Steven Wallace shot by Keith Abbott, IPCA cover up:

This is the report into the death of Steven Wallace, who was shot in Waitara by NZ Police officer Keith Abbot in April 2000.

Several aspects of this report (which can also be viewed at this link) are chilling, particularly the response of the Police to the Coroner's report.  At Paragraph 99 of the report:

"Police response to the Coroner’s findings:
99.  On 3 August 2007, in a media statement, the Police Commissioner dismissed the Coroner’s criticism and commended the three officers for their professionalism and dedication.
100. On 27 August 2007 the Officer in Charge of Operation McLean, (now retired)
Detective Inspector Pearce, tabled a lengthy report in response to the Coroner’s criticisms of the three officers. Mr Pearce concluded that the lack of leadership as found by the Coroner could not be regarded as a contributory factor to the death of Steven Wallace.
The Authority did not have its own investigators in 2000 and at that time was  reliant on Police resources to carry out investigations."

Coroner's findings regarding the death of Steven Wallace, shot by Police:

Steven Wallace was shot in Waitara by Police Constable Keith Abbott.

Here is the Coroner's findings on the death of Steven Wallace (which can also be viewed at this link), and the response of the Police complaints authority is at this link.

Paragraph forty seven is particularly disturbing, as are the actions of Kristy McDonald.


The recommendation that Police should be drug and alcohol tested has been ignored to date.  So has the recommendation that the Police review secrecy provisions:


14.23.2013 - Shane Cowlishaw, Fairfax:

"Work on implementing one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct has been quietly shelved because of a lack of resources.

The commission, headed by Dame Margaret Bazley, was set up in 2004 in response to allegations by Louise Nicholas of police rape and coverup.

Its report was published in 2007, making 60 recommendations, including a revamped code of conduct and the recruitment of more women.

Twelve recommendations were also made regarding the Independent Police Conduct Authority, the body set up to investigate complaints.

But almost six years on from the report, one recommendation aimed at ensuring those complaints are investigated properly has been canned.

A briefing from the Ministry of Justice to Justice Minister Judith Collins, provided under the Official Information Act, reveals work on the recommendation requiring the ministry to review the secrecy provisions in the authority's legislation was stopped in July last year.

The authority and its staff are required to maintain secrecy in all matters, and information cannot be used in criminal or disciplinary proceedings.

Authority members cannot be called to give evidence.

The recommendation demanded that the secrecy provision be reviewed to ensure it did not inappropriately prevent the authority from investigating complaints that may result in criminal or disciplinary proceedings against members of the police.

In 2009 the work was put on hold because of "other Government priorities" and it was recommended it be stopped altogether.

The main risk in discontinuing the work was an "adverse public perception" that the authority is ineffective and simply refers matters back to police, it said.

"Although there is merit in undertaking further policy development on this issue, this is not a priority for the Government or agencies in the context of competing justice sector priorities."

Ms Collins said the review of secrecy provisions had been discontinued to progress other justice sector priorities.

"And the proof is in the pudding - New Zealanders continue to have high levels of trust and confidence in our police."

She said it would be "most inappropriate" for her to ask the IPCA, an independent body, to speed up or slow down its inquiries.

IPCA spokesman Andrew Baxter said each case was regularly reviewed to assess the impact it had, or may have, on criminal investigations as well as on judicial and coronial processes.

Some investigation reports may be delayed because of ongoing criminal proceedings, such as its look into complaints stemming from the Urewera raids."

How long are New Zealanders going to put up with this bullshit and blatant corruption!?

Our Police force are a disgrace!  Local officers have engaged in blatant politically motivated corruption involving serious violence - and have been involved in a so called 'investigation' into how they've been throwing hundreds of child abuse files in the rubbish bin and LYING about it - the so called 'inquiry' into it has been nothing but a great big gravy train for all involved!  It never even involved interviewing Mark McHattie!  And both him and the Area Commander have been actually PROMOTED instead of imprisoned!

Amalgamation: more corruption, less accountability and transparency

Georgina Beyer introduced the idea of amalgamation of the Wairarapa Councils.  Beyer the Liar has no credibility whatsoever following her involvement in the cover up of the fraud and gross mismangement at the former Carterton Community Centre, and Beyer's subsequent resignation as a Member of Parliament.  The people promoting this idea are doing so for their own purposes, and in order to keep their own snouts in the trough, and keep as many others out as possible in order to increase their own portion.  Local Councils can co-operate and share resources if they so desire, but they have failed to demonstrate much inclination to do so at all.  The answer to the Wairarapa's problems is not amalgamation, it lies in electing competent and honourable people to govern, not transvestite prostitutes and drunken bikers.  We need intelligent, visionary people.  Why follow like sheep just because Beyer the Liar tells anyone who is silly enough to listen that amalgamation is 'inevitable'?  It's time to think for ourselves, not blindly follow corrupt and incompetent idiots.  The link above provides a bit of balance to the discussion, unfortunately I have to prepare for Court proceedings and lack the time or access to resources to expound my own views further at the moment, but intelligent people will be able to work it out for themselves if they have a good look through the sites referred to.

Depositions transcript makes a mockery of justice!

Below is an embedded pdf document, which is the Depositions hearing transcript regarding the corruptly laid charges of perverting the course of justice and escaping from custody which were laid by Police after they refused to charge Michael Francis Murphy .  The hearing took place on 20 November 2009 before bent Justices of the Peace Adams and Debney.  Pages 6 and 7 have to be seen to be believed - star witness Aaron Brook says repeatedly
"I don't know", "I can remember", "I forget" - before corroborating MY evidence, not that of the Police or the Crown.  This is a BLATANT and serious attempt to pervert the course of justice - shame on the legal profession for refusing to do anything about it, I will do it myself.

