Constable Laura Rhymer's Evidence at the hearing 30 September 2010:

This is the evidence given by Constable Laura Rhymer at the hearing of the Crown application to try and prevent Rhymer having to appear in Court or be cross examined regarding her "evidence" on the charge of Escaping from Custody.

I am awaiting the written decision of the Judge, but the charge was thrown out by Judge Barry at the end of the hearing of the Crown application.

Laura Margaret RHYMER will be charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice for her involvement in this outrageous corruption, and so will Peter Cunningham and the other corrupt Police officers who are covering up for homicidal maniacs and child molesters like Michael Francis Murphy!

 

More Strange Twists and Unusual Turns: September 2010

The decision of Judge Behrens QC begins with the words "This case has taken some unusual turns."

Yesterday's hearing of the application by the Crown Prosecutor bore a remarkable similarity to that of the charges heard by Judge Behrens.  The hearing of those charges was stopped and the summarily laid charges withdrawn when it became obvious that the officer in charge of the case was about to commit perjury.  I was later acquitted on the indictable charges also. 

Yesterday the Crown made a formal application to the Court under Section 344(A) of the Crimes Act for an order to have Constable Laura Rhymer's evidence ruled admissible in the current proceedings, regarding the matter of the charge of Escaping from Custody.

The result of the hearing was that not only was her evidence called into question, but the charge itself was dismissed.  Such a dismissal is deemed to be an acquittal.

Crimes Act:

344A Interlocutory order relating to admissibility of evidence

(1) Where any person is committed for trial and—

(a) the prosecutor or the accused wishes to adduce any particular evidence at the trial; and

(b) he believes that the admissibility of that evidence may be challenged,—

he may at any time before the trial apply to a Judge of the court by or before which the indictment is to be tried for an order to the effect that the evidence is admissible.

(2) The Judge shall give each party an opportunity to be heard in respect of the application before deciding whether or not to make the order.

(3) The Judge may make an order under this section on such terms and subject to such conditions as he thinks fit.

(4) Nothing in this section nor in any order made under this section shall affect the right of the prosecutor or the accused to seek to adduce evidence that he claims is admissible during the trial, nor the discretion of the Trial Judge to allow or exclude any evidence in accordance with any rule of law.

This Crown application was a pre trial matter to decide this particular issue of the interlocutory application regarding the admissibility of the evidence regarding the actual arrest, prior to the Jury Trial.  The result at the end of the day was that I was deemed to be acquitted of the charge entirely.

The day started off well with the train trip, the train managers on the Wairarapa line were as wonderful as ever - true ambassadors of good will, the conductors are always polite, helpful, cheerful, great at dealing with people, they're always a pleasure.

And then, Court.  "A Section 344(A) application was filed by the Crown in response to a letter dated 12 February 2010 from the amicus curiae in this matter objecting to the admissibility of evidence.

The objection relates to the second charge of escaping lawful custody and in particular the "admissibility/or validity of the Bill of Rights and arrest procedure on the Escaping Custody charge."  It is anticipated the objection will be on grounds that the accused was not in lawful custody, and relies on the evidence of Constable Laura Rhymer." said the Application.

I was met at the Court by Anne Smith, a thoroughly nice lady who I met when I first came to the Wairarapa, who works for the Corrections Department (Prison Service or something like that).  Anne was kind and helpful and gave me really good advice, looked after me really well, as always.  Thanks Anne.

Then ex Mayor of Cartoontown and Official Village Idiot Gary McPhee and some of his friends were evicted from the Court, which was good, especially given the outcome of his trespass charges against me - which were dismissed after the Judge agreed with my lawyer that he had no authority to evict me from the Council meeting he was presiding over in the usual bully boy manner.  Wellington Court staff were all good, as usual, and Judge Barry presided again.

Crown Prosecutor Ms Ewing called Constable Laura Rhymer, who gave her evidence.  Constable Rhymer to her credit said truthfully that I had come into the station to make a number of complaints about recent matters and that she had had previous dealings with me and had refused to take any of my complaints.  She said that she refused to discuss my complaints, and that she wanted to talk to me about something else and that "we could go to the Masterton police station to discuss it" (p3), and on page 8 and 9: " I then said that I needed to speak to her in relation to another matter and that we'd go the Masterton Police Station to make that statement".  As opposed to, "You are under arrest, you have the right to remain silent," etc.

Constable Rhymer got a bit carried away in some of her other evidence, but she she was cross examined by me (well, sort of - Judge Barry was helpful and patient) and then Mr Yeoman the amicus curiae, then further cross examination by me, then re-examination by Ms Ewing.

Ms Ewing was very helpful in providing me with all sorts of other case decisions about a Mr Abdulkadir Juma Ahmed and a prostitute called Ginger, which is truly, luridly, sordid (and filmed on 'Ginger's cellphone apparently), this arrived the day before the hearing, and I read the whole thing - all thirty or so pages - wondering what on earth they had sent it to me for, and others: R v P, Burgess v R, Ballantyne v Police, Hotene v Police, etc, which were being discussed.  I was trying very hard to follow it all.

