"Get out of the way and I'll smash the door in" v "I can't remember I've got ADHD"

Below is the statement from one of the witnesses, and links to the phone calls from others, to the violent and premeditated attack on me in my home on 11 February 2009 - the attack which corrupt local police are covering up in order to protect the perpetrator, Michael Francis Murphy, who has a history of convictions, prison sentences, etc, for crimes involving domestic violence, violence involving children, etc.

Michael Francis Richard James Murphy is a cunning, manipulative, depraved little piece of scum who has bludged off the system his whole miserable life.  Not long after Murphy's murderous attack on me his partner Michelle McGreal, was convicted of benefit fraud - (for those readers new to the internet, welcome, and if you click on highlighted text such as the words in the previous sentence it will link you to EVIDENCE supporting the allegations made on this website, in this case a verified 'news' report.  Likewise, clicking on the images on this site will open a clearer view of them.) -

"Carterton beneficiary Michelle McGreal, convicted in 2010, had the highest debt of the prosecutions in the past four years, as she was overpaid by $77,800.

Ministry of Social Development head of fraud Mike Smith said every client, including Ms McGreal, has a responsibility to tell the ministry of personal circumstances that might impact on their benefit.

"McGreal's actions were selfish. She made a decision to steal from taxpayers, but we caught her and ensured she was held to account."

Roll of shame:

Carterton woman Michelle McGreal was sentenced to six months home detention and 200 hours community work after being convicted on fraud and dishonesty charges in June 2010. She was overpaid by $77,800 after not informing Work and Income that she was living with her de facto partner."

the 'news' report at that link shows comments at the bottom of the web page from readers and one in particular stands out - 

"most importantly
why isnt the defacto also charged and liable to repay half the money
the current situation makes it very easy to bully your partner into claiming the dpb and then threatening to dob them in if they leave you
some of these women have horrific lives they are too scared to try and change because of what winz will do to them while leaving their "partner" alone"

Michelle McGreal is a nice lady.  Michael Francis Murphy is a devious, manipulative, lying violent psychopath. 

Aaron Brook has been let down by the Police, and pretty much everyone else, all his life.  He was bribed by corrupt local officers to lie in Court to support this false charge - which is an abuse of the Court process, as well as a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice by corrupt local Police officers, members of the community and other parties.

The evidence he gave at the Depositions hearing, which the whole Crown case depended on, has to be seen to be believed, which is why readers are encouraged to read it by clicking on the links (the text highlighted in bold type)

Witnesses Clair Cook and Kelly Wilson were walking up Brooklyn Rd, and that they saw the car driven by Murphy speed around the corner and into my driveway with screeching tyres, they then heard the loud bangs caused by Murphy throwing his full body weight at the door, ripping off the handle and trying to club me around the head with it, - from eight houses away on the other side of the road - according to their own statements to Police - who are refusing to take any action whatsoever against the perpetrators of this outrageous attack other than bullying, persecuting and slandering the victim and laying false charges of perverting the course of justice after Murphy was encouraged to return to my house to steal the evidence of his crime in the form of the Police recordings of witnesses who rang 111!

The police radio recordings at these links confirm the level of the corruption regarding police involvement in this matter - as well as confirming that Murphy is GUILTY of a violent home invasion, planned by him and Tracy Feast (who was insanely jealous about the fact that her ex partner and her daughter were good friends of mine), which is why police encouraged Murphy to break into my house and steal the disk with the recordings on it.  They then tried charging me with "Perverting the Course of Justice" and "Escaping From Custody", but the charges were dismissed after Constable Laura Rhymer was proven in Court to be a bare faced LIAR.  

The three phone calls to emergency services from the independent witnesses and the victim are indisputable evidence that this was not just a case of a couple of people knocking loudly on a door as Constable Cunningham and his mates are trying to make out, it was a vicious, premeditated attack, a violent home invasion - firstly I had the FULL permission of Tuakana Greig to take her daughter to the supermarket, and secondly nothing whatsoever untoward occurred whilst at the supermarket - the only allegation that anything happened in the supermarket was made by a nasty vicious woman called Tracey Feast who was involved in the death of a local woman, Donna Thompson, who committed suicide in the most appalling manner imaginable, leaving a young daughter without a mother, because of Tracey Feast and her partner - Michael Murphy's best friend, Malcolm Swanson junior.  Michael Murphy is the partner of Michelle McGreal, with whom he was involved in the largest benefit fraud in the Wairarapa - which, among other things, calls his credibility seriously into question as much as the evidence does!

The second paragraph of the second page of witness Claire Cook's statement is indisputable evidence of a dangerous and violent intent to injure - it says:

"The male was saying move out of the way and I'll smash the door down."

11 February 2009: Michael Murphy's Violent Attack at 13 Brooklyn Road

This is the transcript of one of three calls to emergency services on 11th February 2009, to report a violent home invasion taking place at my house.  This particular call was made by a neighbour (whose name I've deleted to protect their privacy) and it is indisputable evidence of a serious violent crime for which corrupt local police are refusing to charge the offenders and spreading lies about the victims to try and justify the crimes instead.  Corrupt local police have a habit of doing this and it's politically motivated - they refused to charge Gary McPhee and his accomplice for another violent home invasion, aided and abetted by the local 'journalists' like Tanya Katterns.

Now lest it be thought that the caller was delusional, it turns out that there were another TWO independent witness to this attack, and they state that they were heading away from my house and were at the corner, approximately seven normal residential sections away, when they became so concerned at the violent attack that they turned around, came back down the road and one intervened with a large dog, while the other called emergency services:

Michael Francis Murphy and Tuakana Greig came to my home on 11 February 2009 and attacked me violently.  The violence was serious, and the attack was planned.  Michael Murphy had been coming to my address and threatening me and generally causing trouble on an almost daily basis for weeks, and these visits had been noted by several witnesses.  He conspired with a local woman, Tracey Feast, to incite others to attack me, and lied to these people in order to influence them and cause the attack.

The police are trying to pretend it never happened, like they tried to pretend that a similar attack on the occupants of a local flat in 2005, by the Mayor of Carterton Gary McPhee, didn't happen, and that nobody complained about it.  When I went to the Carterton police station in April 2009 to complain about the fact that police were refusing to charge Murphy and the others involved in the attack on 11 February 2009, I was told that I was going to be charged with perverting the course of justice.

The attack on 11th February 2009 bears remarkable similarities to the home invasion committed by drunken local Mayor Gary McPhee and his mate on the innocent occupants of a local flat in May 2005, like that violent attack, this one involved McPhee also, and like the 2005 attack, the perpetrators were treated like heroes by the local police and media and the victims were treated like the criminals.

This is the "Offence Report" completely by Constable Peter Cunningham about the violent attack:

 This report is blatantly corrupt, focusing on irrelevant trivialities such as what Greig was having for tea.  It is an orchestrated litany of lies from start to finish, designed to ignore and trivialise and justify the violent attack on me in my own home by Murphy and Greig.

So "it's an emergency" according to the witnesses.

Something's happening "like a massive domestic."


When asked if it was on the street or in a house, the witness replied "In a house.  My friend has gone and got their dog in there and I'm getting a bit scared."

When asked, "So you can hear a massive big fight?" the witness replies "Yeah, in the house."  "Oh my God."  "Oh my God."


It is perfectly clear that I, being the occupant of the house, was the victim of a violent attack from Murphy and Greig, who had deliberately come to my home with the intention of violently attacking me, and it is obvious that the refusal of the police to charge them is a blatant attempt to pervert the course of justice.

Second Call to 111 regarding attack on 11 February 2009:

This is the call from two women who were walking their dog in Brooklyn Rd, Carterton, on 11 February 2009, when they heard several loud bangs and shouting.  One of the women rang emergency services while the other intervened in the attack with the dog:

This is a second call, from a neighbour, also made while the attack is taking place:

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"