The evidence can also be viewed at this link.

Ministry of Justice inquiry a sham - Jeff Orr perverts the course of justice:

Monday, 9 November 2009, 1:15 pm
Press Release: Bruce Stuart-Menteath

Available for immediate use

Ministry of Justice enquiry a sham:

If you’ve ever felt that access to justice in New Zealand is based on the premise that who you are is more important than what you have to say, then you’ll be interested to know that an internal Ministry of Justice document recently released under the Official Information Act has revealed that you were dead right.

The embarrassing exposé came to light as a result of a complaint made in May 2008 by environmentalist Bruce Stuart-Menteath to the Minister of Justice about the alleged misconduct and inability of the Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards (PISG), Gary Harrison, for the manner in which he dismissed a complaint Stuart-Menteath had made about Provision Security Ltd.

Following his complaint about Harrison, Stuart-Menteath eventually received a letter from the then Associate Minister of Justice, Clayton Cosgrove, who informed him that his complaint on that matter had also been rejected. He didn’t provide any reasons for his decision, but merely referred to his acceptance of the Ministry’s advice and Harrison’s rebuttal. He also pointed out that Stuart-Menteath’s complaint was the first in the twelve years that Harrison had been on the job.

Unhappy at the outcome, especially given the supporting evidence he had provided, Stuart-Menteath made an Official Information Act request to Cosgrove for copies of the information or advice he had used to reach his decision. His response revealed that he had received only two documents. One was Harrison’s rebuttal, which, whilst it referred to Stuart-Menteath’s allegations as “scurrilous” and falsely claimed that he had been trying to use the objection procedure for improper purposes, its most notable characteristic was its abject failure to even mention the key legal and natural justice issues that had been raised.

It stood to reason that the second document, the advice from the Ministry of Justice, must have contained the crucial advice that influenced Cosgrove to reject the complaint, but he claimed that it was legally privileged, that its continued confidentiality outweighed any right of disclosure to the public and refused to release it.

However, Stuart-Menteath had raised serious legal issues, which included Harrison’s failure to apply non-discretionary provisions of the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act and proper procedure with regard to his award of costs to Provision Security. It thus appeared that the confidential advice Cosgrove had used to reject the complaint was contrary to the express wording of the PISG Act and the basic principles of natural justice.

A judicial review in the High Court was Stuart-Menteath’s only means of addressing Harrison’s dismissal of his original complaint. When the matter went to a hearing on 29 July 2009, Justice Fogarty found strongly in favour of Stuart-Menteath. Indeed, neither he nor the court appointed amicus (friend of the Court), could find anything to support Harrison’s decisions. He stated that he was satisfied that Harrison had not treated Stuart-Menteath “...fairly and reasonably...”, quashed his decisions and instructed that a new hearing on the original complaint must be held. (Stuart-Menteath has objected to Harrison’s intention to preside over the hearing and a date has yet to be set).

So how did Harrison get things so wrong, and why did the Ministry of Justice not find something wrong with his decisions? Stuart-Menteath knew the answer to the first question, but the answer he was about to discover about the second was quite unexpected.

When the Labour government lost power in 2008 Stuart-Menteath renewed his OIA request for the internal document to the new Associate Minister of Justice, Richard Worth, and this time was successful in acquiring a copy of the advice that Cosgrove had received from the Ministry of Justice. It revealed that no investigation into Stuart-Menteath’s complaint had actually been conducted, but somehow the Ministry’s chief legal counsel, Jeff Orr, had formed an opinion of the worth of the complaint, and Cosgrove had merely rubber stamped his approval of that opinion.

The document revealed that Orr had remained unaware of, or had just ignored, the legal and procedural issues that Stuart-Menteath had raised in his complaint, and that they had not been disproved by Harrison’s rebuttal. He nevertheless came to the conclusion that Harrison’s rebuttal was acceptable because...

“On the face of it Mr Harrison’s account appears very thorough...”

However, the only thing that was apparent was that Orr had made such a superficial assessment of Stuart-Menteath’s 29 page complaint he may as well have not looked at it at all. Likewise his appraisal of Harrison’s “thorough” account had not acknowledged that it had failed to respond at all to the key legal points raised, much less rebut them.

One of those points, which Justice Fogarty found central to the matter, was section 56 of the PISG Act, which stated that the Registrar “shall fix a time and place...” and “shall give not less than 14 days’ notice...” of a hearing. Basic principles of natural justice. The wording of section 56 is clear and unambiguous.

First year law students are well aware that the use of the word “shall” in a statute specifies a binding requirement, but Harrison had circumvented its purpose by making up a new rule of his own that must have gone something like this. “If a notice of hearing carries advice that the hearing may be brought forward at short notice, then the requirement to provide 14 days’ notice will no longer be necessary.” And that is exactly what he did.

Furthermore, it is obvious that he made up that rule specifically to benefit Provision Security, should the need arise. Harrison knew that Provision’s director, Gavin Clark, would be in attendance at the Christchurch District Court on the two day’s before the notified hearing date defending his other company, Thompson and Clark Investigations Ltd, from a complaint by the Save Happy Valley Coalition about the use of a spy to infiltrate their organisation. And, as it turned out, that hearing had finished early and Clark wanted the Provision matter to start immediately in order to limit his attendance costs.

But Orr ignored this irregular conduct and instead placed emphasis on a recent review of Harrison’s position, in particular the opinions of the President of the New Zealand Institute of Professional Investigators, Trevor Morley, and the Chairperson of the New Zealand Security Association, Peter Freeman. Orr noted their praise for Harrison and considered it reasonable to use it to support his advice to Cosgrove that Stuart-Menteath’s complaint was without merit.