Ms Ewing said there were two elements at issue: Firstly, whether or not I was in custody, which was a question of fact and an issue for the jury to decide regarding the "determination of whether the conduct objectively viewed  by words or conduct would reasonably inform the subject they were not free to go."

The second element was whether the "arrest" was lawful, which was a question of law.

She referred to a Court of Appeal decision, Burgess v R, and two issues regarding that matter, firstly the police officers conduct, and secondly whether there was submission or acquiesence to the alleged arrest.  She put it to the Court that no particular words were necessary to effect an arrest, just the police officers conduct generally.  She agreed that Constable Rhymer had not given me my rights, and acknowleged other facts.  I think it was Ms Ewing who raised the matter of Section 347.

The amicus curiae also spoke about Section 347.

Then Judge Barry spoke about Section 347 and culpability.  I didn't know what Section 344 or 347 said at that time.  Judge Barry said that at Depositions on 20 November 2009 I had been committed for trial by two Justices of the Peace.  I don't think he mentioned the hearing on the 8th December when Constable Rhymer didn't turn up because she'd applied for annual leave two days earlier, but he did mention the wrongful issuing of the warrant for my arrest on 16th February 2010, which resulted in my illegal imprisonment on 22nd and 23rd February 2010.

I raised the issue of the hearing on the 8th December in more detail and Judge Barry listened and asked questions.  Then he talked about a discharge due to the low level of culpability under section 347 rather than 344 because my objection was based on the assertion that I was never lawfully arrested.

Judge Barry said that the background to the allegation was that a series of events on 8th April 2009 saw police considering Perverting the Course of Justice charge based on the premise that I had inveigled Aaron Brook to make a statement that Michael Murphy had burgled my house.  Constable Rhymer says that Brook later retracted his statement and said that I made him say something that wasn't true.  The escalation arose, Judge Barry said, when I arrived at the Carterton Police Station at ten to eight on the morning of the 17th April 2009 to make complaints about a number of matters.  The exchange that followed subsequently led to the Escaping from Custody charge.

Judge Barry said 'the Crown case is that when Constable Rhymer gave evidence in her depositions about what happened at the police station, she advised Katherine Raue that she needed to speak to her.  She never formally laid hands on the accused.  It was an emotionally charged situation and Constable Rhymer had maintained a reasonable space."

Judge Barry then said that I had made my position crystal clear by putting a set of propositions: that the officer never actually said that I was under arrest, that she had merely said that she wanted me to go to Masterton with her, that I couldn't understand why that was (given that I had gone there to make complaints after having phoned about them the previous day), and that in fact I thought that the arrest hadn't happened (which was perfectly logical and understandable to any reasonable person, including Judge Barry thankfully).  He said "Ms Ewing submits and I accept that the charge contains key elements including whether at the time Katherine Raue left the station she was in lawful custody.  That would depend on evidence she had been arrested.  There is a question of fact and a question of law." (I made notes and this is to the best of my recall)  The question of fact was about whether the officers conduct, objectively viewed reasonably informed the subject of the arrest.  He referred to Hotene v Police and Ballantyne v Police.  Then he said that looking at the question of fact it can only be an issue of fact that is appropriate for a jury to consider.  

"But the matter does not end there" he said.

"Firstly, there is a clear picture that the alleged offending was at the lower end of the spectrum of culpability of escaping from custody charges, and moreover, a dislocation of proceedings led to unfortunate, and unlawful, consequences.  Now I need to set out my understanding of this" he said.  "The Crown framed an indictment . . . "  

My notes are incomplete at this point due to the fact that I was having a bit of difficulty trying to think, talk and write notes all at the same time, and Judge Barry was allowing me to explain things to him so I was concentrating on trying to do so clearly and concisely.  We discussed the manner in which the Crown had framed the indictment, and tried to separate the charges, which had been rejoined by Judge Behrens QC on 8th December when Constable Rhymer had failed to turn up to Court, and applied for annual leave two days before the hearing - much to everyone's disgust - why has she not been charged with contempt of Court?.

"Unfortunately, that fact was never acted upon in respect of the summary charge which lay in the Masterton Court and was never withdrawn."  I believe it was withdrawn, on 8th December, and not recorded by Court staff.  "Unbeknown to the Crown, the amicus curiae, or Katherine Raue the summary charge still lay in the Masterton Court and was proceeding on it's own course.  A bench warrant was issued for the arrest of Katherine Raue on the 16th February and she was arrested on the 22nd and taken to Arohata and had money taken which has apparently not been returned."  My notes are brief and incomplete, so I will type them as they are written rather than try and fill in the gaps where I can't remember exactly:

This particular part of jurisdiction to discharge

Ms Ewing  sets out Crown position, responsibly accepts the low end culpability

Ballantyne, Hotene

acknowledging confusion, penalty would be nominal

Go to jury:  (1) Jury accepted arrest? (2) Evidence of acquiesence? 

Secondly, and allied with the low end culpability bit is the consequences already visited.

