"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

Until we have legislation adopted into law to ensure fiduciary accountability and transparency in public affairs we will continue to have human rights breached because the existing crown immunity and lack of any independent oversight invites corruption to flourish.

"Question authority, and think for yourself" - Timothy Leary

"We have maintained a silence closely resembling stupidity" - Neil Roberts

"Information is the currency of democracy" - Thomas Jefferson

‎"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - Margaret Mead

"The truth is like a lion, you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself."

"I = m c 2 [squared] where "I" am information" - Timothy Leary

"Ring the bells that still can ring, forget your perfect offering, there's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in." Leonard Cohen

"The internet is a TV that watches you"

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

So called Ministry of Justice continues to corruptly assist fraudsters to pervert the course of justice:

Michael Murphy and Michelle McGreal defraud taxpayers of over $88,000 plus another similar amount - and are let off for it by the Police and the so called Ministry of Justice:

Michelle McGreal was charged with ten counts of benefit fraud.  She is the partner and co-offender of Michael Francis Murphy, local violent criminal and Police informer.  After Murphy's violent attack was publicised many other people in the community came forward with other information about them and their activities.

Together Murphy and McGreal deliberately planned to defraud the tax payers and government of New Zealand and did so to the tune of over eighty eight thousand dollars over seven years.  Murphy is also the person behind the untrue allegation contained in the letter to me from the Board of Trustees of the South End School - that I had 'recently been charged by the local Police with an offence involving a child' - McGreal and Murphy were guilty of an offence involving a child!  Of course Murphy was never charged - being a Police informant and a member of the Wairarapa Paedophile Network!

In addition to this, during the same period of time, Murphy successfully sued the 'Ministry of Social Development' for a sum of money that is apparently roughly equal to the other amount they defrauded us of, for "alleged" abuse he suffered as a child.

It is now clear that the charges against McGreal never included any pertaining to the very considerable amount of paid employment she and Murphy have been failed to declare to the IRD - or MSD or anyone else - over the years.

The so called 'news' paper reported that McGreal and Murphy defrauded us of around $77,800 - the actual amount was $88,130.69.  The so called 'news' paper also failed or willfully omitted to mention anything about the sentence McGreal received - Murphy got off scot free of course - and then the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Social Development procrastinated and applied the policy of "defer, delay, deny" to the requests made under the Official Information Act from interested parties - as of course did the local "reporters" - who had been in Court and heard the sentence but refused to publish it.

Finally, nearly two years after these requests were made, a copy of the Court decision - of Judge Kelly - was delivered. 

The sentence?  Six months home detention - to the home she shared with Murphy - in other words nothing, and 200 hours "community work" - and NO order for reparation - crime obviously pays in the Wairarapa, where we have the most corrupt Police in New Zealand. 

McGreal and Murphy continue to actively defraud the Ministry of Social Development, and the Police continue to turn a blind eye to it.

The decision can be viewed at THIS LINK.

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

The secret life of information - Jacob Huebert:

While the NZ National Government is following its puppeteer masters and ramming through legislation to increase the power of the state to spy on and record citizens as they innocently go about their daily business, they're already planning the next step, and reducing civil and human rights - we can spy on you but you can't record what we do. 

The National government has rammed a lot of legislation through as 'Omnibus Bills' and rushed Bills through undemocratically - allowing one day for submitters to write and present their submissions.

By Jacob Huebert:

Earlier this year, the Illinois Supreme Court struck down a state eavesdropping law that made it a crime for citizens to record conversations with police or anyone else without the other person’s permission. The court held that the old law “criminalize[d] a wide range of innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights. In particular, the court noted the state could not criminalize recording activities where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, including citizens’ “public” encounters with police.

Now the old law is back, with just a few changes, in a new bill sent to the governor’s desk by the Illinois Senate on Dec. 4. The bill not only passed, but did so overwhelmingly with votes of 106-7 in the House on and 46-4-1 in the Senate.

The new version is nearly as bad as the old one.

Under the new bill, a citizen could rarely be sure whether recording any given conversation without permission is legal. The bill would make it a felony to surreptitiously record any “private conversation,” which it defines as any “oral communication between 2 or more persons,” where at least one person involved had a “reasonable expectation” of privacy.

When does the person you’re talking to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? The bill doesn’t say. And that’s not something an ordinary person can be expected to figure out.

A law must be clear enough for citizens to know in advance whether a particular action is a crime. This bill doesn’t meet that standard, which should be reason enough for a court to strike it down if it becomes law.

But lack of clarity isn’t the only problem with this bill.

Although it appears to be designed to accommodate the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling striking down the old law, the bill actually is designed to continue to prevent people from recording interactions with police.