By using advice from those in the private investigation and security industry to help form an opinion about the complaint, Orr had adopted a procedure that no proper judicial system would accept.

Firstly, since when was it acceptable practice for the Ministry of Justice to use such opinions, instead of facts, to clarify whether a complaint about one of its own judicial officers should be accepted as valid? If one is found guilty of some indiscretion, one’s past behaviour may well be relevant when deciding on an appropriate penalty, but an enquiry cannot ignore the facts pointing to someone’s guilt and find them not guilty on the basis of their unblemished past behaviour. Furthermore, how does one decide who to ask about someone’s past behaviour? Maybe Orr should have also sought the opinions of past complainants or special interest groups that may have wanted to comment on Harrison’s performance, but he didn’t carry it that far.

It also appears that Orr gave no thought for the possibility that Morely and Freeman may have had a vested interest in Harrison remaining in his position. After all, the private investigation and security industry had had little trouble from him laying down the law, or disciplining operators for breaches of the PISG Act. Orr also thought it relevant that Harrison had not previously been complained about, as if that provided additional defence against Stuart-Menteath’s complaint, like a blemish free record should be taken into account when a motorist gets caught drunk driving.

Then, despite his failure to analyse Stuart-Menteath’s complaint, or Harrison’s rebuttal, Orr reached an astonishing conclusion, that...

“the matter rests largely on the credibility of the parties.”

By that statement he was clearly not referring to the credibility of the facts and legal arguments Stuart-Menteath had raised, or Harrison’s rebuttal, because the “enquiry” had made no assessment of them. To the contrary, it is equally clear that what he was referring to was their personal credibility. Whether they were reliable, honest upstanding members of society. Whether they could be believed. It was evident that Orr had already determined that Harrison was of such a calibre by his acceptance of the opinions of Morely and Freeman, people who should know because they had a professional, if not personal, relationship with Harrison. And how could a Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards who had not been the subject of a complaint before be anything other than an upstanding citizen?

There is no indication in the document that Orr acquired any information to support his conclusion that Stuart-Menteath’s character was less reliable, less honest and less upstanding than Harrison’s, and therefore his complaint less credible than Harrison’s rebuttal. Perhaps he did a Google search of the internet and disapproved of the way Stuart-Menteath had publicised his criticism of Harrison. Perhaps he was influenced by some of the unverified comments that Harrison had made in his rebuttal, which suggested that Stuart-Menteath was less than honest. The fact that Orr had not bothered to verify anything beckons the question, how could he form an impartial opinion and be so convinced about the accuracy of his advice to Cosgrove? And yet somehow he felt compelled to state that...

“From the information available, I do not consider that further enquiry is likely to alter my view Mr Stuart-Menteath’s representations do not form grounds for his [Harrison’s] removal from office.”

Regardless, without being preceded by a proper investigation, Orr’s conclusion was somewhat vulnerable, and likewise Cosgrove’s acceptance of it, without being provided with even a shred evidence that an investigation had actually been conducted, exposed his shortcomings too. The fact that this all happened under the roof of the Ministry of Justice makes it all the more ominous.

A detailed complaint of misconduct or inability about any judicial officer must always be taken very seriously unless there is clear evidence that it is spurious. There was no such evidence in this case. Once accepted, a proper investigation should apply a structure and procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice, which can analyse the substance of the complaint and any denial. It should provide a clear synopsis of the evidence and reach conclusions based on facts, sound reasoning and legal precedents. Basic natural justice. To fail to pursue such a course would be an evasion of accountability that invites corruption and cronyism.

In 2006 Cosgrove spoke to members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Anti Bribery Evaluation Team that had come on a fact finding mission to New Zealand, and stated that “New Zealand is strongly committed to fighting bribery and corruption in any form...” Later that year the OECD ranked New Zealand first equal with Iceland and Finland as one of the least corrupt nations in the world. Now that’s really comforting.

The matter is now before the Associate Minister of Justice.

Additional information

The Registrar PISG is a sole position appointed by the Minister of Justice to administer the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974. In effect he is required to act as watchdog over the conduct of the private investigation and security industry, including the vetting of applicants for an operator’s licence, ensuring that they are fit and proper persons, and holding hearings into complaints. He may impose penalties such as a fine, or cancel a licence for breaches of the Act. He may also penalise those who make complaints if they are not upheld.

The PISG Act intends that members of the public may make objections and complaints and the Registrar is obliged to allow for their lack of legal background when reaching his decisions. Indeed, to the layperson a complaint hearing may be an intimidating experience, not unlike a court hearing. Harrison has been a barrister since 1978 and Registrar PISG since 1996. He has acquired a reputation for allowing vigorous cross-examination of complainants on matters unrelated to their complaint.

Harrison accepted Stuart-Menteath’s complaint about Provision Security as valid and set it down for a hearing on 22 February 2008. His complaint included allegations of intimidation; covert surveillance on Department of Conservation land without authority; refusals by employees to provide ID and failure by employees to hold the required Certificate of Approval.

Before that date Provision produced evidential statements that actually confirmed the substance of the complaint. It seemed a fait accompli that the company would be found guilty and penalised, but in a surprising turn of events, after only consulting with Provision, Harrison brought the hearing forward to the day before the notified hearing date.

Stuart-Menteath first became aware of this change when he received a phone call from the Christchurch District Court and given only 2½ hours notice to attend. He objected to the short notice, stated that he could not attend and could not find his witnesses, but Harrison was inflexible and dismissed his complaint when he failed to appear, then awarded $1500 costs to Provision, which it sought to recover by initiating bankruptcy proceedings.

