John Banks prosecution referred to Solicitor General:

The private prosecution of John Banks is proceeding through the Court, and has just been referred to the Solicitor General.  On 7 November 2012, and again on 16 April 2013,  Judge I G Mill found that there was sufficient evidence of a prima facie case against the defendant.

The Police investigation into allegations of electoral fraud arising from the debacle commonly known as the Kim Dotcom Disaster found that the defendant had transmitted an election return false in a material particular (the subject donations were not anonymous, and Banks knew they were not) and had sufficient evidence to charge him summarily under Section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act. However they were statutorily barred from doing so under the provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act that required an Information to be filed within six months of the alleged offence.

The Police made sure that their 'investigation' found that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that the donations were not anonymous, and then claimed that they were unable to charge him under Section 134(1) of the  Act, as well as delaying the investigation beyond the statutory period according to Section 134(2). For these reasons no public prosecution was commenced by the Police, and it was left to Wellington businessman Graham McCready to instigate a private prosecution instead - this is the state of democracy in New Zealand - very sad indeed.

Judge Mill has now referred the matter to the Solicitor General to prosecute, at the request of the informant.


One witness who is likely to be called is Kim Dotcom, who has publicly said "there is no question in my mind that John Banks knew that I had donated $50,000 to his 2010 mayoral campaign."

The Police investigation found that Mr Banks had filed a false election return because the donations were not anonymous, but claimed that although local electoral laws were broken they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute.

The Police also found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Mr Banks knew that the donations were not anonymous . Mr Banks has always insisted he has ''nothing to fear, nothing to hide'' over the donations scandal, despite Banks asking Police not to publicly release his statement on the Kim Dotcom donations and opposing publication of the entire file.

Earlier this month at the Wellington District Court, Judge I G Mill found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, he said "access to the Courts for the purposes of private prosecutions is an important safeguard against the abuses of the executive's prosecutorial discretion ."

The private prosecution was begun by retired Wellington accountant Graham McCready, who said "now the evidential barrier has been overcome and the Court has ordered Mr Banks to appear, its up to the Solicitor General to consider the overwhelming public interest in taking this case to court".


The District Court Memorandum served on the Solicitor General on 29 April 2013, with the decision of Judge Mill:

Wally of the week - Charlie Chaplin's latest fiasco:

John Key has been forced to suspend the sale of Mighty River Power shares and back down on the conditions of the 'registration of interest' etc, and give Kiwi mums and dads their money back - what a wally!  The National Business Review has reported that refunds will be offered to people who have already bought shares.

The official website for the share offer announces "Important - a 'material event' has occured in relation to the Mighty River Power Share Offer which could impact you."

Following the implosion of Solid Energy and recent revelations about Don Elder's financial affairs and the culture of wasteful extravagance at SE, not to mention the blackmail regarding Tiwai smelter, it's not confidence inspiring I'm afraid.

He's also been reported as saying that despite the utter and absolute incompetence and corruption now evident at the GCSB, NZ Police etc, he intends changing the law to allow them to spy on each and every one of us - because he believes Kiwi mums and dads have got weapons of mass destruction.

Beauty and the Beast - Chelsea Preston Crayford and An Utter Wally

  

The NBR also reports that Winston Peters is planning to hijack the Kiwisaver scheme.  Heaven help us.

John Key claims need to spy on Kiwis because of "weapons of mass destruction":

Couldn't believe my ears when I heard THIS excuse for Key's plans to change the law and make this country an official Police state:



Compare this with Judith Collins cutely named "Cyberbullying law" and see how free speech no longer exists and we've been stripped of our human rights to express an opinion - it's not hard to see how this will be used!:





We are now living in a country where the Police can lock people up for months in mental asylums for criticising them, and engage in politically motivated vendettas.  Where Police send each other emails saying "something needs to be looked at regarding Kate Raue's blog, and the statements she's making on it about our staff" - right before locking me up in a secure mental asylum, corruptly  labelled with "Delusional Disorder"!  The criticism about them deliberately and corruptly covering up an epidemic of child abuse and suicide is well documented!

Acquitted by Judge Hastings, formerly the Chief Censor:

Wednesday 17 April 2013




Well, what an interesting day in Court it was today.  It was raining cats and dogs as usual so I got wet just getting there, then there was the usual cramped, airless, claustrophobic and toxic atmosphere in the Court, with people threatening each other and the security guards trying to keep control.

