance of Kelvyn Alp and he should not have to bother himself prodding corrupt public officials to do their jobs while so called elected members of parliament do NOTHING!

There is evidence that three independent witnesses rang Police because I was the victim of a violent home invasion on 11th February 2009 and that was the only "incident" that occurred - Constable Peter Cletus Cunningham has a long and well documented history of LYING and CORRUPTION and he deliberately fabricated a cock and bull story about a non existent "incident" while refusing to charge the offenders for a serious, unprovoked, violent attack by a pair of lying convicted benefit fraudsters!

We have requested an extension of time to respond to this provisional opinion because it is clear that there are glaring discrepancies between the information that was previously provided and these new claims and if the claims in this letter are true - WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF IT?

Ministry of Social Development under fire for using fake names - High Court decision:

"This judgment explains why members of a committee, established by legislation to review decisions made by a government department, may not use fictitious names and signatures when issuing their decisions.

Benefit Review Committees (BRCs) are responsible for reviewing decisions made on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) concerning an applicant's entitlement to benefits under the Social Security Act 1964.

[The Plaintiff] applied to have the BRCs review seven decisions of the MSD.
Decisions from the seven differently constituted BRCs were duly delivered.

It transpired, however, that in six of the seven decisions of the BRCs, the names and signatures were fictitious.

This revelation occurred when [The Plaintiff] appealed the BRCs' decisions to the Social Security Appeal Appeal Authority (SSAA).

Prior to the scheduled hearing of the appeals, Mr van Ooyen, a senior manager at the MSD, filed a memorandum with the SSAA headed "In Confidence" saying that the Ministry had decided that the true identities of the members of the BRCs should be hidden in order to protect Committee members from the risk of being harassed and threatened.

Mr van Ooyen's memorandum was not served on [The Plaintiff], who was not represented by a lawyer.

The Authority responded with a minute conveying its concerns that the Committees had issued decisions using fictitious names and signatures and that the Ministry had attempted to communicate with the SSAA "in confidence" and without involving [The Plaintiff].
Upon being notified of the SSAAs concerns, the MSD applied to the SSAA to withhold from [The Plaintiff] the true identities of the members of the six BRCs who had used fictitious names and signatures.

In a decision dated 15 September 2017, the SSAA dismissed the Ministry's application, saying that there was "an absolute prohibition" on statutory decision makers using fictitious names and signatures unless there was an express legislative basis for them to do so. 
The SSAA also said the MSD's justification for using fictitious names and signatures lacked substance when weighed against the right to open justice, and that permitting members of the BRCs to continue the practise would "seriously compromise" the SSAA.
This was the second time the SSAA had ruled that the names of BRC members must be disclosed to an applicant.

MSD appealed the decision in the High Court under section 12Q of the Social Security Act.
At paragraph 42 of the judgment of Collins J the issue of recusal arises.  Other recent cases involving the question of recusal include Taueki and Mihaka.

At paragraph 43 Collins J notes "The question that then arises is how [The Plaintiff] can make an informed decision about challenging the appointment of members of a BRC, for example, for bias, if she is prevented from knowing their true identities.  The answer is clear.  She cannot.  To conclude otherwise would produce an outcome that is the antithesis of natural justice."

Paragraph 44 upholds the principle of 'equality of arms', which means that the Plaintiff, and not just the Ministry, should have the opportunity to challenge the appointment of BRC members.
Paragraphs 45 addresses the need for legislative authority thus:  "The debate among constitutional scholars about the sources of government power has never been satisfactorily resolved.  In the present case, it is accepted that the prerpgative powers are not engaged.  Instead, there are in theory, three potential sources of authority for the Committees to use fictitious names and signatures namely, implied legislative authority, the "reasonably incidental doctrine" and a concept referred to as the "third source of government powers".  Before examining thse possibilities, I shall first set the scene by explaining the constitutional principles that underpin the need for there to be a source of power for government actions."

After correctly concluding that the Ministry had no implied statutory authority, Collins J turned to the question of "reasonably incidental doctrine", which enables public bodies to do things that are reasonably incidental to the discharge of their statutory functions such as purchasing paperclips without express statutory or common law authority, but not to use fictitious names in legal proceedings.  He correctly concluded that the doctrine was of no assistance to the Ministry and "cannot be invoked to justify infringement of a citizen's rights, particularly a right as fundamental as the right to natural justice."