When the High Court heard Stuart-Menteath’s opposition to Provision Security’s bankruptcy notice, Justice Chisholm stated that he had never heard of such a situation before, where only 2½ hours notice of a hearing had been given. He refused to allow Provision Security to disassociate the costs award from the short notice and in an attempt at preventing the situation from escalating out of control and causing the parties to incur further expense he provided an opportunity for them to come to an out of court settlement, but Provision refused to mediate.

The principles of natural justice are a set of rules developed from common law, which ensure a just and fair decision making process, if followed. Essentially referred to as fairness writ large they are included in section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and apply to decisions of the courts, tribunals, council hearings and a wide range of other public administrative bodies, such as schools and health boards.

According to the principles there are three basic rules that a decision-making body must follow. The first, the nemo judex in causa sua rule, states that a person may not be a judge in his or her own case, where they may have some personal interest in the subject matter, obviously to prevent conflicts of interest interfering in the decision making process, or even a perception of a conflict of interest. The second, the audi alteram partem rule, states that the affected parties must always be fairly heard, which essentially means that they must be fully informed and have a fair opportunity to present their evidence. It follows that adequate preparation time must be allowed; a reasonable opportunity provided to present evidence, including being informed of the date, time, and venue of a hearing well in advance; and the adjudicator must have an open mind and listen to all relevant evidence, which means they cannot ignore evidence, and must reach a decision that is reasonable and consistent with it. The third principle states that the decision maker must give reasons for their decision.

In the early 1980s Harrison was counsel assisting the Royal Commissioner in the Erebus Air Crash Inquiry, which was the subject of the Privy Council decision Re Erebus Royal Commission [1983] that became an important precedent for clarifying the principles of natural justice. The Privy Council noted two major rules of natural justice, the first being that the person making a decision “...must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative value...” and the second that he must “...listen fairly to any relevant evidence conflicting with the finding...”

The first and third principles were not at issue in this matter, but with regard to the second, when the High Court heard Stuart-Menteath’s opposition to Provision Security’s bankruptcy notice, Justice Chisholm stated that he had never heard of such a situation before, where only 2½ hours notice of a hearing had been given. He refused to allow Provision Security to disassociate the costs award from the short notice and in an attempt at preventing the situation from escalating out of control and causing the parties to incur further expense he provided an opportunity for them to come to an out of court settlement, but Provision Security refused to mediate.

ENDS

CYPS: Evidence of a false complaint and a corrupt 'investigation':

My thirteen year old daughter was dragged away against her will - and mine - on the 5th April 1996, on the basis of a false complaint to Police from her father, who'd had next to nothing to do with her previously, evidenced by an affidavit from the boarding school she attended among other things.  He told Police she lived with him and was being held against her will and that he has custody and there is reason to fear for her safety - all lies.  This is a copy of the Police report proving this, the grey area where it says "I have custody of her" is where I used highlighter on the document.  Sgt NAPIER has since said (in writing) that he regrets his actions.  He was conned by a corrupt social worker into believing this pack of lies.

  

 

This is the grounds for removal according to James Cowley's affidavit - vague allegations like "the conversation unfortunately from her point of view was very threatening."  I made no threats whatsoever as he knows perfectly well, which is why his affidavit states that the Police said they'd 'help' him but that they did explain to him that the situation would be "difficult" - which is why James Cowley lied, because that was the only way he could persuade the Police to kidnap my daughter and give her to him.

 

 

Here is a memo from the Hastings manager, Bob Bishop, to the Area Manager Manager, Neil Cleaver, which says the the 'social worker', Debbie Houston, qualifications - NIL -needs support because she's taken the brunt of the criticism!  Of course she did - she's admitted that the matter was a custody dispute and not a matter for CYPS at all!  The fact of the matter is that the mother and daughter needed the support, not the corrupt and dishonest 'social worker'!

Below that is another memorandum to the Area Manager from the Hastings manager regarding the upcoming investigation, in which he asks "Can you please tell me what "Terms of Reference" [the investigator] has?  Is he to speak to Mrs Raue's counsel?  Police?  Or is it strictly "in-house"?

And below that is the typed transcript of the notations on the memo from the Area Manager, which says:

"Bob,

(1) "In house"

(2) Mrs Raue phoned today, she is now going to proceed with contacting 20/20
(3) I still want [the investigator] to go ahead with a low level review as I need to have a good grasp of the case."

Here is the response I received from the Area Manager of CYPS in Napier to my letter asking what the qualifications of the social workers who kidnapped and abused my daughter were.  As you can see, two of them, Deborah Houston and Hazel Hori had absolutely no qualifications whatsoever, and the third "social worker", Donna Remihana had a BA - pathetic!  Not a single social work qualification among the lot of them!   

Below is a memo from the Area Manager to the Manager of the Hastings office about my complaints, noting the concerns expressed in the fax above (the social worker needs our support) confirming that the "review" is nothing but damage control to avoid "Ministerial activity or media interest."

The document above documents how my much loved daughter was then sent to live with Richard and Lorraine, Open Home Foundation caregivers in Nelson, who these unqualified CYPS 'social workers' decided would be much more suitable than me to bring up my daughter, and how Richard sexually abused her, and by the look of it, he made a habit of abusing young girls in his care judging by the comments made by Lorraine, "Don't worry if he tries anything he does it all the time, it doesn't mean anything."  So, taxpayer funded serial paedophiles apparently.

Nine days after being returned to James and Maria Cowley my daughter was sent flatting because according to Maria "she wasn't pulling her weight around the house."  The document evidencing this will be uploaded shortly - Maria's already had a go at taking me to Court for saying things about her on the internet - she failed spectacularly and the Police officer responsible for assisting her in that not only left the NZ Police, he fled the country to avoid being charged with perverting the course of justice among other things.