On arrival I noted the sign on the outside of the old Shop Rite supermarket building where the Masterton Court is currently held, I didn't know whether to laugh, or cry at the cruel irony of it:

I went in and sat down and listened to the Police prosecutor Garry Wilson come out with yet another utterly blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice regarding some chap who didn't speak one word of English apparently, and although he was only from one of the Pacific Islands, the prosecutor tried to tell the Judge there was no interpreter available to the Court, which caused the Judge to look very incredulous indeed, mentioning that it was hardly somewhere on the other side of the world (it was Fiji or somewhere like that, you can hardly hear what's going on and the reporters only write what they feel like writing about), then the Police prosecutor told the Court that the complainant was reluctant to come and give evidence.  He was charged with a violent sexual offence apparently, and hadn't even entered a plea by the sound of it

The man's lawyer, Jock Blathwayt, advised the Court that the man had a definite defence on more than one grounds, which he outlined briefly.

The Police prosecutor then told the Judge - get this - it was going to be 18 months or so before it came to Court, and it was going to be a big hassle for everyone, so the Police prosecutor's outrageous suggestion was this:  The Police were holding the man's passport as a condition of his bail, and if the Judge removed that particular bail condition, and the Police gave him back his passport, "we could just let nature take it's course" - I couldn't believe my ears!  Neither could the bloke sitting next to me, and neither could the Judge by the look on his face - in fact he looked like he'd just woken up and found himself in the middle of the twilight zone.  He wasn't having it anyway.  As he spoke I realised that he was Bill Hastings, the former Chief Film Censor.  Imagine how he'd have felt if he'd turned up to where Court was held until recently:

When I was called up he asked me if I was ready to proceed, I said I was - although there was the question of how appropriate it was that I represent myself without legal assistance after the Crown had only just recently advised the Court it intended to offer no evidence regarding the charge of perverting the course of justice against me because (1) it wasn't in the public interest, and (2) "the ongoing Court process has the potential to fuel her paranoia and delusions."  Since which time no fewer than eight charges have been dismissed, and I have won an appeal, which was the subject of the rehearing of the charge today.

I also asked the Judge to make an Order under section whatever it is like the one Judge Wainwright made, that the Police have to give me the list of property that was in my possession when I was taken into custody on the day Constable Dallinger said he served it, because contrary to his allegations, no trespass notice is on that property list, I know because I've seen it.  Unlike the trespass notice Dallinger alleges he served.

And that's another thing, I said, Constable Dallinger - he got the boot from the NZ Police to avoid all the complaints about his sadistic corruption and now the Police prosecutor wants to call up Dallinger's "Hearsay evidence"!  Well, I said, if we're going to have Constable Dallinger's "Hearsay evidence" then I should be allowed to present the statement signed by my witness DW if they can't be located, and it should be accorded the same weight as Constable Dallinger's "Hearsay".

I also asked that the matter be adjourned until the Police located my witness, D W, who had failed to turn up to Court after I had requested Police and Court staff to issue her with the Witness Summons I filled out and gave them, the same day I went to the Police station and the Court to file three Appeals and issue the Witness Summons for Constable Kevin Brown, when the great lump of a Sgt (Warwick Burr I think is his name) who was sitting there in the Court this morning, informed me that he refused to accept the Witness Summons on behalf of Constable Brown and although Constable Brown was indeed on duty that day, he'd been "sent out on a training mission" - said with a huge smirk on his face - he knew Constable Brown was required as a witness by me because I'd made that very clear to the Police prosecutor and the Court weeks beforehand.

I told the Judge that the charge was malicious and vexatious litigation and an abuse of the Court process and a corrupt abuse of power, and that it was part of a very well documented campaign of sadistic harassment and cruel, corrupt and unjust treatment.  I told him that the complainant - the manager of the local Mobil garage and his staff - had defrauded my bank account and instead of charging them with fraud, the Police corruptly charged me with trespass instead, for going to request the CCTV footage - and that's another thing I said.

I told the Judge that the evidence showed that not only was the CCTV footage of the incident corruptly deleted off the original hard drive, but Sgt Cameron "had a problem with [his] memory stick" as well  - Yeah, right.

I mentioned a few other things about the matter too - quite a few actually, although I did try and keep it as brief as possible.  Anyway, I said that regardless of all that, I was present and fully prepared to defend the charge if necessary.  At which point Sgt Wilson stood up and said that if the Court wouldn't accept Constable Dallinger's "Hearsay evidence" the Police would offer no evidence.  Judge Hastings sensibly ruled that the charge was dismissed.