Likewise, Collins J concluded that actions by the Ministry derived from the third source of government authority cannot override a citizen's right to natural justice.

Counsel for the Ministry then raised the question of whether the law could be "developed" which was firmly rejected by the judge thus:  "Only Parliament can sanction breaches of . . . the observance of the principles of natural justice by  authorising BRC members to use ficutions name and signatures when determining her applications for review.  This is especially because anonymous decision-makers are a rare and unusual feature of a system of justice in ay jurisdiction that respects the rule of law.  I would be trespassing beyond my constitutional role were I to usurp the functions of Parliament by authorising the practise followed by the Ministry in this case."

P J Radich QC (for the Ministry) then submitted that [The Plaintiff]'s right to natural justice, affirmed by s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, could be justifiably limited pursuant to s 5 of NZBORA through the Ministry ostensibly complying with its obligations under the Health and Safety at Work Act.

The judge responded:  "This argument could, however, never assist the Ministry's case, but rather it creates an additional hurdle that the Ministry would have to overcome" and "It is at this point that the approach taken by the Ministry hits a further insurmountable hurdle."

Paragraph 69 of the decision states:  " . . . First the use of fictitious names and signatures by Committees breached Ms L's right to the observance of the principles of natural justice.  Second, there is no legislative or common law authority for Committees to have used fictitious names and signatures when determining Ms L's applications.  Third, the common law cannot be "developed" to permit the practice followed by the Committees in this case.  Fourth, s 5 of NZBORA cannot be invoked to savage the Committees' practice of using fictitious names and signatures."

Judicial Inquiry - Bill Sticking charge:

 

This is an unedited copy of a record obtained from Police showing all the things they have charged me with and the outcome of each of the prosecutions:

 This shows that I had nothing to do with Police until I had the misfortune to move to Carterton in late 1999.  Local Police targeted me in a corrupt, politically motivated campaign of unfounded prosecutions in retaliation for my uncovering the fact that they were seriously corrupt.

Police were forced to apologise for not turning up to Court and withdrawing the charge at the last minute.  They were later forced to admit that there was never any basis for the charge in the first place.

 "A formal complaint from the postal service" indeed!  The manager of the local post office, Paul Fafieta, was guilty of THEFT OF THE MAIL of the Carterton Community Centre, he conspired with the other guilty parties to cover up fraud!

 If a complaint is "not put to paper" then it is NOT a "formal complaint", it is a witch hunt!

 

 

 

 

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

        WELLINGTON REGISTRY
       


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





        BETWEEN        Katherine Raue
                                  Plaintiff

        AND                  NZ Police
                                   First respondent

        AND                  IPCA
                                  Second respondent



________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY
________________________________________________________





MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT

1    In 2003 Police charged me with Bill Sticking, alleging that I had put a notice on the building on High Street Carterton, between Seddon St and Wakelin St, known as the Ron Wakelin building, between certain specified dates, despite the fact that they had received no formal complaint, let alone one from anyone authorised to make one.  They proceeded with a prosecution against me knowing that there was no formal complaint from anyone authorised to make one, there were no grounds to charge me, no grounds to proceed with the prosecution, and knowing that it was against the public interest to lay the charge, and knowing that it was in the public interest to lay charges including fraud and theft against the persons complaining about the alleged Bill Sticking.  A number of lawyers have written to the Police and IPCA regarding these matters and they have stated and provided evidence to the fact that the actions of Police were politically motivated and corrupt, as well as prejudiced and biased.

I request the Court to review the actions of Police regarding the charge of Bill Sticking, and in the context of the campaign of other unfounded charges, and the Police refusal to investigate the serious allegations made by me and my lawyers regarding Georgina Beyer, the Carterton District Council and the Carterton Community Centre. 

There was no formal complaint to Police regarding the bill sticking, and no evidence to support laying the charge.  Laying the charge, proceeding with the prosecution and then not turning up to the hearing were all blatant abuses of the Court process as well as me personally.

This application for review is also about the refusal of Police to investigate formal complaints made against the persons who Police allege were the complainants regarding the Bill Sticking charge.  Police also unlawfully served me with a trespass notice regarding the Carterton Community Centre in an initial effort to interfere in political and civil matters, for which they were later forced to apologise.  These actions were also politically motivated.