Maria Cowley encouraged James not to pay child support, she charged him "rent" instead, and it paid off her mortgage while he declared bankruptcy, avoided tax, etc, while accumulating a number of luxury vehicles, farm in the Sounds, etc.  Neither of them cared less about our daughter, neither ever sent her a birthday card let alone a present, evidenced by the letter from Joy Cowley to Woodford House school telling them that - and the affidavit of the headmistress, which will also be uploaded shortly. 

Nark what kind of organisation is this and who is it really benefiting?

This is Cherie Sweeney and her boyfriend, convicted murderer and Mongrel Mob member Michael David Sweeney.  With the help of corrupt police, journalists and politicians like Pete George (Peter Dunne Nothing's left hand man) Cherie Sweeney has managed to set herself up with a new "charity" - at the expense of victims!  She's also been ripping off the 'charity' for her personal benefit and refusing to provide information and making complaints about people who ask.  There has been widespread condemnation from many people who've woken up to the truth about Cherie Kara/Kurarangi/Robinson or whatever her name really is.

This is a story about child abuse, child neglect, and people who exploit vulnerable children for their own profit and advantage, all New Zealanders should read it and question what happens to the money you donate to charity? Whose pocket does it end up in, and to what actual purpose is it put?

The subject of Facebook censorship is interesting (along with the subject of media created "celebrities"), I've received warnings from Facebook for various vague and unspecified "offences" as a result of malicious and vindictive complaints from people who go by names like Graeme Axford and Katie Wright, however the latest warning is quite specific, which is interesting. Here is the warning, and the content referred to, which is certainly NOT threatening nor does it harass anyone, nor contain nudity or violence. It is however, very similar to content posted by a number of other people inquiring into where their money has gone and what Cherie Sweeney and NARK actually do (more information is being added to this post regularly). Here's the warning and content referred to:

Please Review

We’ve received one or more reports that content you posted violates Facebook policies. This content has since been removed, either by another admin or the person who received the content.

Posting content that threatens or harasses anyone, or contains nudity or excessive violence, can result in your account being warned, blocked, or disabled.

Learn more about the Facebook Community Standards here:http://www.facebook.com/communitystandards
This is the content complained of:

We've received a number of complaints and evidence of what appears to be fraud regarding this group and requests for donations to pay off the debts of Cherie Sweeney. In particular we are concerned about solicitations we have seen for donations to pay off Cherie's mortgage.

There have also been allegations regarding t shirts paid for and apparently not received.
This is the message we get at the link you provided: "Oops, our website is misbehaving!" - Please provide the information to me directly.


Please provide copies of the financial records listing all transactions of income and expenditure for this organisation. Is the organisation listed with the Charities Commission, if not why not?


What exactly does NARK do? Please provide evidence of your "work".We requested urgent support regarding these local matters a while ago and had no response whatsoever, this is a major cause of the local suicide statistics being among the highest in the world and we require assistance urgently please:
http://kate-raue.blogspot.com/2010/10/sickening-arrogance-of-john-johnston.html

I posted it on the wall of the NARK facebook page, after a number of other inquiries and requests for information, regarding money given to this organisation and Ms Sweeney personally on the basis of her self advertised "good works", were ignored. This is the thread of responses to that post quoted in her complaint, which I copied before she deleted it, and reported me to facebook admins:

Cherie Nark NZ: Hi Katherine. The consultation Group NARK Community Support is a community group wherein those who want to be more involved in the NARK Working Party / Interim Board join to be consulted on all such matters. Will email you details and link. All information you speak of is in there for community consultation and any other information you may require can be requested in there too. Nga Mihi Cherie

Transparency NZ Katherine Raue: Can you please just post a link directly to the financial records here Cherie. Why can't we just request it here, rather than there? We reckon community agencies/charities etc, receiving public money or donations should be transparent. This is why many aren't:

http://kate-raue.blogspot.co.nz/p/financial-literacy-101-crash-course.html

Transparency NZ Katherine Raue: Btw, the matter at the first link, in the original post, requires urgent attention by everyone who professes to be addressing child abuse in NZ and we would be interested to see what action NARK is going to take if any. A constitution was also mentioned, is there one?

We'd appreciate some support regarding this matter:

http://kate-raue.blogspot.co.nz/2011/12/child-abuse-cover-up-continues-by.html

Cherie Nark NZ: This in an awareness page and a STOP Death by Abuse of our Children. not a consultation page and tbh I dont know if it is appropriate. Im not sure. I will put your request in writing to our NARK Interim Board Chair - Roberta Karangaroa as she has more resources about transparency and appropriate governance with regard to this.

Renee Marshall Arani: This is internet bullying what are you doing? isn't there a more professional way to be seeking this information if your accusations are false this would be slander you are portraying someone as guilty before providing any facts well i haven't seen any facts as yet.

Transparency NZ Katherine Raue: What rubbish! We're simply asking for information because of allegations which are now well known. Please provide the information requested and a response to the allegation that tshirts were paid for and not received. If the allegations are false then let's clear it up. That's all we're saying - don't accuse us of bullying, that's rubbish. The information has been requested several times previously and we've noted your responses each time, and failure to actually answer to the allegations, and have to wonder why that is. Slander indeed! - Grow up!

Renee Marshall Arani: definition of allegation; a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

Transparency NZ Katherine Raue: You say your page is somewhere "people can ask for help" - that's what we're doing, the police are refusing to acknowledge our complaints - still. So are the IPCA.

Would you just provide the information please, instead of insulting my intelligence by providing your definition of allegation. This is typical of your responses to requests by the look of it. ‎"typically made without proof" - where did you get that bit from - what a joke! Just answer the questions of the people who gave you money please.