John Banks formally charged with electoral fraud, summons issued:

John Archibald Banks has been summoned to the Court regarding his electoral returns, and donations from Kim Dotcom, etc. Judge Mill in the Wellington District Court (and transferred to Auckland District Court).  Wellington businessman Graham McCready, of the NZ Private Prosecution Service is taking a private prosecution against him:

Arthur Allan Thomas - Police Complaints Authority nothing but blatant cover up:

Arthur Allan Thomas has spoken out about the blatant corruption of the residents of what is commonly known as "Bullshit Castle" - Police National HQ.  Commissioner Peter Marshall adds insult to Arthut Allan Thomas and every New Zealander, to the injury to the reputation of the NZ Police, by endorsing the disgraceful utterances of Deputy Commissioner Mike Bush:




More information at the following links:

Thomas - it's a blatant cover up:

Crewe inquiry worries after eulogy:

Police inquiry a cover up - Thomas

Thomas Angry about eulogy - brother:

Something needs to be looked at regarding NZ Police "information sharing":

So while the IPCA are justifying local Police officers like Constable Jackson telling the victims of assaults he "can't be bothered getting off his backside" and the so called inquiry into how a number of senior officers were involved in deliberately throwing hundreds of child abuse files in the rubbish bin and lying about it, senior local officers are plotting how to shut down my website apparently, in an appalling act of cyber bullying, because I am allegedly "using" my "Blog" to "make statements regarding our staff" according to these two senior officers!   

This email, sent from one senior police officer to another, says "Something needs to be looked at regarding RAUE using her blog to make statements regarding our staff."  Anyone who doesn't believe me can obtain clarification very easily using the Official Information Act, and this is a good site to do that if you wish.

As usual, if anyone has an issue or a complaint regarding the content of this site, they are most welcome to request the correction or removal of any of it, by emailing me at the address listed on my blogger profile, or commenting on the relevant (or any) post on the sites.  Few people bother, and most who do are advised to sue and never do for obvious reasons.  One did, and lived to wish he never had.

Here's the email I recently received (click on the image to open, or open in Paint program, if you have trouble viewing any of the images):

 

Judith Collins has just brought in "anti cyber bullying laws" as she quaintly likes to call them - but what they really are are an unprecedented assault on free speech and basic human rights!  It has a nice name like anti cyber bullying law so people will nod their heads and think "that's a good idea", but the reality is that all we needed were amendments to existing laws regarding threatening and offensive behaviour and communications, to include digital devices as well as telecommunication devices.  

Local police are worried about the statements I'm making on this site and others about their staff all right - like the statements at THIS link about we've got twice the national rate of suicide because they're corruptly covering up a massive paedophile ring!

It get's worse - shortly after this email was sent, I was corruptly incarcerated in a high security mental institution, labelled with delusional disorder - or "Delusional Disorder" as the "Doctors" like to call it, with nice big capital letters to try and legitimise their eugenics agenda - the DSML is largely utter quackery!

I told the people responsible for these outrageous and corrupt acts that I would document them and publish the evidence on the internet as soon as I got out, which I did.  Our mental health system is an utter disgrace - a travesty - a tax payer funded circus of incompetence and corruption, because of incompetent and corrupt governance that allows and enables it to continue.  A lot like the Police force, and other so called 'public services'.

Section 26 of the Official Information Act - the secret life of information:

"Official Information Act 1982
Section 26 - Correction of information

(1) Every person who is given access under section 24(1) to personal information may, by letter addressed to the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation,— 

    (a) request correction of the personal information where the person believes that the information— 

        (i) is inaccurate; or 

        (ii) is incomplete and gives a misleading impression; and 

   (b) require that a notation be attached to the information indicating the nature of any correction requested but not made.

(2) Where a department or Minister of the Crown or organisation receives a letter pursuant to subsection (1), it or he shall inform the person by whom or by which the letter was sent of the action taken by the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation as a result of the letter."

Dear Minister of Education,

I hereby request under section 26 of the Official Information Act 1982 that the following information be corrected:

The delusional allegation of the Board of Trustees of the South End school that I had (a) been recently charged by the Police with an offence involving a child, and (b) that I told anyone associated with the school that I had been recently charged by the Police with an offence involving a child, or anything remotely like that.