This rare use of S 347 

no useful purpose

R v Harrington:   p 763  Judge Casey p 764

No guidelines as to how discretion applied.

Judge Barry then commented on R v Matenga in the High Court in Gisborne, 5 October 2006, in which Justice Baragwanath referred to Harrington in a case with an unusual combination of (1) Thinness of the Crown case, (2) Process failure, and (3)The likelihood of further publicity for a political issue (occupation of land in that case).  Refusal to commit was commented on.

"I consider this case falls within the threshold required and a discharge is appropriate.

Core culpability is the Perverting the Course of Justice charge and this charge has arisen as a sideshow to that.  The conduct alleged is at such a low end of offending I cannot see it going to trial.  

The accused is discharged on Count 2.

347 Power to discharge accused

(1) Where any person is committed for trial, the Judge may, in his discretion,—

(a) of his own motion or on the application of the prosecutor or the accused; and

(b) after giving both the prosecutor and the accused reasonable opportunity to be heard on the matter; and

(c) after perusal of the depositions and consideration of such other evidence and other matters as are submitted for his consideration by the prosecutor or the accused—

direct that no indictment shall be filed, or, if an indictment has been filed, direct that the accused shall not be arraigned thereon; and in either case direct that the accused be discharged.

(2) Where an indictment is filed by the Attorney-General, or by any one with the consent of the Attorney-General, under subsection (3) of section 345, the Judge may in his discretion, after perusal of the statements of the witnesses for the prosecution, or after hearing those witnesses, direct that the accused shall not be arraigned on the indictment, and direct that he be discharged.

(3) The Judge may in his discretion, at any stage of any trial, whether before or after verdict, direct that the accused be discharged.

(3A) Every direction under this section shall be given in open court.

(4) A discharge under this section shall be deemed to be an acquittal.

(5) The provisions of section 106(3) of the Sentencing Act 2002 shall extend and apply to a discharge under this section.

(6) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the court to convict and discharge any person.

______________________________________________________________________

So Constable Laura Rhymer will give evidence on the charge of Perverting the Course of Justice, and on the charge of Escaping from Custody a discharge under Section 347 is deemed to be an acquittal.  This is remarkably similar to the decision of Judge Behrens QC, which resulted in the submissions to the Police Complaints Authority from lawyer Michael Appleby, after the trial was stopped when it became apparent that the officer in charge of the case was going to commit perjury, by dishonestly saying he arrested me at a public meeting in front of over a hundred witnesses, many of who were prepared to swear to the fact that he hadn't arrested me at all, just assaulted me for no reason and falsely imprisoned me all night and wasted thousands of dollars of tax payer's money pursuing a number of corrupt prosecutions based on perjurous "evidence".  The trial was stopped after evidence was given by the police themselves that I hadn't been arrested at all.

The only bad bit was having to cycle home from Featherston in the rain after I missed the last train, but on the bright side, at least I didn't get a puncture.  Many thanks to the three kind people who gave me a lift from Wellington to Petone, Petone to Upper Hutt, and Upper Hutt to Featherston.

Next call over date 2 November 2010 at 2:15.  New Zealand tax payers should be disgusted at this corrupt waste of money and resources pursuing the malicious vendetta of a couple of corrupt local police officers.

Section 173A(2) of the Summary Proceedings Act:

At the hearing on 22nd September 2009 corrupt amicus curiae Bryan Yeoman tried to make me sign a document to the Court from the Police prosecutor, which claimed that:

"By consent of all parties of this hearing, written statements by:

Constable Laura Rhymer

shall be admitted as evidence as if these persons had given oral evidence and shall be admitted notwithstanding non-compliance of all of the requirements of Section 173A(2) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957"

       - among other things.

I refused to sign it because it was a corrupt attempt to prevent the police officer in charge of the case (Rhymer) from giving evidence in person, or being cross examined.  She is lying in saying that she had cause to arrest me and in saying that she did arrest me.  She knew there was no evidence whatsoever that I had perverted the course of justice, and considerable evidence that her superior officer Constable Peter Cletus Cunningham had grossly perverted the course of justice in refusing to charge Murphy and Greig with the attack on me on 11th February 2009.  She knew that Cunningham had encouraged Murphy to break into my house and steal the disk containing evidence not only of his own attack on me, but also of the incompetence and corruption of the police in releasing the 46 audio tracks on the disk but not the two I requested, my own call to 111 and that of Claire Cook and Kelly Wilson.  Rhymer never arrested me.  She repeatedly asked me to go with her to Masterton because I was "going to be charged."  She knew there was no evidence to support any such charge and that it was grossly corrupt to arrest me or charge me, and she didn't want to be involved, which is why she didn't turn up to Court on the 8th December 2009, because police knew that Judge Behrens would see through their lies like he did last time, and are hoping to get a corrupt Judge (like Davidson or Thomas).