Police had a duty to investigate formal complaints regarding the allegations of fraud by the people who complained about the alleged Bill Sticking.  These allegations were the subject of the notice which Police allege I stuck onto the building - there was never any evidence whatsoever that I stuck the notice to the building, the actions of Police were politically motivated, as stated by a number of senior lawyers who have been involved in these matters, and Police deliberately attempted to pervert the course of justice.  Police had a duty to investigate the allegations of fraud which were the subject of the Bill allegedly stuck to the Wakelin Building, they had no grounds whatsoever to charge me for Bill Sticking and they knew it.  There was no evidence to support the charge of Bill Sticking, there is and always was considerable evidence in support of the formal complaints of fraud and theft of the mail etc made by me and others against the persons who complained to Police about the notice calling a public meeting to discuss the fraud at the former Carterton Community Centre, including disgraced former Member of Parliament Georgina Beyer, who was at that time the Patron of the Centre, and who interfered in the Police investigation into these matters in order to avoid prosecution of friends and associates.  Beyer and other local body politicians were among those committing the fraud and theft, and these were the people who complained to Police about the Bill Sticking.

2    A local lawyer, Ken Daniels, wrote to Police several times regarding the facts that I had not admitted to committing the 'crime' of Bill Sticking as Police claimed, that the charge should never succeed, that it could never succeed, and that Police had failed to provide proper disclosure to me, including any evidence of a complaint to Police by anyone, or a copy of the notice Police alleged I stuck on the building.  Mr Daniels also wrote to Police demanding an apology after the charge was dismissed and making a number of formal complaints, all of which Police either ignored or dismissed without giving any credible reasons for the decisions.  There is considerable evidence of a large volume of communication regarding these matters and I am disadvantaged by a lack of resources as a direct result of Police actions including a refusal of Police to provide copies of all information they hold about me despite the assurances of the Privacy Commissioner that the information was available for collection.  Police have refused to provide the information regarding this so called complaint, the so called investigation of the alleged complaint, or the prosecution of the charge, for the simple reason that the information incriminates the Police and their political associates.

3    This application requests a review of the Police decision to prosecute and to proceed with the prosecution, particularly after receiving legal advice that the charge could never succeed.  The context of these actions must be taken into account also - Police should have charged the persons complaining about the alleged Bill Sticking with fraud, theft, making false oaths and declarations and theft of the mail of the Carterton Community Centre Inc, among other things - as confirmed by the numerous letters from senior lawyers - regarding the frauds involving the funds of the Carterton Community Centre and the various 'organisations' acting 'under its umbrella'.  Ample evidence to support such prosecutions of fraud and theft of the mail etc have been provided to Police who continue to refuse to provide any information whatsoever regarding any investigation into the formal complaints of fraud, theft of the mail, etc.

4    Police state the following in response to a request as to whether Police received a complaint regarding the alleged Bill Sticking:  " . . . with regard to the bill sticking, I can confirm that there was a formal complaint from the Postal Service.  However, this was not put to paper and I am not prepared to name the person who complained."  What nonsense!  If the complaint "was not put to paper" it wasn't a formal complaint!  As the accused I have a right to know who made the allegation against me and exactly what it said.  I  and a number of lawyers made formal complaints in writing to Police against the Postal Service and the people associated with the Community Centre and the District Council regarding the fraud and malfeasance, theft of the mail, assaults, etc, Police refused to accept these complaints or investigate them - while they proceeded with a charge of Bill Sticking in the full knowledge that the charge had been corruptly laid.

The letter continues to justify the laying of criminal charges, despite the context of the matters proving otherwise, like the lawyers letters, and this matter is well documented, which is why I have requested all information Police hold about me, because it is extremely incriminating of the Police, which is why they have refused to provide it to date, despite the Privacy Commissioner telling me it was available for collection Police continue to refuse to provide it to this day.

5    The Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ron Wakelin building and Police knew it, which is why they withdrew the charge on the day of the hearing, after wasting thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money and public resources on a malicious, vindictive, unfounded, politically motivated prosecution.  Because like the lawyers said, the charge of Bill Sticking was never going to succeed, it was impossible for it to succeed, and Police abused their power and resources in laying the charge and proceeding with it for so long and failed to give any good reason for the officers involved failing to turn up to Court or for withdrawing the charge on the day of the final hearing.  This was a blatant abuse of process and there were a number of abuses of the Court process and abuses of power, and there is clear evidence that this was part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on the part of certain local Police officers and their friends and associates.