It has been clearly and indisputably established that I did no such thing!  The Board has repeatedly been caught out lying regarding this matter, denying there were any written complaints from parents until confronted with the evidence, saying they hadn't received any information from Police when the Police files show indisputably that that is NOT the case, and that the Police DID provide information regarding me - specifically regarding Police employment vetting - to the school at precisely the same time as this letter was written according to the information provided by Police and the evidence of that will be uploaded shortly!  Likewise the evidence will be uploaded shortly of the communications between Gavin Kennedy of the South End school Board of Trustees and the local Police on 30 April 2009, recorded by police as such:

090430/1499

ASAU41
WA 21 INFORMATION
RAUE WROTE A LETTER OF REPLY TO GAVIN KENNEDY BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SOUTH END SCHOOL AND A PRINTED BLOG THAT RAUE WROTE ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE
BLOG RECEIVED BY CARTERTON POLICE IN MAILBOX AT STATION ON 30.04.2009.

I didn't know it was a criminal offence to write a letter in defence of one's good character in response to slanderous and libelous allegations made by the complainant . . .

There was no meeting between the Principal and I until AFTER I received the letter from the Board, and it has been confirmed that local police officers told the Principal and Board of Trustees the allegation referred to in the letter below and it is not logical or rational to suggest otherwise because no right thinking person would believe the claims being made by the Board - and others involved - in the face of the indisputable evidence of the ongoing dysfunction, bullying, etc.
:

Official Information Act request regarding the unlawful taking of my DNA by force:

Taking DNA by force (and unlawfully)

Katherine Raue made this Official Information Act request to New Zealand Police

Currently waiting for a response from New Zealand Police, they must respond promptly and normally no later than 9 May 2013 (details).

From: Katherine Raue

10 April 2013

Dear New Zealand Police,

I am a New Zealand resident living in Carterton and my address is well known to local Police because they harass me here at every opportunity.

I request the following information:

1   How many times since the relevant legislation was enacted in 1995 have the NZ Police taken DNA from suspects by force without a Court Order (monthly figures please).

2   How many times since the relevant legislation was enacted have the Wairarapa Police taken DNA from suspects by force without a Court Order(monthly figures please).

3  How many times since the relevant legislation was enacted have the Wellington Area Police taken DNA from suspects by force without a Court Order(monthly figures please).

4 With regard to sections 22 and 23 of the Act, I request all information specified in section 22 regarding the matter of Police taking DNA by force without a Judge's authorisation, and taken
under section 24J of the Criminal Investigations Bodily Samples Act.

5 Regarding section 23, I request all information regarding the decision to take my DNA by force at the Masterton Police station on 2nd day of December 2012, on the basis of allegations by Constable
David Gallagher that he and his commanding officers knew to be false at the time and were proven to be false when the Prosecutor refused to allow Gallagher to be called to give evidence and
withdrew the charge which Gallagher used as the stated "triggering offence" and the Judge threw out the other charge after I had to defend myself in the Court!

6. I request all information regarding the reason for the decision  to hold me in custody, without access to legislation or proper legal advice and take my DNA by force without a Judge's
authorisation please. I would appreciate it if you would accord this request priority in the interests of justice. I am appalled that this gross violation of hujman rights can go on in a supposedly civilised country.

Yours faithfully,

Katherine Raue

- The background of this matter - which involves a serious breach of human rights and which is very much in the public interest to be informed about - can be found at this link:

Arthur Allan Thomas evidence of the extent of NZ Police corruption:

Speaking to the media this morning Arthur Allan Thomas, 75, said he called the press conference to address police tributes paid to Hutton.

Over the years Hutton remained resolute that Thomas was the killer and that the shell case was genuine evidence, insisting "it was not planted".

Following his death earlier this month, police paid tribute to a dedicated officer who had "integrity beyond reproach".

Today Thomas, who has avoided the limelight since his release from prison, said it was these statements which prompted him to step into the public eye.

"That's why I'm having this meeting, to tell the people of New Zealand what sort of a man he was," he said at the press conference in Pukekawa this morning.

"He criminalised the police, right at the top, that we still have police officers now covering up for the man. He was a corrupt police officer. An innocent man went to prison," he added pointing to himself.

Asked what he thought of Hutton, Thomas said: "I'd better not say it shall I, it wouldn't be very nice."

However, he did describe the former detective as "pretty smooth".

"He got around me alright," Thomas said.