Furthermore, when I looked up Section 173A(2) of the Summary Proceedings Act, I discovered that it was repealed in 2008, and apparently replaced with this:

173 Persons who may give evidence under assumed name

“(1) An undercover police officer (within the meaning of section 108 of the Evidence Act 2006)—

• “(a) may make a written statement, or give oral evidence, in the name by which the officer was known during the relevant investigation; and

• “(b) may sign that statement, or the record of that evidence, in that name.

“(2) A witness who is the subject of an application for an anonymity order made under section 110 or 112 of the Evidence Act 2006, or who is the subject of an anonymity order made under either of those sections,—

• “(a) may make a written statement, or give oral evidence, using the term ‘witness’ followed by an initial or mark; and

• “(b) may sign that statement, or the record of that evidence, in that manner.

“(3) This section overrides any contrary provision in this Part.

Here are my written instructions sent to the lawyer assigned to represent me, on 15 October 2009, following the outrageous outburst from Judge Davidson and my imprisonment after police deliberately lied to and intimidated a local family offering me a bail address:

"My instructions are that a copy be requested of the audio recording of the proceedings heard before Judge Davidson on 29^th and 30^th September and a formal complaint lodged about the actions and language of the Judge, in particular the shouted rant about how it's time I learned that the world doesn't revolve around me, the repeated shouting of “shut up, you shut up” and the imprisonment at Arohata.

Judge Davidson recently heard the matter of my private prosecution against Rachel Betteridge and he heard the original charge against me based on Betteridge's perjurous 'evidence'.

He excused Betteridge's appearance, which makes a mockery of my imprisonment.

He was told repeatedly during the hearing of the charges against me that Betteridge was giving perjurous evidence on oath during the hearing, and that we had evidence of it right there in the Court in the form of the phone with the extremely offensive and threatening messages from Betteridge on it. Davidson shut the hearing down, dismissing the charges before the evidence, or any evidence for the defence, could be produced. After being informed that perjury was being committed and that there was indisputable evidence of it in the Court I believe that Judge Davidson had a duty to respond to that serious allegation at the time, and again when he heard the private prosecution. I insist that the matter is addressed now.

I instruct that a formal complaint is made to the Manager for Courts regarding the practise of Liz Harpleton and Gary Wilson conspiring to pervert the course of justice. Having the prosecutor's live in lover acting as Court Registrar is completely unacceptable. Harpleton made a submission to two JP's while she was sitting on the bench assisting them in her role, on behalf of the police, asking for an ajournment, even though the matter had been set down for formal proof. Ken Daniels was present and left a message on my phone that day to say that he was appalled at what he had seen and heard in the Court.

I instruct that a written complaint is submitted to the PCA immediately regarding the decisions of the police to proceed with the prosecutions against me when they knew perfectly well that the evidence showed indisputably that I had not sent any offensive messages at all and that Betteridge and her husband had sent extremely serious threats and abuse to me, and the continued refusal of the police to charge them when the evidence clearly exists that they committed these serious crimes, and the police were happy to lay charges and proceed with a prosecution against me on the basis of no evidence at all, and police refused to even seek any information from the telecommunications company let alone look at the evidence provided to them in the form of the statements of the two Justices of the Peace, Ken English and George Groombridge..

I instruct that an appeal is lodged immediately regarding the refusal of Judge Davidson to award me costs in those matters.

I instruct that an appeal is lodged regarding the convictions for failing to stop, etc.

I instruct that an appeal is immediately lodged regarding Judge Davidson's decision to imprison me. The police deliberately lied to Bill Armstrong and told him that the Court had directed me to reside at 1 Brooklyn Rd and imposed a curfew which required the police to come to that address and check that I was there twice a night. Bill and Jennifer Armstrong have already written statements about being harassed by the police about me. Jennifer's statement about a recent incident describes how she felt frightened and intimidated after Constable Harvey Pope demanded entry to her home stating that he had the right to come in because he was in fresh pursuit of a criminal, to issue me with another bike helmet ticket and a letter about harrassing Tuakana Greig which is nothing but a pack of utter lies. Greig has physically attacked me on numerous occasions in front of numerous witnesses and come to my home and attacked me on two occasions. Bill would not have refused if the police had not lied about the curfew. Furthermore, Constable Cadwallader issued me with another bike helmet recently but refused to give me the disclosure I was entitled to regarding these matters. I would not come to the door to accept the ticket as he demanded, and Rachel Armstrong refused his demand to come inside to issue it to me personally so he gave it to her to pass on to me. Cadwallader then went to the Armstrong's, and other addresses of my friends, repeatedly, claiming to have disclosure to give me, but refused on every occasion to leave it there for me to collect.

I don't have a car and cannot get employment or accomodation because of the lies told by the police which are evidenced by the letter to the South End School, and suffering extreme financial hardship because of the excessive fines being deducted from my invalid benefit for not wearing a bike helmet in spite of the letters from my doctor. The bail bond refers to an “evidential address” - where is the definition of this? I don't even know what an evidential address is and doubt the term has any meaning or legal standing. I am forced to stay at various locations dependant on restrictions such as bad weather or darkness which make cycling unsafe. For these reasons I will not be dictated to as to where I sleep, it is an outrageous breach of my human rights.

I instruct that a letter be written to the Police Complaints Authority and to the South End School immediately about the letter I received, and the matter of my complaints of serious violence and child abuse against Tuakana Greig and her partner. Tuakana Greig limped into Court on the 30^th after the latest beating from her partner, and one of them will kill one of those children one day because they are both seriously violent people and there will be more blood of little children on the hands of the Wairarapa police, who cover up and lie for these people.

I instruct that a formal complaint is made to the Human Rights Commissioner regarding my imprisonment, which was based on the lies of the police. I require the audiotape of the hearing because I heard Judge Davidson clearly refuse the request of the prosecutor that a curfew be imposed, and I heard the Judge give reasons why not. The prosecutor heard it and the police deliberately lied to Bill Armstrong and I request that an affidavit from Mr Armstrong be prepared, and also an affidavit from John Shields, who witnessed an attack on me by Greig outside East Taratahi Building Supplies in Wong Place. John Shields knows that I was nowhere near her address at all and I had come to his workshop to speak with him and gone straight back to my car and was still speaking to him when Greig ran down the road and attacked me.

The Wairarapa police are conspiring to pervert the course of justice, not me. I instruct that a letter be immediately written to the Ombudsmen regarding the refusal of the police to provide all information regarding the attack on me by Michael Murphy and Tuakana Greig at my home on 11^th February 2009, particularly the audiotape of the call from Claire Cook and Kelly Wilson to emergency services. This request is directly relevant to the current charges, and to the serious risk of violent child abuse, and is extremely urgent. The audiotape of a call from another witness has been released three times and there is no valid reason not to release the tape I have requested. The transcript is not sufficient because of inaccuraies between the transcripts and audiotape of other related calls which have been released. I have all personal details, names, addresses, phone number, etc of Cook and Wilson so there is no reason to withhold them.

I gave these, and other verbal instructions at the Court on the 29^th and 30^th and I want them all to be carried out.

Katherine Raue"

Letter written to lawyer Ken Daniels on 17th February 2010 regarding illegal warrant:

Dear Ken,
Thank you for your message yesterday, it was very kind of you to let me know that a warrant has been issued.
Your message says “Cops say concern over shift of address.”
Are you able to give me any more information about this, or the basis for the police application for the warrant?
I requested the file from Ainslie Hewton in October last year and repeatedly ever since, and have been unable to communicate with that firm because I don’t have a telephone to make outgoing calls or send faxes on, and Ainslie Hewton simply refuses to engage in electronic communication (email), which I have had  limited access to recently.  During a conversation with Ainslie Hewton on 3rd December 2009, and several previous phone conversations between her and I, she had confirmed that her firm was no longer acting for me after she refused to request transcripts of the hearings held in my absence recently (and the one that ended at 7:30 at night), and refused to accept almost all my other instructions, including firm and clear instructions to request that the false information in the psychiatric report be formally challenged, and a proper report be commissioned immediately, and a formal complaint made to the Health and Disability Commissioner and any other relevant agencies regarding the content of the report and the manner in which the interview was conducted and the fact that it was not recorded as I requested.
As I cannot get in touch with Ainslie Hewton, I wonder if you would have time to ring Frank Minehan please (or anyone at the firm) and request (on my behalf) that they deliver the file immediately to 1 Brooklyn Road, Carterton, and ask Ainslie Hewton’s firm and the police to address the following points:
I request that Ainslie Hewton immediately scan and email me the copy of the bail bond issued recently by the Court - 30 September 2009 I think - which lists my address as being “of no fixed abode.”
This was argued about for several hours, following my illegal imprisonment on the 29th September 2009
The decision by the Judge to allow the address of “no fixed abode” was a result of him being informed that the police had lied to Bill and Jennifer Armstrong and their family the previous evening, who had been deliberately led to believe that the Court was likely to impose a curfew which would necessitate the police entering the Armstrong’s already overcrowded home up “two or three times every night” to check that I was there.  The police knew that the Judge had specifically refused their application for a curfew, hours earlier, police deliberately lied to the family.
The family have three daughters who were studying for exams at this time, and had been happy to provide a bail address for me up until then.
As a result of the false information from the police regarding the curfew, Bill Armstrong said when questioned by police that under those circumstances the family could reluctantly no longer continue to provide a bail address and I was imprisoned.
The following day I instructed Ainslie Hewton to lodge several formal complaints about my imprisonment.  Frank Minehan informed the Judge of the lie told by police to the Armstrong family.
Frank also provided a copy of a statement from Jennifer Armstrong about another incident of police harassment and bullying (attached) and a letter from Oasis Trust referring to other incidences of false complaints and resulting harassment of the Armstrong family as evidence.
Our complaints regarding these matters and others have never been accepted or investigated and have been dismissed repeatedly in a rude, unprofessional, and clearly corrupt manner.
The issuing of this warrant is similarly corrupt and based on police providing the Court with deliberately false information.
I need confirmation from Frank Minehan that on the 29th or 30th September 2009 the police prosecutor repeatedly put forward the address of 1 Hodders Road Carterton as the police approved bail address.
Frank knows this is true.  The police suggested it to Frank and said that they would approve it if I agreed to live there.  I argued for hours against this because Timothy Reynolds, who lives at the address the police were referring to, is kindly allowing me to store some of my belongings at his house (and graze the Community Garden horses there), on the condition that he is not harassed in the manner that the Armstrongs are.
I also requested Ainslie Hewton to make formal complaint to the PCA regarding Constable Cunningham parking outside the home of Rongomai Paewai and her family in Rexwood St on about the 15th November (this is why I need the notes urgently) for over 45 minutes after chasing me there for not wearing my bike helmet.
Rongomai Paewai witnessed this and confirmed that his actions were a waste of time - he never got out of the car, just sat there and glared at the property for over 45 minutes.  She also felt that his actions constituted harassment, and were intended to be intimidating.
She suffered stress and anxiety during the time he was parked outside, wondering if one of her children was in trouble or why he was parked there looking at the house in such a hostile manner.
Ainslie Hewton was also provided with letters from my doctors confirming that I should be excused from wearing a bike helmet for valid medical reasons, and that I suffer from a permanent disability to my right foot and ankle preventing me from walking, and therefore necessitating (in conjunction with abject poverty - as a result of police taking $185 out of my benefit every time they give me a ticket for not wearing the helmet - although they are well aware of the doctors letters) me riding a bike to get from A to B - Court, etc.
Ainslie Hewton agreed to write to the police about all the bike helmet tickets, not just one of them.
They agreed, as evidenced in written correspondence, to act regarding many other outstanding matters also, a recent letter from the PCA refers to them representing me on “a number of contemporary and historic issues.”  Frank also wrote me a letter on 7 March 2008 saying “Once this challenging hearing is out of the way, the writer may have the opportunity to review responses he has had with respect to the many other matters that are and have been of concern to you.”  Frank was referring to the rude email from Murray Johnston rejecting any and all complaints I might make on the basis that “in the past her complaints have been proved to be emotive, unfounded, and simply not credible.”  Frank knows as you do, that this is not true and that the police actions in refusing to investigate any of my complaints, while instead pursuing a campaign of emotive, unfounded, and simply not credible prosecutions against me, based on obviously fictitious complaints such as the one from Rachel Betteridge.  These promises were never kept because Frank told me that Ainslie Hewton took on too much work and there was not enough time to do it properly.
The “challenging hearing” referred to was the unfounded charge (laid in September 08 I think, right before the trial of Colin Allomes for the serious assault on me in Dannevirke,) that I had telephoned Allomes and swore at him.
It turned out that Allomes had not even made a statement to police regarding the complaint.
Allomes’ Victim Impact Statement was outrageous and contained no comment to the effect that he was at all affected by me swearing at him in the days after his attack on me.
Allomes behaviour in the Court while giving evidence made it perfectly clear that he had enjoyed the phone calls he received from me and obtained gratification from hearing my distress, and was obtaining further gratification from the Court hearing and the opportunity it afforded him to cause me further distress, and the opportunity to be in close proximity to me again after the original attack, and prove to me how the corrupt police would support his lies.
This was the trial which Judge Susan Thomas abandoned, storming out of the Court while Allomes stood in the witness box, shouting outrageous things at me, which is why she refuses to release the transcript of the hearing, which was an utter mockery of justice.
I instructed Ainslie Hewton to obtain CCTV footage from the Carterton New World Supermarket immediately after being threatened again recently by Michael Murphy in the supermarket regarding the current charges.  He is a police witness giving evidence against me and I have previously asked police a number of times to charge him for numerous threatening and intimidatory actions as well as the attack on me on 11th February in my home by him and at least one other person.  I requested the footage be immediately requested by Ainslie Hewton on my behalf under the Privacy Act and other relevant legislation because it is directly relevant to the serious charges I am facing and evidence of Murphy’s threatening behaviour.  This was never requested, or any action taken that I know of.
Numerous other instructions were ignored also, including a request that the firm write to the Ombudsmen and any other relevant agency regarding the refusal of the police to provide the audiotape of the call to emergency services from Clare Cook and Kelly Wilson regarding Murphy’s attack on me on 11th February 09, which Frank promised to do.
Back to the issue of the warrant and the bail address.  I urgently require all information from Ainslie Hewton and from the Court, and have requested many times recently that I be provided with a copy of their files which I obviously need to prepare a defence.
I suspect that police are relying on a statement written in a notebook, by Harvey Pope probably, regarding a conversation with Timothy Reynolds of Hodders Road, who confirmed that I am storing some of my possessions at his property with his permission.
Mr Reynolds has previously complained about numerous recent police visits to his property regarding me.  The visits were unnecessary, unfounded and the reasons given for the visits was simply not credible.  Mr Reynolds and I viewed the visits as harassment.
Likewise, shortly after giving the bail address 222 Belvedere Road, Constable Cunningham turned up there one day and spoke to the occupant, Kylie Donnelly, about text messages sent to Alison Poulsen, and then attempted to blackmail Donnelly into refusing me a bail address, by threatening to investigate regarding her illegal activities.
Police have also refused to take my complaints that Donnelly has been refusing since then to return my daughter’s sleeping bag to me, or to give me a receipt for $700 paid to her for a computer, and software that has never been provided as promised by Donnelly.
This contradicts the actions taken by police when other people have falsely claimed that I am holding their property illegally, as we all know.
Mr Reynolds went to the police station to ask the police about the validity of the allegation contained in a letter to me from the South End School in Carterton, sacking me from my job because of a false allegation that I have “been charged by the police with an offence involving a child.”
I have been the subject of these lies by the police that I am a child abuser for over fifteen years.
The allegation from the Board of Trustees is linked to the attack on me on the 11th February 09 and further evidence of police corruption.
Mr Reynolds is a good friend of the deputy principal of the South End School, and the refusal of the police to confirm that the allegation is false, and their continued slander of me - for eleven months now - is causing me to be abused and attacked regularly in the community by individuals who have been led by the police to believe that I am a child abuser and not to be trusted near children.
Mr Reynolds has had enough of arguments among his friends about the false allegation, and requested Pope to either confirm or deny that I have been charged ever in my life with an offence involving a child, and what the offence is, when it was laid, etc.
Pope apparently said police were “looking into it and expect to lay charges soon” - which is what they have been telling other people for eleven months.  This was a lie.  Pope knows that the complaint regarding Tuakana Grieg’s daughter was false and fictitious and there are going to be no charges laid regarding the matter because nothing happened.
Pope then made indirect threats to target Timothy Reynolds for attention as police targeted me for attention.
Please Ken, would you provide me with a copy of the correspondence between you and I in which I asked your view on my claim of police harassment and you responded in a letter that you thought I had been “a lightning rod for police attention in the Wairarapa” and other comments.  I have searched high and low for it and cannot find it, it shouldn’t be that hard to locate and it is important evidence in support of my complaint that they are treating me unfairly, and I would be very grateful if you could provide a copy of the correspondence (there was more than one letter about the subject but less than 6).
Pope threatened similar attention for Tim Reynolds,
Pope also attempted to persuade Tim Reynolds to have police issue me with: a trespass notice, which Tim refused to authorise; other Orders and Warnings, which Tim also refused to authorise.
Pope then wrote a statement in his notebook according to Tim, and asked Tim to sign it, which he did reluctantly, because he had not gone to the station to do that, he had gone there to settle the dispute about whether the allegation in the letter from the South End School sacking me from my job was true or false, and obtain written confirmation of that from Pope, as I have requested numerous times.
Tim complained to Pope that the letter from the school was causing dissention, violence and disharmony in the community, and resulting in arguments at his address, where both I and the staff member are welcome, and other places.
Reynolds confirmed to police that staff are abusing and attacking me because they see my letters of complaint regarding the letter sacking me to be an attack on their jobs. This is a ridiculous allegation - the letter was from the Board not the staff.
Tim’s friend, the DP, was directly involved with me in matters regarding the garden at the school, and advised me of the letter sacking me before I even received it, and was advised that the allegation is untrue, and was asked by me to convey this to the Board via the staff representative.
The DP agreed to do this, and, on that condition I liaised with the DP regarding the collection of some large drums donated to our organisation Friends of the Gardens, from Premier Bacon.
There is no evidence of the DP communicating my concerns regarding the letter to the Board either before or after I received it, but there is evidence regarding the drums, and the fact that they have not been used by the school for the planned water conservation project as promised, and have instead been locked in a shed, like all our other equipment, hoses, tools, etc, so that we can’t have it back.
The DP confirmed that money granted for the Take Acton for Water project was not spent on the planned project at all it was spent on plants that have died from lack of care because there was and is no plan for the garden at the school (except for Friends of the Garden’s plan, which has obviously been rudely rejected.)
We require the drums and hoses, etc, URGENTLY for our other projects in the community and have asked police to recover them and the sleeping bag Donnelly has.
Pope then told Tim Reynolds that I was bailed to 1 Brooklyn Road, and would be arrested for breaching that bail address, and again tried to convince him to refuse me access to his own property by blackmailing him regarding the likelihood of undue attention from the police.
The bail address “no fixed abode” was apparently changed recently back to 1 Brooklyn Road after that address had previously been rejected by the police, by none other than Bryan Yeoman, who seems to get paid a lot of money for doing nothing except refuse to pass on any communication to the appropriate parties, Court, Ainslie Hewton, etc.
I certainly did not agree to it.
“No fixed abode” was approved by the Court, and there are no grounds for that warrant, or any concerns regarding shift of address whatsoever apart from the malicious and vindictive lies being spread throughout the community that I am a child abuser which are resulting in me being unable to obtain accomodation or employment.
Murphy claimed that his threats in the supermarket were to urge me to turn up for the imminent Defended Hearing on 8th December 09 and not waste everyone’s time including his.
This is a joke considering that I turned up on the 8th December with three witnesses, all prepared to conduct a defended hearing, and discovered that the only Police witness, Constable Laura Rhymer, had applied for annual leave the previous Friday!
Many people believe that she applied for annual leave deliberately in order to avoid having the charge heard before Judge Michael Behrens QC, because of Judge Behrens’ knowledge of previous matters before the Court involving local police bringing false charges and giving false evidence in what has been  claimed by me and by lawyers to be politically motivated corruption.
I am referring to the five charges thrown out by Judge Behrens after evidence was given that the police had not arrested me after the meeting at the Carterton Municipal Hall as they claimed.
Judge Behrens’ written decisions, and the complaints to the PCA from me and from Michael Appleby, and recent correspondence from lawyer Nikki Pender (as well as correspondence from about five other lawyers) all support my claims of harassment, politically motivated corruption and gross misconduct on the part of the police, involving ex MP Georgina Beyer and persons associated with the Carterton District Council.
There is evidence of a pattern of directly contradictory responses to information requests which, when examined more closely is more clear evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by members of the police.
Please formally request the Area Controller of the Police to provide written evidence of the fact that I have never in my life been charged with an offence involving a child.
Please formally request the Area Controller of the Police to provide the audiotape of the call to 111 by Clare Cook and Kelly Wilson on 11 February 2009.
Police are refusing to provide it, because it contains Michael Murphy screaming “I’m going to kill you you bitch,” and “Get out of the way, I’m going to smash the door in.” - My door.
I was approached by Tuakana Greig yesterday who confessed to me that Police forced her to make a false statement against me.
She also spoke to me about recent matters regarding Michael Murphy.
The seeking of this warrant is motivated by a desire to prevent me communicating with other people regarding evidence of police corruption.
Ainslie Hewton was instructed to obtain a sworn statement from Charlie Belvie regarding similar evidence: that Mr Belvie heard Aaron Brook boasting that Gary McPhee was going to pay him money to lie about me in Court.  This instruction has also been ignored
Please see to it that this letter is placed before a Judge as soon as possible, preferably Judge Behrens, because I was denied my right to speak to him on the 8th December.  Ainslie Hewton clearly and emphatically quit the previous week and was then told by me that I didn’t want them standing up in Court and pretending to represent me after refusing to accept any of the instructions.
I am very unwell at present suffering from extreme stress and exhaustion and need to prepare my defence in peace without this constant harassment and lies from the police.
Judge Behrens specifically enquired into this matter, asking for an up to date medical report.
Frank Minehan then handed up the very psychiatric report I had challenged, and made a formal complaint about, and requested a second opinion, and stated was a pack of lies written after consultation with yourself and the police rather than what I told the psychiatrist.
This report was handed up in direct contradiction with my instructions.
I was entitled to speak directly to Judge Behrens about the effect of an adjournment on my health, and I request that opportunity urgently because of the matters involving the warrant and the recent lies told to Tim Reynolds, Bill Armstrong, the Board of Trustees of the South End School and others.

Thank you
Kate

Michael Francis Richard James Murphy:

Michael Murphy is a dangerous individual with a long history of violence, an unhealthy interest in little girls, and a very warped personality - he's a danger to the public.  Several of his other victims have contacted me with stories similar to mine, including members of his own family.  In fact, many believe that Michael Francis Murphy may have inherited the homicidal insanity of his uncle, his father's brother, John James Murphy, who was sentenced to life in prison in 1976 for the vicious murder of Gail McFayden in Paekakariki.  Murphy was released in the mid eighties, and to this day he has expressed no remorse.  The story of her final hours is chilling and horrifying.  Murphy was reportedly "detached" and "arrogant" - other traits his nephew seems to have inherited.  The evidence obviously convinced the jury, in spite of Murphy's high profile (expensive) lawyers.

Michael Murphy boasts of having fathered seven children, although he apparently has little to do with most of them.  He has spent years in prison and has convictions for violence, theft, fraud, kidnapping, etc.  He and his partner were found guilty of fraud, and fraudulently claiming social welfare benefits, in 2009, he apparently sued the government for alleged abuse he received as a child in state care, so he's done very well off the taxpayers of New Zealand one way and another, and continues to do so by all accounts.  Local police protect him and encourage his homicidal rage related attacks, like they do with others in the community such as local drunk Gary McPhee - this is, as several lawyers have noted, politically motivated corruption involving the local police.  Gary McPhee made a big song and dance about a 'petition' to employ glorified tea lady Acacia Simpson - an "unsworn officer" at the Carterton police station - saying people in the community don't need a sworn officer they just need a shoulder to cry on and a cup of tea, after police refused to charge McPhee and his accomplice with ANOTHER violent home invasion.

Here's the link to one of the calls to emergency services during the violent attack on me by Murphy at 13 Brooklyn Rd, Carterton, here's more police radio tracks regarding the attack.  A Google search using the words Kate Raue Michael Murphy will bring up about thirty links to more information regarding Murphy's despicable crimes and how local police protect him and his mates Tracey Feast, etc.