6    In addition to this travesty of justice, Police refused to take a complaint of theft of the mail against the Manager of the local Postal Service, Paul Fafieta, after he changed the locks on the Community Centre mail box without lawful authority, thereby preventing the lawful keyholders of the mailbox (myself, the lawfully elected Secretary and Finance Officer) from accessing the mail.  In addition to changing the lock without authority the Postal Service manager provided a key to the new lock to the persons who were the subject of the complaints of fraud and malfeasance involving the Community Centre, the District Council and Georgina Beyer.  The persons to whom the manager provided the key to the mail box had no lawful authority to access the mail of the Carterton Community Centre and the Police had been provided with evidence of that.

7    Police not only refused to investigate the complaint of theft of the mail, they also refused to investigate a number of other related complaints, including a number of complaints of fraud and malfeasance involving persons associated with the Community Centre, the District Council and dishonourable former MP Georgina Beyer - the fact that Beyer has been unable to get a job since 'her' sudden exit from parliament speaks for itself.  The exit from parliament coincided with the widespread release of evidence of Beyer's involvement in these matters.

8    Due to the volume of correspondence regarding these matters, which is an indication in itself of the sheer amount of taxpayers money and public resources that Police have wasted, and the fact that I have no resources to provide numerous copies to the various parties to these proceedings, I would respectfully ask the Court to accept them in the form given, which is in electronic form, by way of a hyperlink to each annexed document refered to in this application.

9    The context of the laying of the charge of Bill Sticking is that after having very little to do with Police for most of my life, I suddenly became the target for certain local Police officers who began harassing me and laying a number of unfounded charges against me which were maliciously laid rather than laid in good faith.  Police knew perfectly well that I hadn't committed the alleged crimes most of the time, and the rest of the time, as with the Bill Sticking, they just took a gamble, and treated the matter as if it was - and is - a game.  Police have demonstrated prejudice and bias to the degree where it clearly reaches the standard of perverting the course of justice deliberately.  The Information laid against me stated that Police had just cause to suspect that I had committed a criminal offence when Police knew that was untrue, and there have been a number of similar instances of this blatant corruption.

In addition to the complaints of theft of the mail, Police received several formal complaints regarding fraud assault, and other criminal malfeasance, such as making false oaths and declarations, etc, involving the persons involved with the Carterton Community Centre and the District Council.  Police refused to investigate the complaints made by me or the lawyers who supported me, and instead launched extensive investigations into any and allegations against me - including an allegation of Bill Sticking involving the Ron Wakelin building which had nothing whatsoever to do with "the Postal Service" despite the statements of Police.  This is well documented.

It cost me a considerable amount of time and money as a direct result of the charges Police laid against me and I request the Court grant relief, and take into consideration the repeated denials of Police regarding the numerous complaints regarding the matter.  I was not charged with affixing a "Bill" to the Post Office building I was charged with allegedly affixing it to the Ron Wakelin building and there was no evidence whatsoever that I affixed any notice anywhere which is why Police failed to turn up to the hearing.

10     Complaints to the Police and IPCA are delayed, denied, defered, and 'disposed of'.  The excuses given by Police and IPCA in response to complaints regarding these matters are simply not credible and they are evidence of serious dysfunction and corruption involving local Police officers, and a failure to adequately deal with complaints by Police or the IPCA, or PCA as the organisation was known. 

11    Police continue this campaign of persecution against me, and more general dysfunction and outright corruption, to this day, refusing to charge offenders with assaulting me, burglary and theft, etc, recently.  I intend to have these matters reviewed further, but this application is for a review of the decision of the Police to charge me with Bill Sticking, review of the various decisions to proceed with the matter, which amounted to abuse of the Court process, abuse of power acting without lawful authority, negligence, and perverting the course of justice deliberately, and the decision of Police, including the officer in charge of the case or the alleged, non existent,  complainant or witnesses to not attend Court on the day of the hearing.

12    Among the various correspondence from lawyers to Police and other relevant information are the following: 

"I am pleased at the dismissal of the charges against you it is clear that a number of charges should never have been laid."  "Never had responses to a lot of things."  "It is clear you have been a lightning rod for Police attention"  - Ken Daniels
Reveal basis for charges - further evidence of repeated laying of unfounded charges.
"It is clear that these actions were politically motivated"  - Michael Appleby


13     After Police refused to accept, acknowledge or investigate a number of formal complaints of serious criminal offending involving local 'elected' officials and public servants, a member of parliament and several persons associated with the local District Council, Police decided instead to lay a complaint against me of Bill Sticking in regard to a notice allegedly stuck to the Ron Wakelin building between certain dates, knowing that there was no evidence whatsoever of any authorised complaint.  Furthermore, Police were interfering in civil matters - I was told by the officer in charge of the case that he was arresting me for defamation - until I explained to him that definition is a civil matter.  Whereupon Police wrote to me alleging that the notices amounted to "harassment of two individuals" but refused to name the individuals. 

14    Further context to the Bill Sticking charge is as follows:  On 8 May 2001 a complaint was made to Police by lawyer Mark Hinton of Wollerman Cooke and McClure.  On 11 June 2001 Police wrote to my lawyer, Kamil Lakshman, advising that they had established that the complaint of Wollerman Cooke and McClure was unfounded and I had not committed any crime.

15    The wife of the Manager of the Postal Service is none other than Colleen Fafieta, and she has long been emloyed at Wollerman Cooke and McClure, which raises the further issue of a conflict of interest in that regard.  Paul and Colleen Fafieta are friends and associates of the persons associated with the Community Centre and the District Council, as are many of the lawyers at Wollerman Cooke and McClure, who were the Community Centre's lawyers, and who should have been taking instruction from me, as the remaining executive member of the committee, holding the lawful positions of Secretary and Finance Officer, not persons who were not even on the committee and who were clearly committing fraud and lying.  Several of the Police officers involved in these matters also had conflicts of interest in that they were friends and associates of the alleged complainants and had friendships and relationships with them of many years, which is one of the problems in small communities where some Police officers have conflicts of interests involving their friends and associates which are not managed or addressed and which seriously affect their decision making as is clearly the case regarding these matters.

16    Police alleged I stuck a notice to the Ron Wakelin building, following the illegal takeover of the Carterton Community Centre after I was punched in the face by the chairman of the committee in response to legitimate inquiries into several fraudulent financial transactions involving persons associated with the Centre and with the District Council.  These inquiries were the subject of at least two community petitions calling for the books to be audited and several formal complaints to Police by me and several lawyers.  Police refused to accept the complaints or record them or investigate the allegations or acknowledge the indisputable evidence.  Police wrote a letter claiming that because Georgina Beyer and members of the Carterton District Council had discussed the matters Police believed no offences had been committed - as if Beyer and the Council were above the law somehow.

17    Police were forced to charge the chairman of the committee with assault after staff at the Medical Centre next to the Community Centre, where the assault took place, called Police and confirmed that I had two teeth broken in the assault.  Despite this serious injury, Police let the offender off with Police Diversion scheme, after lying to the Court and telling the Court the offender had written an apology - the offender was boasting about the assault and about the fact that Police were going to ensure he got off without even a conviction - while Police charged me with Bill Sticking for calling for a meeting to discuss these matters.

18     Also around this time Police were refusing to charge Mayor Gary McPhee and his associate, a Council employee, for the violent drunken home invasion of a local residence and assault on the occupants and witnesses to the attack.  Police also allowed and in fact encouraged McPhee to interfere with witnesses and offer bribes to the victims and thinly veiled threats amounting to blackmail in order to prevent the escalation of the complaints about the attack.  Police refused to provide information about this matter and refused to charge the offender, claiming that there had been no complaints, which was and is emphatically refuted by the victims and witnesses including me - I witnessed the attack, I made a formal complaint to Police and I witnessed the other occupants of the flat making formal complaints which Police refused to record.

19    The notice Police finally provided to the Court, the notice for which I was charged with Bill Sticking, advertised a public meeting to discuss the fraud and mismanagement at the Community Centre and to obtain a mandate from the community regarding the illegal takeover of the Centre by the people who had committed the fraud, assault and other offences.  Police didn't turn up to Court on the day of the hearing because they knew perfectly well that not only would the charge of Bill Sticking never succeed, but it was very likely that comment would be made by the Judge as to why the Police were charging the Finance Officer and Secretary of the Centre with Bill Sticking for calling a meeting after being assaulted and locked out of the Centre unlawfully after reporting the fraud etc to the Police, instead of charging the people who were committing the assaults, fraud, etc.  The evidence of the fraud is clear and indisputable and it is completely unacceptable that no action has been taken regarding this ongoing dysfunction and corruption involving local Police, and it is completely unacceptable that this corrupt campaign to discredit a political candidate by laying false charges against them and protect their favoured politicians by refusing to charge them and making comments to the media infering that the victims of violence are criminals and the perpetrators of the violence are heroes.

20    After lawyer Ken Daniels wrote to Police requesting an apology regarding the matter, Police responded with the attached correspondence, which is an insult to the intelligence.  It clearly shows that senior officers continue to be in denial regarding the true facts of the matter, it is not an apology at all - it indicates that the writer continues to be under the delusional belief that if the officers and their witnesses had turned up to Court the charge would have succeeded which is complete and utter rubbish!  The Court would have quickly established that the Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ron Wakelin building and that the wife of the manager of the Postal Service was employed by Wollerman Cooke and McClure who were corruptly taking instruction from persons who had no authority to instruct them regarding the affairs of the Centre and who were clearly guilty of fraud involving the Centre's many bank accounts.  This correspondence also alludes to the "ongoing animosity between you and other people associated with the Carterton Community Centre."  "It was one we very much wanted to prove"  "disappointed in the officers concerned" shows a need for urgent review of the Police - prioritising Bill Sticking over allegations of serious fraud involving a member of parliament and persons associated with the local District Council and other persons, fraud involving charity funding and government funding, and at the same time as Police were perfectly happy to grant the man who punched me in the face in response to legitimate enquiries regarding the fraud and smashed two of my teeth - Police Diversion.  Very much wanted to prove Bill Sticking, but happy to let a violent bully commit an aggravated assault causing grievous bodily harm get away without conviction.  Happy to ignore serious fraud, but very much want to prove a charge of Bill Sticking that never stood any chance of succeeding which was obvious to anyone including the Court.

21    The actions of Police have been politically motivated, as lawyers have previously stated, and the evidence of this is now indisputable.  Letters from R Drew and Georgina Beyer are damning and it is in the public interest that these matters are reviewed without further delay.

22    The delays in applying for review are twofold:  Firstly the refusal of Police to provide information required in order to accurately formulate the complaints, combined with the campaign of false charges against me, charges laid without foundation or evidence to support them and laid vexatiously and maliciously, charges which are invariably either withdrawn or dismissed, this has occupied a considerable amount of time as I have invariably had to defend myself against these charges.  Secondly the refusal of lawyers to assist based on the fact that I can not pay them - I am now unemployed because Police are telling lies to my employers and others in the community, and since the illegal takeover and closure of the Community Centre people who are unemployed can't access resources required to compose legal claims and collate the supporting evidence.  The local Community Law Centre manager is extremely unhelpful and lawyers such as Dr Tony Ellis can no longer act for clients who are not in a postition to pay, the decision regarding the matter of the Criminal Bar Association v The Attorney General recognised that changes to legislation have disadvantaged certain persons accessing sufficient legal aid.  This has been also exacerbated by systemic failure of public institutions such as the Privacy Commissioner and the Office of the Ombudsmen to deal effectively with these matters.  Police are also refusing to do anything about my formal complaints regarding assault and intimidation against me at the address where I formerly lived, and where much of my property remains, including evidence regarding these matters such as the documents attached to this application, which I have only been able to access recently by recovering a computer drive with scanned copies of the evidence on. 

23    There was no evidence against me to support a charge of Bill Sticking, there was not even a valid or formal complaint - the Postal Service had nothing whatsoever to do with the building which Police alleged I stuck the notice onto, and Police knew it.  Police refuse to accept this despite the indisputable evidence.

24    There was indisputably sufficient evidence to charge the manager of the Postal Service with theft of the mail, and sufficient evidence to charge persons associated with the Carterton Community Centre Inc with fraud and theft, as a number of lawyers have confirmed.  Police refuse to accept this despite the indisputable evidence.

25    There was no evidence to support a charge of Bill Sticking against me and there was no valid complaint - the actions of Police are politically motivated and indisputably corrupt.

Moreton Rd

R D 2

Carterton

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 -

Cape Brett, Oke Bay Lodge, and Julian Batchelor:

Te komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua spokesperson Katherine Paaka Raue was recently interviewed by Dale Husband on Irirangi Waatea regarding the situation between Auckland property developer Julian Batchelor, the Far North District Council, and the local hapu and tangata whenua at Hauai and Opourua in Ipipiri, and Julian Batchelor's plans for land he occupies - and a lot of other land, all the way on out to Rakaumangamanga in fact.