"I had faith in him that he was going to find out who done it, I couldn't believe when it started to come out about the shell case."

He called on the police to set up a fresh investigation into the Crewe murders, of which no-one has been charged since his pardon and release from prison.

"I was pardoned, I'm innocent, but I want to find out who done it. Rochelle Crewe wants that for her mother and father," he said.

"I might be wrong if I mention people's names, all I know is that I didn't do it and where I was when the murders happened. The evidence is there for them to look at."

He also said he would be in favour of police officers who contributed to the planting of evidence, and who colluded in his framing for the murder, being charged with perverting the course of justice.

"We have a system now of officers who don't want to look at who done it, they're protecting their own, covering up for their own. And this is New Zealand, and it's a shame we have this system of cover up," he said.

Thomas said he had found the investigation and time since his pardon "very frustrating", and said it had wider implications for New Zealand and its citizens.

"The problem here is with young police officers joining the ranks today, they read the Crewe murder inquiry and think, 'well Hutton got away with that, the next time I suspect someone I might dirty up some evidence, and if I get caught out, the boss will cover up for me'. This is breeding young officers to do the wrong thing," he said.

Speaking about a fresh police review, due to begin shortly, into the investigation of the Crewe murders, Thomas said it would amount to "a waste of taxpayers' money", and predicted it to be a "whitewash".

"We don't want police looking after police by having their own investigations," he said. "An inquiry has got to be independent, otherwise it's just a coverup."

Asked what would have to happen for him to accept such a review, he said: "They'd have to admit that they fabricated evidence, and I expect them to apologise to me, in writing. But they won't do that, I know that."

Police rules regarding filming and audio recording of operations and events:

Source - NZ OIA request, via http://fyi.org.nz
    
     Summary
This chapter outlines:
·    Police policies relating to covert and open and observable video and audio recording by police of Police operations and events
·    approval requirements before operations and events may be recorded, including the need for approved equipment to be used
·    the circumstances in which privately owned mobile phone' recording applications and cameras may be used for Police purposes
·    the circumstances in which Police-issued Smartphones may be used to record photographic and video images
·    requirements for ensuring any images taken will be accepted by the court as reliable evidence.

     Recording equipment must be Police-issued and approved
Where visual or audio recording is approved for particular operations or events, (see Covert body worn cameras and video recording devices and Open and observable use of cameras and recording devices above), it should only be carried out using Police issued and approved equipment following standard purchasing practices. 

All covert recording equipment must be supplied and approved by the TSU. Except for cameras used by Police photographers and investigators for forensic or investigative purposes, any other equipment to be used to record Police operations and events must be approved by the National Manager Operations. 

The requirements outlined in this chapter do not affect existing policies around the approval and use of cameras and recording equipment by specialist groups such as Police photographers, CIB, STG, or Road Policing for authorised purposes.

     Benefits for Police of recording operations and events
Police routinely use cameras and video recordings in watchhouses, front counters, for investigations and in public places for road policing purposes. It is also normal practice for Police to record calls to its' Communications Centres.

Photographs, video and audio recordings of Police operations and events can also be valuable resources for briefings, orders groups, debriefings and subsequent enquiries. Video recordings are particularly useful for recording instructions or 'cease and desist' orders by operation commanders to counter subsequent complaints against Police employees. 

Police photographers using still or video cameras may also be approved for deployment by the operation commander at demonstrations in some situations. (See the "Operation commander" section of the Demonstrations chapter for more information).

     Media filming of Police operations and activities
See the Media filming of Police operations Police Manual chapter for information about when media accompanying police may film Police operations or policing activities. 

     Approval required for wearing body worn cameras or recording devices
You must have approval before:
·    using any body worn camera or recording device (see the sections on covert and open and observable use below)
·    fitting any video recording devices to Police vehicles.

     Covert body worn cameras and other video recording devices
Covert body worn cameras, or other covert video recording devices or equipment can only be used to record policing activities with the prior approval of the Manager: Covert Operations Group at PNHQ.

Improper or unauthorised use of any covert recording equipment may compromise the effectiveness of other operations and the safety of Police involved in authorised covert policing activities. (See Covert backstopping in the Police Manual for more information about using covert resources).

Specialist units such as the STG and AOS have authority to obtain and use covert equipment specific to their area of policing.

     Open and observable use of body worn cameras and recording devices
Employees must not be overtly equipped with or use body worn cameras or other video recording devices (which may also include audio) to record policing activities without prior authorisation from the National Manager: Operations.

