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Furthermore, when I looked up Section 173A(2) of the Summary Proceedings Act, I discovered that it was repealed in 2008, and apparently replaced with this: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