The bill says it would only be a crime to record someone where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, which should mean that recording public encounters with police would not be a crime, and the old law’s fatal constitutional flaw would no longer exist.

But the bill doesn’t really fix the problem. Again, citizens can’t be expected to know for sure precisely which situations give rise to an “expectation of privacy” and which don’t. The Illinois Supreme Court said that police don’t have an expectation of privacy in “public” encounters with citizens, but it did not explain what counts as a “public” encounter. So if this bill becomes law, people who want to be sure to avoid jail time will refrain from recording police at all, and the law will therefore still effectively prevent people from recording police.

The bill would also discourage people from recording conversations with police by making unlawfully recording a conversation with police – or an attorney general, assistant attorney general, state’s attorney, assistant state’s attorney or judge – a class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to four years in prison. Meanwhile, the bill makes illegal recording of a private citizen a class 4 felony, which carries a lower sentencing range of one to three years in prison.

There’s only one apparent reason for imposing a higher penalty on people who record police in particular: to make people especially afraid to record police. That is not a legitimate purpose. And recent history suggests it’s important that people not be afraid to record police wherever they perform their duties so that officers will be more likely to respect citizens’ rights, and officers who do respect citizens’ rights will be able to prove it.

The bill might also provide an excuse to scuttle body cameras for police. Police may argue that using body cameras to record encounters with citizens outside of “public” places would violate the law, as citizens have not consented to being recorded.

We should mention one more thing about this bill. It was introduced on Tuesday, Dec. 2, as an amendment to an existing bill on a completely different subject. The amendment removed all of the bill’s previous content and replaced it with the new ban on recording. The House passed it the following day, and the Senate passed it the day after that. So the people who would have cared most about this bill probably didn’t notice it in time to object. They might have had their attention focused on other issues that were in the news, such as the recorded police killing of Eric Garner.

Even if this bill were constitutional, it would still be unnecessary and a terrible idea. Most other states allow a person to record a conversation with only one party’s consent and don’t try to scare people out of recording police by threatening them with felony charges.

Despite its bipartisan support, Gov. Pat Quinn should do one more thing to bolster his legacy before he leaves office and veto this bill.

Jacob Huebert
Senior Attorney, Liberty Justice Center

Friday, January 3, 2014

Logan Bathurst breaks the most overlooked of the ten commandments.

Logan Bathurst.

I was invited to attend the meeting of the Board of Trustees of the South End school in Carterton on 17 December 2013 by a member of the Board, to discuss the outstanding matters regarding the letter I received from the Board and other slanderous and defamatory allegations made against me, and a general campaign of bullying against me by the Board and certain members of staff, this was also in accordance with the directions of the Minister and the Ministry of Education, as well as the school's advertised "open door policy", and in accordance with the school's Personnel and Employment Policy, which which is displayed on their website, although it is totally disregarded it seems.  The meetings are advertised as being open to everyone "All welcome", and I had received an invitation from a member of the Board.

The letter I received from the Board stated that the Board had "received information that [I had] 'recently been charged by Police with an offence involving a child", and the repeated corrupt refusal of the Board to acknowledge that the NZ Police provided that information to the Board of Trustees, not me, and the continued refusal of the Board to communicate with me in any way whatsoever in fact regarding the matter, and the ongoing refusal of the Board to discuss the fact that instead of reinstating me as promised in the letter, recently ordained Salvation Army 'Officer' Logan Bathurst - who seems to have some rather rigid ideas that are worth a read because they are very revealing indeed about his personality and his views - Bathurst alleges that he 'authorised' Constable Dean Adams of the NZ Police to issue me with a Trespass Notice relating to the South End School, and other trespass notices, some of which refer to property which is nothing to do with Bathurst and over which he has no authority WHATSOEVER.

Self appointed church 'leaders' like Logan Bathurst have been involved in the dodgy dealings, fraud, bullying, not to mention the politics, in Carterton for a long time.  Another such local minister organised the meet the candidates night when I stood for Council, and attempted to influence the voters inappropriately - he didn't last long in Carterton before the community saw through him.

Logan Bathurst and his wife were apparently "commissioned" in December 2013, and he seems to view himself as a 'community leader', on the basis of this.  He seems to have written a blog, in which he reveals his views and beliefs as being rather concerning for anyone interested in ensuring their children receive a good education.

The blog clearly expresses a strong intolerance for anyone who doesn't share Bathurst's rigid beliefs.  Readers will see that as soon as I drew attention to the disturbing and extremist material on Bathurst's arrogant blog, he swiftly shut down access to the said blog.

Concerns have been raised by an increasing number of people in the community concerned about Bathurst's inappropriate interaction with children as well as his bullying and the bullying and assaults committed by his son, which follows the pattern established by the original chair of the BoT when this matter first reared its ugly head.