Authorisation may only be given if the National Manager: Operations is satisfied that the use of the camera or recording device is for a legitimate policing purpose and that there are strict controls and adequate safeguards in place to avoid breaching the Information Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act 1993, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and other relevant legislation.

It is expected that any authorisation given will be an individual exception and for a strictly limited period. This includes projects, trials and evaluations.

(See also Equipment used is to be Police-issued and approved below).

     Fitting devices to vehicles
Fitting of overt or covert video recording devices (which may also include audio) or other equipment to Police vehicles requires additional written approval (to that of the National Manager: Operations) from the National Advisor Operational Policy and Standards, Road Policing Support, PNHQ.

     Use of Police-issued Smartphones
Police-approved Smartphones are being increasingly issued and used for Police purposes as part of the Policing Excellence Mobility initiative. This chapter does not impose any additional approval requirements for their issue. However, the guidance in this chapter for the use of the phone's recording applications applies.

While Smartphones have photographic, video and voice recording applications, your first option for the collection of photographic or video evidence should always be the standard Police procedures, i.e. using the Police photographer or a Police-issued digital camera. However, if there is an urgent and identifiable need to record the evidence and a photographer or Police-issued camera is not available, images may be recorded on the Smartphone using the camera App within the secure environment.

Follow the procedures for Securing images taken on Smartphones or personal cell phones if you take any images on a Smartphone. Note however, that there may be limitations on using these images for evidential purposes later because of the difficulty of maintaining their original format during the process of downloading/ securing them.

     Use of TASER cameras (Tasercam)
The ECD device approved for use by the New Zealand Police is the "TASER" X26 and its' complementary Tasercam records video and audio.

Under no circumstances must the TASER and Tasercam be employed or used in situations where the sole purpose of the deployment is the gathering of digital video and audio evidence. (See the TASER (Electronic Control Devices) Police Manual chapter for more information).

     Privately owned mobile telephones and cameras should not be used
Images should not be taken for Police purposes using non-Police issued equipment, unless there is an urgent and identifiable need to do so, e.g. where vital evidence would be lost or inclement weather would intervene before a Police owned camera or other recording device would be available.

Follow the procedures for Securing images taken on Smartphones or personal cell phones if any images are taken on privately owned devices. Note however, that there may be limitations on using these images later for evidential purposes because of the difficulty of maintaining their original format during the process of downloading/ securing them. 

     What can be recorded or filmed?
Where approval is given, it is permissible to video record (may include audio) everything in a public place, or on private property when lawfully present, so long as the employee records only what they personally see and hear (i.e. you can not leave a camera recording while you move to another place on private premises out of sight or hearing of the camera). The video recording may be done overtly or covertly, and with or without the other party's permission.
    
     Audio recording of interactions with the public
As a general principle, employees should not make audio / voice recordings of interactions with the public in a public place, however one off exceptional circumstances may exist to do so, and should only be done if authorised by their District Commander, National manager or the National Manager: Operations.  An example may be where it is necessary to visit a person who is a recidivist complainant about police who often distorts what is said. In this circumstance the person should be advised that the conversation will be recorded to ensure that an accurate record is kept. It is permissible to lawfully make audio recordings without warrant, so long as one party consents.  (This is normal permissible practice for the Police Communications Centres and the like).

     Securing images taken on Smartphones or personal cell phones
Images / recordings taken as evidence on Police Smartphones or personal cell phones are subject to disclosure. It is therefore critical that all images / recordings taken are downloaded and secured as soon as possible in accordance with the Police Digital imaging guidelines.

This is to ensure the images / recordings:
·    are associated with the appropriate case file and will be disposed of when no longer required for legitimate policing purposes
·    will be accepted by courts as reliable evidence and to minimise the risk of legal challenges around whether they could have been compromised.

Evidential images / recordings must not be retained on Police Smartphones or personal cell phones or used for purposes other than for what they were intended.

     Procedures for downloading and securing images 
Step:     Action:
1    Record details (date, time and location) of the images / recordings in your notebook.

2    Email or download all images / recordings to a Police computer as soon as possible after being taken. Ensure the images are saved according to your local standard operating procedures.

Do not email or download images / recordings taken as evidence to a personal computer. 