Julian Batchelor seems to have laid claim to "Cape Brett", by way of claim to intellectual property which he doesn't own, and by way of taking liberties regarding the publication of information which is seriously questionable - not least being the claim that the land is owned by a charitable religious "trust" when in fact it is owned by a limited liability company which is controlled exclusively by Julian Batchelor.

Batchelor's plans include an "international evangelisation centre" based on the property he currently occupies and a wide ranging a large scale commercial enterprise which exploits the local tangata whenua and their taonga for the exclusive benefit of Julian Batchelor, and the tangata whenua have had enough.

Evidence of the pollution to the sea caused by run off from Mr Batchelor's unlawful and unconsented 'works'

Te komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua insisted that the Far North District Council issue a stop work notice to Julian Batchelor immediately following confirmation of the fact that Batchelor's 'work' was unconsented and in breach of the law.  Since then problems have escalated, with Batchelor initiating physical confrontations with users of the track up to our wahi tapu, Batchelor then makes complaints to Police in an attempt to 'establish a pattern of being a victim' - he lacks any insight into the fact that he's the perpetrator not the victim, and further serious environmental destruction caused by the run off of rainwater and overflow of storm water from the property Batchelor occupies - due to his illegal and unconsented 'works'.

The interview is at this link.

Further letter to Julian Batchelor 8th January 2016:

Tena koe Julian Batchelor,

Further to my correspondence to you via email to yourself (and the real estate company you are affiliated with as we have not yet had the courtesy of a response to this earlier letter) of 3 January 2016.

Te komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua is reviewing your consultation with hapu regarding your Resource Consent Applications.

In order for us, and the hapu RMU, to successfully review your Resource Consent Applications and engage in meaningful consultation at this stage, we require the following details and documents. Please forward this correspondence as soon as possible so that we can review your applications and consultations promptly. Feel free to contact us should you need assistance with any of the following requests.

1  Postal address; and
2  Contact phone number, email address and mobile phone number; and
3  Contact person or agent and address (if any); and
4  All Resource Consent Application Numbers (please indicate if you have applied for Resource Consent with FNDC/Northland Regional Council or indicate if your request is a preliminary assessment); and
5  All building or site works Proposala (in detail); and
6  Location of proposed development; and
7  Activity Classification (Controlled, Restricted Discretionary, Discretionary); and
8  Property Zoning and property Classification

Also include any of the following documents that may be relevant to your proposals and applications:
1  Recorded Archaeological Sites for the property and all Archaeological Assessments; and
2  1xA3 & 1xA4 Scale Copy of the Scheme Plan; and
3  Copy of the Certificate of Title; and
4  Telecom and Power correspondence and Plan (detailing the intended areas for construction); and
5  DOC Advice – Interpretation of NZAA Data; and
6  Print out of Cadastral Index from Terraview; and
7  Engineers Appraisal (detailing stormwater runoff, site stability etc); and
8  Neighbours Approvals; and
9  Sewage/Waste Water Scheme Plan (inclusive of all design and performance specifications); and
10  Building Plans (inclusive of all design and measurement specifications); and
11  Earthworks; and
12  Landscape Plan (inclusive of the types of trees/shrubs proposed for planting); and
13  All information regarding your alleged authorisation to cut down the pohutakawa on the reserve in front of the property you currently occupy.

We further request copies of all information requested from you by the Far North District Council in their letter of 13 November 2015 and associated correspondence please. That letter to you stated that the various information was required from you by three now expired deadlines and included more than one information request. We require this information immediately please.

We would appreciate your urgent attention to this matter and a prompt response to this request please.

Please forward all communication regarding this letter to the writer via: Email: kateraue@gmail.com

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Na Katherine Raue
Te komiti o te Kaitiaki o Opourua.

Far North District Council confirm Batchelor has not provided ANY of the information required by the deadlines:

The Far North District Council wrote to Julian Batchelor regarding the unconsented and illegal works on the land he currently occupies at Rawhiti on 13 November last year:

Following the stop work notice and the news of the likely damage to the archaeological sites and the recent pollution of the sea, the Far North District Council have finally responded to the information request from Katherine Raue which was originally made on 7th November, for all information about the unconsented an unlawful works.  Batchelor should have provided all this information to the hapu Resource Management Unit a long time ago according to the law.  Here is the damning and rather incriminating response that we received this afternoon from "Alice" in the Wonderland that seems to be the Far North District Council legal department: