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Furthermore, when I looked up Section 173A(2) of the Summary Proceedings Act, I discovered that it was repealed in 2008, and apparently replaced with this: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 29th and 30th 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 30th 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 11th 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 29th and 30th and I want them all to be carried out.
Katherine Raue"
No comments:
Post a Comment