Renee Marshall Arani: I understand what you are trying to do however so far the way you have done it makes me doubt your integrity and professionalism why such a public display of accusations, and i would appreciate if you sucked your integrity back through the hole it came out of before you start making personal remarks at me

Transparency NZ Katherine Raue: Suck it up yourself Renee, you're the one who started your slander accusations. Now provide that information please and stop wasting my time.

That thread was swiftly deleted by Cherie Sweeney and her mates, just like this Facebook "Event", number 344493095590700, which Sweeney organised to solicit donations to her personal bank account apparently. I have been contacted by a number of people who have had similar dialogue with Ms Sweeney.

Here is the text, copied and pasted from that advertised "Event" which as you can see, was advertised using the name "NARK NZ". It wasn't an "Event" to stop child abuse, it was a blatant attempt at deception and fraud by a well practised con artist, whose name wasn't even on the mortgage apparently - it was a Mongrel Mob owned house.  Cherie isn't married to Michael David Sweeney, convicted Mongrel Mob murderer, she changed her name to his by deed poll - exactly WHEN or indeed IF she did that is anyone's guess at this stage.  Here's her shameless bludging "plea" - on behalf of all the abused kids and dead babies - what bullshit - NO evidence of ANY of this because it's all a work of fiction by an artful bludger who uses abused kids to line her own pockets and those of her Mongrel Mob mates:

Help Me save my house from Mortgagee Sale 

Public Event • By Cherie Nark NZ
... Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 5:00pm until Sunday, April 1, 2012 at 9:30pmWestpac Bank 03-0104-0043769-00 photo posted in Album
Since being Diagnosed with Severe Seizures and Epilepsy in July of Last Year I was made redundant in August, to make matters worse the Neuro Specialists have had all my HT and Commercial Driving Licences including 1,2,4,5 D,W,T,R removed for 5 years. This makes me unable ...to work in this industry so I am trying to re-train in Social Work where my current passion is.
The Westpac Bank is the holder of our Mortgage and want me to clear the debt of $3500 with them immediately, this is impossible for me at present and at the suggestion of the Salvation Army Counsellor, who was getting us a Food Parcel at the time, decided to put my pride away and ask and accept some help before me and my children lose our home.
I know I have done a lot for the community via my campaign against Child Abuse but this means nothing to the Bank , as it does not pay the bills.Nor has it enabled me to get a mortgage holiday.
I am not asking for much I am merely asking for $2.00 if I had that from every friend supporter and friend of friend My family and I would be saved.Please only help if you can.Thank you 

NOTE:Offensive threatening or accusatory language

 will be removed. This is not a Hoax this is the my life and the almost demise of it.  (sic)

~ * ~

Information we have received shows that the house is owned by Cherie's boyfriend, a convicted murderer and Mongrel Mob member, Michael David Sweeney:

We have received a number of complaints from people who paid Cherie Sweeney and her organisation money and never received a receipt, or any information regarding how the money has been accounted for, numerous people sent money for t shirts which never arrived, and requests for refunds and receipts were mainly ignored or rejected. No evidence has been provided in support of her claims regarding her health either, but the use of the words " this is the my life and the almost demise of it" are just sickening really.

The correspondence and the evidence are clear. Cherie Sweeney is a cunning opportunist who is trying to capitalise on the misery of abused children and profit from it, and create a career and an income for herself from it - exactly like Georgina Beyer did at the Carterton Community Centre and the White Ribbon campaign. Let's just remember that Cherie Sweeney refused to speak to police initially and let's see if she is called to give evidence at the trial, because months went by without any charges being laid, and there is no evidence that Sweeney did anything to save baby Serenity - she certainly didn't speak up or get involved before the baby died by all accounts, and this seems to be another case of a media created "celebrity" milking it for all it's worth to their personal advantage! - And then whinging to facebook when people ask legitimate questions!

It seems that if you question Ms Cherie Sweeney she responds not with answers, but with malicious lies and unrelenting evasion. How interesting. This is starting to look like fraud, or the best case scenario - major incompetence, but whatever it is I don't like it. Leaving toys on war memorials is not going to do anything! We want a proper public inquiry into the matters at this link regarding the corrupt actions of local police - this is NOT being addressed and there are far too many people like Cherie Sweeney who are more interested in getting their snouts into the trough than doing anything constructive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Regarding Ms Sweeney's claims regarding her support and popularity, this has been received:

This is apparently a message to Sheree from a "spokesperson for Tainui", who had enough good sense and courage to front Sheree Sweeney up about her incompetence and dishonesty. It wasn't published here before, but has now been verified, so here it is:

NO RESPONSE from Ms Sweeney as to whether she recieved this email:

"Kia ora koe.In an unscheduled meeting at the Westpac bank Ngaruawahia with you; my question to you was When do YOU proposed to make yourself accountable to the community of Ngaruawahia? That we as a community would hold you accountable for your media expose without the endorsement of the community in which you proposed to represent.
This NARK report is self promoting and exploits the Ngaruawahia community without its endorsement; you refer to "our wholesome wonderful community" without getting the mandate of the the community?
I will not accept your NARK report and I demand public accountability FACE TO FACE in a public meeting, not through a glossed up report.
Your deliberate exploitation of a child who has died at the hands of abuse does not give you the mandate to dismiss the responsibility of a community to find ways to deter this from repeating itself. YOU denied this community that opportunity. You had already identified a way of how you could CASH in on DEATH! Two things are very clear; your exploitation of Baby Serenity and dismissal of the Ngaruawahia community in this matter and the family who refuses to take responsibility for killing her!
What sickens me is that both families, yours and baby Serenity's is that in such a short time as 'residents' you brought your filth to Ngaruawahia!
There will be a public meeting and you will be advised; I trust that you WILL make yourself available for this meeting.
Through my networks, the media will be there in force!
Copy of this email will be circulated to the media and related networks.
Mamae TakereiSpokesperson for Tainui

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This "explanation" has been also provided by an ex supporter today:

Katrina and Caro Ex Nark Members

by Cherie Nark NZ (Show NZ the Money!) on Saturday, March 3, 2012 at 12:41pm ·

This page was brought to my attention as my name has been used here. It was also stated that I know the person that admins this page. I don’t know who you are and I had no idea of this page until quite recently. I wish to clarify a few things so as to dispel any gossip about them. 1. The tshirts were available for pre-order.. we did not have the funds to purchase them without a minimum order being placed.

They were only on offer because the reps from the toy for love event requested them to wear on the day so one of them organised a great price from a family member who did screenprinting. This was all organised with Cherie’s knowledge through facebook pm’s of which I have copies of. So people began placing orders and depositing funds into NARK’s interim account (one set up by Jimmy Boswell of which only he had access to). As the tshirt company was apparently just down the road from Mr Boswell he volunteered to be the tshirt coordinator. He would invoice, pay for and distribute the tshirts. I have records of this also. I emailed him the quote and a spreadsheet of those wishing to order, and he was to invoice the purchasers and told me he had ordered a sample shirt from the printing company and that the rest of the shirts would be a week away from being distributed.

It became apparent after receiving emails and messages that after a few weeks that people still had not received their shirts. Mr Boswell explained that he had been ill and had some losses in his family etc.. so this was explained to members and also to Cherie in facebook messages. We were both concerned he had too much on his plate. Mr Boswell told me that the shirts would be distributed the following Monday.. then the following Thursday.. this went on for some time with many excuses etc.

At a Finance meeting with Mr Boswell it was revealed that he infact had not paid the invoice as he had found a different supplier, but had not contacted or ordered shirts thru that supplier either. Roberta Karangaroa and Caro Cragg were also present at this meeting.

Caro was to arrange for the purchase of these shirts and to take over distribution. She purchased these with her own funds and was to be reimbursed when Mr Boswell had transferred funds into the New Official Account with appropriate signatories etc as voted by the interim members of the board.
2. NARK funds… all were tied up in an interim account of which Mr Boswell had full control. Cherie opened another account at her local bank in Ngarawahia which he was to transfer the money in to. He did not transfer the funds into that account. It was realised at the financial meeting that Cherie would be at risk if the funds were placed in that account as it did not have the correct signatories so it was decided to open a proper account by the newly appointed treasurer and with elected signatories.

He did not transfer the funds into the New Official Account opened by the treasurer either.

This went on for some time with many excuses and legal advice being sought to retrieve the funds.

Eventually a deposit of $1000 was made but this was not enough to cover the arrears of Cherie’s internet connection (something that was also voted on and agreed to be paid for by the interim board) and the tshirt invoice. Caro decided against filing the invoice until the funds were available to pay it. I have been assured by Roberta Karangaroa that the Nark funds have been recovered. So up until the date I resigned.. nark funds had not been used for anything as no one had access to any of it other than Mr Boswell who unfortunately did not use it to pay for the original tshirt invoice or use it in any other way. AT NO TIME did Cherie have access to those funds donated to the nark interim account. She did not misuse those funds.I hope that clears that up for you all what happened after I resigned I have no knowledge of.

• Caro Cragg
  Thank you Katrina, now you all have had a statement from both Katrina and myself. Please note I personally have no interest and will not comment publicly again on this matter. I have no interest in any complaints on the matter of Nark, my resignation along with 7 others was made on the 8th Jan 2012. The only interest I had in the tshirt issue was trying to resolve the fact that shirts had been ordered in Aug /Sept when Jimmy Boswell was the person in charge of funds and paying for shirt orders as the funds were going to an account he set up for Cherie .He never ordered the shirts. I was not involved , all shirt orders where sent to him.
  
  I then made a personal arrangment to sort shirts out, I will not discuss more about this part of the matter I resigned as Interim Treasurer ( elected Nov 2011)and Trustee (Aug 2011) on 8th Jan 2012 due to dissatisfaction of the way things were going, lack of transparency on a lot of matters and personal convictions.All financial statments of account managed by myself and finance team, being three deposits into an account from my time as treasurer where published publicly, accepted and passed. That is all I have to say on this matter. I will say I am tired of the fact that although I accept there are valid questions people want answered, all this gossip, a lot of incorrect info and innuendo is very damaging to the cause of child abuse

Actually, what's "damaging to the cause of child abuse" are a lot of "organisations" and individuals like Cherie Sweeney and Georgina Beyer with a lot of half baked ideas that don't benefit the community in any practical way, and a lot of dodgy book keeping.. There's no incorrect info to worry about Caro, Cherie is a fraud, she didn't nark, Serenity is dead, and nobody was arrested for months. Cherie is trying to get her snout in the trough because someone painted her fence, and you were all stuffing around like this, babbling on about t shirts and putting toys on war memorials and begging for donations to her lifestyle. I live in a backpackers for goodness sake and work in this community - and I mean WORK, and I don't bludge or beg using dead kids to get sympathy.

When we all join the FOCCCers and Let's Get Growing NZ and start establishing decent community resource centres and community gardens in schools and communities, we'll really start building strong and healthy communities. And the whole trouble is that people like Cherie Sweeney always want to start their own little organisation about t shirts and soft toys so they can control the money, instead of supporting the successful organisations like Friends of Caring Cultivating Communities. Actually we had another issue like this, just the other day . . . more soon.

Indeed, there is more, reports in the main stream media now.

And similar reports showing this sort of rip off is common now.

And a deluge of information is currently being received from a number of sources regarding the death of Cherie Sweeney's own son, who apparently drowned while she was texting on her phone instead of supervising him adequately, at one of New Zealand's most dangerous beaches. Funny we don't hear her trying to raise awareness to prevent drowning, just let's all be narks, even though she didn't "nark" and prevent the death of the baby next door. I say she should get a real job and leave the spearheading of the campaign to prevent child abuse to people who know what they're doing. Here are some news reports, it seems Ms Sweeney approached a number of news agencies, about "the story she wanted told".   The story that fancifully claimed that the five year old "always catch more kina and paua than anyone else" and deliberately failed to mention that Cheriek Kara (alias Cherie Sweeney) had demonstrated unbelievably bad judgement, and was guilty also of criminal negligence for her role in the death of her son.  Here's the self promotional propaganda:

KATE NEWTON - Hawkes Bay News, Wednesday 26 November 2008

Since five-year-old Jago Kara was swept from the shore on Marine Parade his mother has been searching - for a reason and for hope.

"They say people go for a reason and sometimes you have to do a lot of inward looking to find the reason that helps you deal with it," Cheriek Kara, of Napier, said.

"For me, Jago was a great little fisherman, he loved catching sprats at the wharf and when we would go to the beach he would always catch more kina and paua than anyone else. Some of the kaumatua say that was because he had a special affinity with Tangaroa."

Tangaroa, the Maori god of the sea, took Jago on the last day of January this year, after the boy who was counting down the days to starting school had fished in the ocean, taken the sprats to the animals at Marineland and then frolicked in the sea.

Ms Kara, exhausted from watching a very excited Jago, was relieved to have a rest on the beach while he collected stones at the water's edge.

"Within the space of receiving a text and looking down, my son was being dragged away from me," Ms Kara said.

A wave took Jago's feet out from under him. When he was retrieved from the sea, lifeguards were unable to revive him.

Since that day Ms Kara has sought solace in the belief Jago died in the sea he loved and has found understanding in the hours of research she has done into children's drowning.

"It brings me understanding and makes it easier to swallow," Ms Kara said.

"People don't understand how easy it happens and how quickly it ends."

She quotes statistics: "Sixty-four per cent of deaths are preventable."

In organising a Water Safety Whanau Day, to be held at the Hastings Aquatic Centre on Sunday, she has found hope.

"We have recently received the coroner's report back and it's brought home again how easy it happens," she said. "If I can save one family from what I've been going through it will be worth it."

And as an event manager, it makes sense for her.

"I should be doing something like this, it feels right," Ms Kara said.

With the money raised from the Water Safety Whanau Day the family want to be able to help Surf Life Saving Hawke's Bay build and man a watch tower outside the children's playground where Jago was taken, and eventually create a memorial.

"That area is dangerous and there's a playground there.

"People from out of town have no idea."

For Cheriek, her partner, and two daughters Chemice, 11, and Pikikura, 4, Jago's death has led them to spend a lot more time together as a family.

"I used to work full-on but now I just do a couple of days a week helping people apply for sponsorship and funding," she said"

This is the woman who is trying to say in 2012 that she has no experience in book keeping, running charities and event management. She's is an expert in applying for and getting government funding and charity donations, expert at misappropriating them, and an expert at manipulating the media by the sound of it. And not an expert in protecting vulnerable children, far from it indeed.  A memorial?  What about signs warning of the dangers at that beach for the benefit of people like "Cheriek" who have no common sense or maternal instincts, that would be a fitting memorial.  This was just another excuse for Cherie to pose for her mates in the media and promote herself and her half arsed "work".

TV3 news reports are at this link and also at this one.

Self promotion has always been Cherie's strong point.

Here she is again, proudly displaying her gang colours (red) and the Mongrel Mob icon (the dog) while having a good laugh about how she's manipulating the media into reporting that she's an "ex gang girl" when nothing is further from the truth, she's a CURRENT gang member and these "news" reports are nothing but blatant propaganda!  If she was an EX gang girl she wouldn't blatantly flaunt the colours and emblems of the gang - she's just taking the piss, and the slimy journalists are playing right along, the same journalists who created her cult of followers in the first place - sickening really.

Hastings Mayor Lawrence Yule and the Hastings District Council made complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority regarding another blatant piece of propaganda:

"With respect to the claims that the reporters had manufactured the story and had bought interviewees alcohol and paid for petrol, the broadcaster said that 60 Minutes had not purchased the bandannas, paid for interviews or encouraged anyone to appear on the programme by gifts of money or alcohol. It said that the reporter was invited to two parties after the interviews and had taken along a six pack of beer on each occasion, so as to not turn up empty handed to a social event. The broadcaster stated that, “at the end of the shoot” at the second party, it had made a “koha of a bottle of whiskey” 

Turning to the $1000 payment made to one of the women for organising the story, the broadcaster stated that the woman ran her own company and had worked for the media in the past. It said she was paid as an assistant or “fixer” to introduce the reporter to people in the area. TVWorks considered that the payment was “entirely legitimate” and reasonable considering her knowledge of girl gangs. It stated that another of the women interviewed had been paid $200 plus a small sum of lunch money for her and the other girls being filmed. It said that the woman’s car had been used in several scenes and that the reporter had “filled the tank”.

TVWorks stated that, to the best of the reporter’s knowledge, the girls’ ages were 13, 15, 15, and 16.
In response to this, the complainant said that its source had advised that the youngest of the group was now 13, but was understood to have been only 12 when the filming was done."

Cherie ran her own media company - that would be "Hotshot Promotions" - which wasn't actually registered with the Companies Office until 2012 - and this is the sort of "hotshots" it promoted - taxpayer funded Mongrel Mob recruiting videos:

More information can be found here, and here, and updates and other links can also be found here .