The Board has failed to respond to over thirty emails regarding this matter, and failed to respond to these matters at all in fact, apart from Logan Bathurst's bullying and dishonesty (and that of his predecessors). I have repeatedly requested all information regarding myself held by the school, including all information regarding the source of the false allegations made against myself and the steps taken to verify the allegations and the decisions made by the Board - none of this information has ever been provided by the school - they are required to provide it by law.

On my arrival at the meeting 1 was invited to on 17 December 2013 (I was invited by a member of the Board who then did not attend the meeting) I was treated with hostility and aggression by Elaine Scully the school secretary, the Principal, Alister Kay, and Logan Bathurst, Chairman of the Board of Trustees.  There was absolutely no reason or provocation whatsoever for this hostility and aggression.  Both men refused to listen to what I had to say and left the room, ushering out some other people who were in attendance also.  At about seven o'clock three other men arrived, who said that they were members of the Board of Trustees when I asked, about five minutes after they arrived.

I briefly explained the situation and asked if I could speak to them about it for five or ten minutes.  They agreed, so I did.  It's well documented, the allegation in the letter to me from the Board is untrue, it is slanderous and defamatory, the further allegations are also untrue, including the allegation that the Board received the information from me - they received it from the Police as the evidence shows perfectly clearly.  The allegation that I stole the correspondence regarding the previous groundsman and the manner of his dismissal is also untrue - I received it from a woman who I will name in Court if required who was given it by her son, who was given it in error by Elaine Scully.  In short the Board and certain members of the Board and staff in particular have made a number of false allegations which can be proven to be false and I am entitled to apologies for these untrue and defamatory allegations, and reinstatement at least, not to mention compensation for hurt, humiliation, damage to reputation, etc.  This is what I have been telling the Board ever since  received the letter, and instead of admitting their mistake and putting things right, they've piled  insult upon injury, and made matters very much worse, exposing the ugly underbelly of who's really running our schools and how - and how our taxes are spent supporting a corrupt, dysfunctional, destructive, bullying regime..
Logan and "Suze" Bathurst, left

Logan Bathurst was recently given a certain amount of power by "The Salvation Army" and it's gone to his head.  I believe he has delusions of grandeur, fixed opinions and an inability to consider things reasonably, logically or fairly, and a bullying, controlling and inflexible nature.  Previous Board members and staff have also been afflicted with some of these qualities and that is one of the main reasons that there has been a failure to resolve this matter.

Logan Bathurst's only response to my reasonable request that the Board engage with me as directed by the Minister of Education was to send the Police to my home repeatedly to serve me with trespass notices for places where he has no authority whatsoever.  This bullying and harassment caused my flatmate to move out after his mother was rushed to hospital with a stress related condition caused by the stress of the Police coming round all the time and the fact that the Board member who invited me to the meeting is apparently closely related to my landlord.  We are all distressed by this ongoing corruption and bullying - in the email to Constable Adams which is copied below is a link to the Police official policies and procedures regarding Police involvement in trespass matters, and it can be seen that it clearly states that Police should NOT get involved in serving trespass notices for people unless there's a very good reason and in this case there most certainly is NOT.

Then there's the fact that Constable Hamish Robinson and his mates couldn't even be bothered checking the address was correct on the notice that THEY served me with!  The notice is outrageous!

The Personnel and Employment Policy of the School says this - although it is not being practised:
  1. The Appointments procedure will be just and fair and ensure all the requirements of legislation under The State Sector Amendments Act and the Employment Relations Act 2000 are met along with the principles and guidelines for being a good employer.
  2. Responsibility for appointments rests with the Board of Trustees, however
  3. In the following instances with the appointment of Scale A teachers, including part-time and relieving teachers, support staff and cleaners and caretakers, the principal or personnel sub committee, will be delegated the responsibility of making appointments. Ultimately however the Principal’s actions must be ratified by the Board of Trustees.
  4. The appointment of the Principal will be made by a personnel sub committee formed by members of the Board of Trustees with the inclusion of an outside person who can supply the Board with the appropriate professional expertise that may be required.
  5. The appointment of the Deputy Principal, Assistant Principal or Senior Teacher will be made by a personnel committee that includes the Principal and members of the Board of Trustees.
  6. The South End School Board of Trustees will ensure that procedures are developed and documented that meet the requirements of the Privacy Act 1993. A board member will be given the position of Privacy Officer and will be responsible for overseeing and monitoring these procedures.
  7. The South End School Board of Trustees will ensure they have documented operation procedures for receiving and dealing with information about serious wrongdoing in or by their school. Information about the internal procedures and how to use the internal procedures will be published widely and at regular intervals within South End School and the Board will ensure employees are educated and trained on the internal disclosure system. The statement of protected disclosures will ensure all requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act 2001 are met.
  8. The South End School Board of Trustees will ensure procedures for dealing with employment relationship problems, in particular personal grievances, are documented and meet the requirements of Employment Contracts and the Employment Relations Act 2000.
Regarding paragraph 6 - a cursory glance at the school's website shows that there is no member of the Board given the position of Privacy Officer and certainly nobody at the Board meeting in December could tell me who holds or ever held the position.  It also shows a very badly designed and maintained website but that's another matter.

The school lied, and slandered and defamed me, etc, but the claims that no information exists about any decision of the Board to write the letter defies belief - the response to my complaints is clearly an orchestrated litany of lies which has cost the taxpayer more than enough already, and that's not counting the social cost!

This is the email I sent to Police and the IPCA regarding this latest harassment by the Police.

from:     Katherine Raue kateraue@gmail.com
to:         Dean.Adams@police.govt.nz,
and:       Independent Police Conduct Authority
date:      24 January 2014 11:21
subject:  URGENT - FORMAL COMPLAINT - South End school
Constable Adams,
Please provide me with a copy of the Police policy and procedures regarding Trespass Notices - the one I have says clearly "Police should not become involved in issuing trespass notices."
Please confirm that you are a regular attendee at Logan Bathurst's Salvation Army Church in Carterton - your presence has been witnessed there regularly I might add.
As you know, Logan Bathurst "authorised" the trespass notice.  What other conflicts of interest do you have regarding these matters?
This is a formal complaint regarding your involvement in the issuing of an invalid trespass notice regarding the South End school - see to it that it is forwarded to the Area Manager as well as the IPCA - the notice is evidence of a lawful power being used for an unlawful purpose, deliberately, in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.  It stems from the fact that Police lied to the Board of the South End School, telling them that they'd charged me with "an offence involving a child", and that allegation was linked to the corruption regarding the attack on me by Michael Francis Murphy - partner of fraudster Michelle McGreal, and the cover up of that attack after it was proven that no offence involving a child ever took place!.
As Police have been advised previously, the Minister has advised me to communicate with the Board regarding these matters and my attendance at the Board meeting was invited by a member of the Board - your attempt to trespass me is in direct contradiction to the Minister's directives, and a direct attempt to corruptly pervert the course of justice and conceal Police corruption.

Katherine Raue

Constable Adams is not only a regular attendee at Logan Bathursts 'services' of worship, but he's up the front speaking to the congregation on a regular basis too, preaching, according to several witnesses.

This ongoing corrupt bullying against me has been described in letters from several lawyers and other professionals involved as politicially motivated corruption, and that's exactly what it is.

Another member of the Board is Jenny Chalmers, who is a journalist, and vicar of another dodgy church in Carterton, St Marks.  Long famous for facilitating the careers of certain local politicians such as Jill Greathead - who used to boast about how she only went to church to get votes and grandstand, Elaine Brazendale, Ruth Carter, etc.  There have been some very devious, manipulative and dishonest local church leaders in the Wairarapa, and elsewhere.

Jenny Chalmers - ex journalist and wannabe politician
Disgraced ex MP Georgina Beyer borrows Jenny's clothes
Jenny Chalmers also has her writings published in a regular basis in the local propaganda called "news" papers, she is an outspoken supporter of ex-Mayors Gary McPhee (who advocates killing people (a very Christian philosophy), and disgraced transvestite prostitute Georgina Beyer, and very involved in their political campaigns as well as her own political campaign.  Incidentally, Jenny Chalmers managed to get less votes than Rob Harris who was reported in the paper as causing "ethics concerns" at a number of New Zealand Universities about his business which involved writing academic assignments for foreign students in exchange for money among other things.  Logan Bathurst and Jenny Chalmers are a couple of lying con artists with political aspirations masquerading as 'church leaders' - they support bullies, thieves and paedophiles!

It's a shame in every sense of the word that these so called church leaders set such an utterly disgraceful example in the community and it's a good reason to start looking at who is running churches and how they're running them, and scrutinising the role of these people in the community, because the damage being done by them is immense and they are conning vulnerable people and gullible people.

Friends of the Carterton Community Gardens was running an extremely effective suicide prevention service through the Let's Get Growing NZ program, and a huge contribution to the community through the Community Gardens, and this corrupt and deceitful bullying, corruption and persecution must cease.

The Bible says you shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.  In other words, don't lie, don't slander and defame people, be honest.  There's nothing honest about sacking someone for allegedly being charged recently with an offence involving a child and then refusing to reveal any basis for the allegation!