The way in which the image should be downloaded will vary depending on the type of device. Follow the guidance on downloading and securing captured images to computer in the Digital imaging guidelines section of the Photography (Forensic imaging) chapter where applicable. However, be aware that generally, downloading from Smartphones or cell phones will alter the format and resolution of the image. These issues relating to evidential quality and reliability may limit the later use of the image for evidential purposes. 

If you are unsure of what to do in any case, seek advice immediately from your local Photography section.

3    Delete the images from the Police issued Smartphone or privately-owned cell phone or recording device once they have been downloaded to a Police computer.

4    Any evidential images taken that are no longer required for legitimate policing purposes must be disposed of as soon as practicable. The standard retention and disposal periods apply in cases where the images are retained as part of Police files.

Source - http://fyi.org.nz/request/601/response/3221/attach/3/Police filming and audio recording of operations and events.doc

South End school Garden update - 8 April 2013:

After all the work and all the money that was put into establishing a garden to feed the children at the South End school, and teach them self sustainability, support at risk and vulnerable children, deliver our powerful and effective suicide prevention strategy, and other vital social services, the latest actions of the Board of Trustees of the South End school continue to destroy the efforts of so many people for the profit of one or two.  Members of the small nasty spiteful and vindictive group running the school have now put two sheep into our garden to destroy the few remaining plants left there and cheat the reopened Ombudsmen's inquiry!  

These photos were taken on 7th April 2013 after we received more complaints from parents of children at the South End school about the ongoing bullying and general dysfunction of the governance and administration of the school.  We found these sheep locked in the garden - heartbreaking and grossly insulting for the children and adults who worked so hard to establish a great vegetable garden, with three big peach trees, raspberry bushes and many other edible plants - destroyed by people like Ray Craig - new chairman of the BoT apparently - a local farmer who thinks grazing a couple of sheep is more important than allowing Friends of the Gardens to resume teaching the children gardening, self sufficiency, confidence, the value of consistency and hard work, good nutrition, numeracy and literacy, music, swimming, first aid, and so many other things.  Behind the sheep can be seen the compost bin which is never used, another waste of money.  Trees and other plants dead because nobody bothered to look after them.  What a waste of time and money.  It is in the public interest for the community to be informed of these matters, and for the individuals involved to be held accountable, and the organisations involved, such as the Board of Trustees of the South End school, and the Carterton District

Council, scrutinised transparently, and that they also held accountable.  The South End school, like the Carterton Community Centre Gardens, obtained a lot of funding from government and corporate sources as well as private trusts etc, and it has all been wasted and ripped off - AGAIN.  The previous Community Garden was the subject of a community petitions calling for an inquiry into the fraud of the funds from the ten bank accounts being controlled by the committee of the former Carterton Community Centre, a group of people mainly associated with the Carterton District Council.   It's all very well to start a school garden or a community garden, it's easy to apply for a lot of funding and then waste it all or quietly rip it off, leaving the children with nothing but a lot of weeds, locks on the gates, slanderous letters, serious breaches of privacy, etc.

When the small group involved in the illegal take over of the Carterton Community Centre by violence and illegal activity (such as theft of the mail, and funds and assets of the Centre) wound up the affairs of the CCC in the High Court they claimed that the reason given for their application to wind up the Carterton Community Centre Inc was because:    "The Society has since its creation in 1991 been the provider of social services to the Carterton Community.  However in recent times the Society's role in the Community has changed as a result of the changes to the way the Government delivers social services.  Many of the ociety's traditional activities are now undertaken by other organisations and as a result there has been less need and interest i the Society by the community in recent times."

This isn't social services, this is a rip off.  The Carterton Community Centre was replaced with the Carterton Event Centre, in order to further indoctrinate the public with political propaganda, and the same sort of politically aspiring bullies are continuing to unlawfully bully those who ARE providing the social services!

The Board of Trustees needs to honour the final paragraph of this letter!

There never were any charges involving a child!  This website is full of evidence of a corrupt campaign of harassment and blatant criminal attempts to pervert the course of justice by certain members of the NZ Police, Court staff, etc.

According to the final paragraph of this letter from the Board of Trustees, if the charges are withdrawn or I am found not guilty this would "remove [the Board's] problem" and the Board hopes to be in a position to resume my work at the school in the near future because they appreciate the work and enthusiasm I have brought to the school garden.

What nonsense this is - that FOUR YEARS LATER this bullying is STILL going on and the Board refuses to admit they were wrong and honour this letter and give me back my job at the school, while all these taxpayer funded 'investigative' organisations are covering up incompetence and corruption on a massive scale!  No wonder we have such high rates of suicide locally!

The two latest ERO reports on the South End School also document the dysfunction and poor governance.  It's all very well to talk about feeding the kids - the FOCKCers are teaching them to grow their own kai (food) and other vital life skills, including the virtues program and important suicide prevention programs like Let's Get Growing, Circle of Love, and other initiatives with proven success.  Why are these sheep in our garden?  They are destroying the raspberries, peach trees, rhubarb (which is poisonous), etc.

Meanwhile, here's the fob off from the Ministry of Education - which is utter nonsense because as we've informed them, the school and the BoT simply ignores any attempts to communicate with them, correspondence is ignored and phone calls result in the phone being abruptly hung up as soon as I identify myself - other parents of children at the school have complained about these matters and been fobbed off in similar fashion - it has to stop - this is a clear indication of the intention of the Minister of Education to abdicate all responsibility for the governance of schools and give up any last pretence of holding school Boards of Trustees accountable.

Michael Francis Murphy guilty of $77,800 fraud from MSD:

Interesting.  It was recently brought to my attention that Michael Murphy and his partner were guilty of benefit fraud, and that Michelle McGreal had been convicted of defrauding the Department of Social Welfare or whatever name they've morphed into lately, of $77,800 as a result of not declaring her relationship with Michael Francis Murphy , the cunning, violent lunatic who made up a pitiful excuse to commit a violent home invasion on me in my home, while claiming a benefit as a single person.

What's even more interesting is the response of the Ministry of Social Development to my request to a few simple questions regarding whether Ms McGreal repaid any of that money, and whether the Ministry even asked the Court to order her to, and whether they even sought repayment at all, etc.

After stating the following details about Ms McGreal:

"As you will be aware Ms McGreal was prosecuted for benefit fraud of $77,800 as a result of not declaring her relationship while claiming a benefit as a single person. She was sentenced to 26 weeks home detention and 200 hours community work. Information about the proceedings may be available from the Ministry of Justice."

The Ministry then comes out with this absurd and totally contradictory statement:

Regarding your request, I am unable to provide you with further specific information about Ms Michelle McGreal as the Ministry does not release information about individual clients.  As such I am refusing this part of your request under section 9(2)(a) of theOfficial Information Act.

Taxpayers have a right to know information regarding the repayment of McGreal's debt, it is a debt to the taxpayers resulting from fraud committed by McGreal and Murphy over several years, they knowingly and willfully defrauded the taxpayers of New Zealand by regularly and repeatedly lying in official statements to Work and Income, CYF and other government agencies.

This is the request I sent to the Ministry:

"To whom it may concern:
News articles such as the one at this link http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapa-times-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503414&objectid=11065521 report that Michelle McGreal was convicted of benefit fraud.  None of the articles report whether or not Ms McGreal paid any of the money back, which is certainly a matter of public interest.

I request all information regarding the fraud committed by Michelle McGreal, in particular, did MSD seek any reparation whatsoever through the Court or any other means, was Ms McGreal requires to repay any of the $77,800, has any of the $77,800 been repaid, if so how much and if not why not.  Also, is it true that Ms McGreal's partner, Michael Francis Murphy received a large payout of several thousand dollars from the Ministry for alleged abuse while he was in foster care?

If MSD decides to withhold any information relevant to this request, please provide a summary of what that information is, and why it is being withheld.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Katherine Raue"

And here's the interesting response - it's fine for them to tell us all these other details -  

"Ms McGreal was prosecuted for benefit fraud of $77,800 as a result of not declaring her relationship while claiming a benefit as a single person. She was sentenced to 26 weeks home detention and 200 hours community work" 

- just not whether any of the money was required to be repaid, and whether or not it has been, and if so, how much has been repaid and on what dates?:


Corrupt local Police refuse to charge Michael Francis Murphy for his violent offences involving local children - they're busy lying to my employers instead.  And perverting the course of justice in a manner that should be ringing real alarm bells with anyone concerned about civil rights in New Zealand and international civil rights.

Review of public prosecution services:

This is a report regarding an inquiry into Police prosecution services and the prosecution services of other government departments.  It shows that there are no checks or balances on this process, and it shows why corrupt Police prosecutors like Garry Wilson of the Masterton Police - lover/partner of Masterton Court registrar Liz Harpleton - conspire to pervert the course of justice and get away with it so often: