Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre - Lunatics running the asylum:

If the regional mental health facility, the Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre, wasn’t already a circus, it soon will be when ringmaster and Director of Mental Health, John Crawshaw send’s in the clowns for another token inspection to ascertain why this service is failing so miserably.

And what a dismal track record this outfit has.

In 2010 Christine Morris scaled the security fence and bludgeoned her neighbour, Diane White, to death. Coroner Peter Ryan recommended that the DHB erect a higher fence, Clinical Director of the Henry Bennett Centre, Rees Tapsell refused.

In 2013, it was reported that psychiatrist Paul Fox, who had been de-registered in the USA for sexual misconduct, and was the former clinician for the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass murderer Adam Lanza was employed by the DHB. Fox was de-registered in NZ by the Medical Council in February 2014.

In March 2015 Nicky Stevens, known to be suicidal, was allowed to leave the wards for an unsupervised cigarette break, despite the families’ pleas to keep him safe. Nicky’s body was recovered from the Waikato River three days later.

The following month two patients with a history of violence scaled the security fence and fled the city.

More recently it was discovered that a man gained employment with Waikato Mental Health Services posing as a psychiatrist. Mohamed Shakeel Siddiqui has been arrested and charged with obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.

It certainly is quite a pitiful rap sheet for a service designed to care for and protect a very vulnerable group within the community.

Should we really be surprised though? Are the lunatics in fact running the asylum? It seems so;
In addition to the dubious hiring practices highlighted by the examples above, one member of staff who understands forensic Mental Health treatment first hand is Peer Support Worker Trudi Tapsell, yes sister of Clinical Director Rees Tapsell.

She was once a special patient herself, detained under the Mental Health Act. Ms Tapsell, as a 26 year old, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the brutal murder of her grandmother, whose decapitated body was found wrapped in plastic bags in a freezer, her head was found in a rubbish bag nearby. Ms Tapsell, with the help of her brother, has now moved on from being the patient to being the clinician, working with a very vulnerable group of people.

Clearly her current employers know her background (given it is a family affair), but considering she carries no conviction for the murder of her grandmother, because Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity is an acquittal of sorts, is it not appropriate that in the interests of transparency and trust, the patients she works with, and their families, know her background?

One would think so, although unfortunately this is not the case.

More on violent fraudster Michael Francis Murphy and taxpayer funded litigation:

More on the secret life of information, and how the media mediate between us and reality:

The local 'news media' recently 'reported' the fact that local woman Michelle McGreal, and her partner Michael Francis Murphy (who committed a violent home invasion and physical attack on me in my home in 2009, for which corrupt local police officers refused to charge him) stole at least $77,800 of taxpayers money by defrauding the Ministry of Social Welfare.  The report states:

"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."

Conspicuously absent from this 'news report' is any mention whatsoever of whether or not Murphy and McGreal were required to repay any of this money.

Murphy has been boasting loudly that not only have he and his partner not been required to repay ANY of the money they stole, but that he has ALSO recently received a sum of money believed to be well over $50,000 as a result of a claim he made about being abused in foster care when he was younger, on top of the nearly $80,000 he and McGreal stole.

After a number of local people contacted me enquiring how they could find out whether any of the money had been repaid, I made an Official Information Act request to the Ministry of Social Development, which was refused.

The Ministry of Social Development advised me to write to the Ministry of Justice, which I did - the Ministry of Justice refused the request and told me to write to the Ministry of Social Development.

The responses are published below to show you how your taxes are being spent - covering up blatant corruption - the taxpayers have a right to know whether or not any of this money was repaid, and whether or not any attempt whatsoever was made to seek repayment of ANY of the money - particularly as Murphy is boasting of receiving a very large payout from the Ministry of Social Development as a result of his unproven allegations of mistreatment - it is outrageous that the amount of the money he and McGreal stole was not deducted from this payout, which indicates that Murphy has received over a million dollars by fraud, he seems to be immune from prosecution for the violent attack on me and other crimes he regularly commits, and even when he is prosecuted, it seems that the prosecution, as well as the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Social Development and other parties involved will go to any lengths to cover up the fact that Murphy and his partner were virtually let off without penalty for this deliberate fraud.

It seems that the same lawyers who are telling me that they can't do anything about the gross injustices documented on this website unless I pay them exhorbitant sums of money, have no such qualms about assisting Michael Francis Murphy steal even MORE money from the tax payers of New Zealand, while the same public servants whose incompetence allowed Murphy and his partner to steal our money, refuse to tell us whether or not they even sought reparation and if not why not - read it for yourself:

 

The responses from these government departments are shameful!  It is obviously in the public interest to know this particular information and clearly ridiculous time wasting procrastination to refuse or delay the provision of it - particularly as the media have released all the other information but not the vital bit about whether McGreal and Murphy were even asked to pay any of this money back!.

We have today sent the following email to the Court:

To the Registrar,

Masterton District Court:   masterton.dc@justice.govt.nz

I request a copy of the judicial decision and any other information regarding whether Michelle McGreal was required to repay any of the reported $77,800 she was found guilty of defrauding the Ministry of Social Development of, according to this newspaper article.  It is in the public interest to know whether McGreal was required to repay the money or whether any attempt to have any of it repaid was even made by MSD and if not why not.  The article refered to is at this link:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapa-times-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503414&objectid=11065521

Section 26 of the Official Information Act - the secret life of information:

"Official Information Act 1982
Section 26 - Correction of information

(1) Every person who is given access under section 24(1) to personal information may, by letter addressed to the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation,— 

    (a) request correction of the personal information where the person believes that the information— 

        (i) is inaccurate; or 

        (ii) is incomplete and gives a misleading impression; and 

   (b) require that a notation be attached to the information indicating the nature of any correction requested but not made.

(2) Where a department or Minister of the Crown or organisation receives a letter pursuant to subsection (1), it or he shall inform the person by whom or by which the letter was sent of the action taken by the department or Minister of the Crown or organisation as a result of the letter."

Dear Minister of Education,

I hereby request under section 26 of the Official Information Act 1982 that the following information be corrected:

The delusional allegation of the Board of Trustees of the South End school that I had (a) been recently charged by the Police with an offence involving a child, and (b) that I told anyone associated with the school that I had been recently charged by the Police with an offence involving a child, or anything remotely like that.

It has been clearly and indisputably established that I did no such thing!  The Board has repeatedly been caught out lying regarding this matter, denying there were any written complaints from parents until confronted with the evidence, saying they hadn't received any information from Police when the Police files show indisputably that that is NOT the case, and that the Police DID provide information regarding me - specifically regarding Police employment vetting - to the school at precisely the same time as this letter was written according to the information provided by Police and the evidence of that will be uploaded shortly!  Likewise the evidence will be uploaded shortly of the communications between Gavin Kennedy of the South End school Board of Trustees and the local Police on 30 April 2009, recorded by police as such:

090430/1499

ASAU41
WA 21 INFORMATION
RAUE WROTE A LETTER OF REPLY TO GAVIN KENNEDY BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR SOUTH END SCHOOL AND A PRINTED BLOG THAT RAUE WROTE ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE
BLOG RECEIVED BY CARTERTON POLICE IN MAILBOX AT STATION ON 30.04.2009.

I didn't know it was a criminal offence to write a letter in defence of one's good character in response to slanderous and libelous allegations made by the complainant . . .

There was no meeting between the Principal and I until AFTER I received the letter from the Board, and it has been confirmed that local police officers told the Principal and Board of Trustees the allegation referred to in the letter below and it is not logical or rational to suggest otherwise because no right thinking person would believe the claims being made by the Board - and others involved - in the face of the indisputable evidence of the ongoing dysfunction, bullying, etc.
:

Michael Francis Murphy guilty of $77,800 fraud from MSD:

Interesting.  It was recently brought to my attention that Michael Murphy and his partner were guilty of benefit fraud, and that Michelle McGreal had been convicted of defrauding the Department of Social Welfare or whatever name they've morphed into lately, of $77,800 as a result of not declaring her relationship with Michael Francis Murphy , the cunning, violent lunatic who made up a pitiful excuse to commit a violent home invasion on me in my home, while claiming a benefit as a single person.

What's even more interesting is the response of the Ministry of Social Development to my request to a few simple questions regarding whether Ms McGreal repaid any of that money, and whether the Ministry even asked the Court to order her to, and whether they even sought repayment at all, etc.

After stating the following details about Ms McGreal:

"As you will be aware Ms McGreal was prosecuted for benefit fraud of $77,800 as a result of not declaring her relationship while claiming a benefit as a single person. She was sentenced to 26 weeks home detention and 200 hours community work. Information about the proceedings may be available from the Ministry of Justice."

The Ministry then comes out with this absurd and totally contradictory statement:

Regarding your request, I am unable to provide you with further specific information about Ms Michelle McGreal as the Ministry does not release information about individual clients.  As such I am refusing this part of your request under section 9(2)(a) of theOfficial Information Act.

Taxpayers have a right to know information regarding the repayment of McGreal's debt, it is a debt to the taxpayers resulting from fraud committed by McGreal and Murphy over several years, they knowingly and willfully defrauded the taxpayers of New Zealand by regularly and repeatedly lying in official statements to Work and Income, CYF and other government agencies.

This is the request I sent to the Ministry:

"To whom it may concern:
News articles such as the one at this link http://www.nzherald.co.nz/wairarapa-times-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503414&objectid=11065521 report that Michelle McGreal was convicted of benefit fraud.  None of the articles report whether or not Ms McGreal paid any of the money back, which is certainly a matter of public interest.

I request all information regarding the fraud committed by Michelle McGreal, in particular, did MSD seek any reparation whatsoever through the Court or any other means, was Ms McGreal requires to repay any of the $77,800, has any of the $77,800 been repaid, if so how much and if not why not.  Also, is it true that Ms McGreal's partner, Michael Francis Murphy received a large payout of several thousand dollars from the Ministry for alleged abuse while he was in foster care?

If MSD decides to withhold any information relevant to this request, please provide a summary of what that information is, and why it is being withheld.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Katherine Raue"

And here's the interesting response - it's fine for them to tell us all these other details -  

"Ms McGreal was prosecuted for benefit fraud of $77,800 as a result of not declaring her relationship while claiming a benefit as a single person. She was sentenced to 26 weeks home detention and 200 hours community work" 

- just not whether any of the money was required to be repaid, and whether or not it has been, and if so, how much has been repaid and on what dates?:


Corrupt local Police refuse to charge Michael Francis Murphy for his violent offences involving local children - they're busy lying to my employers instead.  And perverting the course of justice in a manner that should be ringing real alarm bells with anyone concerned about civil rights in New Zealand and international civil rights.

The Secret Life of Information - Raue, Siemer and Misiuk:

After all the charges against me were thrown out last year when it became obvious that the Crown prosecutors and NZ police were LYING, I requested copies of the Court files.  A simple request you would think - well think again - this is the response - more on the recent trend for NZ Judges to issue "Minutes" instead of proper legal decisions at this link:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT MASTERTON CRI-2009-035-000805

NZ POLICE - Informant

v

KATHERINE RAUE - Defendant

Date: 1 February 2012

________________________________________

MINUTE OF JUDGE D R W BARRY

[Application by Mrs Raue for Information held by the District Court at Masterton and at Wellington]

_________________________________________

Application:

[1] By handwritten memorandum dated 21 September 2011 Katherine Raue wrote to the Wellington District Court Registry making the following request:

"I, Katherine Raue, DOB 28.7.1958 hereby request all information (or copies thereof) of all information held by the District Court at Masterton and at Wellington about me.
In particular I request all information regarding charges of perverting the course of jsutce and escaping lawful custody, and the six charges recently withdrawn in Masterton Court.  I require this information urgently in order to consult a lawyer regarding breaches of my rights etc, and take legal action against the police."

[2] Accompanying the letter is the first page of a standard form for requesting a copy of a criminal record under the Privacy Act 1993.  Below the words "I hereby request the Criminal Records Unit, Ministry of Justice, to provide me with the details of any criminal convictions I may have which are held on the computer systems administered by the Ministry of Justice" she has endorsed the following words in hand "All information about me held by Dept of Courts".

Discussion of legal position:

[3] Mrs Raue's letter does not specify the legal basis upon which she makes her request for information.  The most appropriate proceedure for obtaining information held by Courts is through the Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009.

[4] Mrs Raue has the right to access the formal Court record kept in the Registry of a Court pursuant to Rule 6(1).  The formal Court record relevantly includes the Register of persons committed for trial or sentence, the return of prisoners tried and sentenced, the charges set out in any information or indictment, and judgements, orders and  minutes of the Court (Rule 3).

[5] As a defendant Mrs Raue would also be entitled, under the supervision of an Officer of the Court, to search and inspect the Court files or any documents relating to those proeedings, and to copy any part or parts of them (Rule 7(1).  The definition of "document" includes records made in electronic form (Rule 3), but records of proceedings made in electronic form may only be copied with the Court's permission Rule 7(2)).  Any such permission is to be obtained through a particularised application under Rule 13.

[6] The form of application under the Privacy Act 1993 contains only part of the first page of the Privacy Act request for a copy of Ms Raue's criminal record as noted above.  It is not possible to invoke the Privacy Act as a basis for obtaining the information Ms Raue seeks.  This is because the Court is not an "Agency" for the purposes of the Privacy Act (Section 2(1)).

[7] Any application for information in respect of "the six charges recently withdrawn in Masterton Court" (sic) must be made to that Court (not Wellington District Court).


Direction:

[8] Mrs Raue should be given access to the formal Court record and to Court files for the Wellington District Court cases she refers to in her application of 21 September 2011 in which she was the defendant in accordance with Rule 6 and 7.  If Mrs Raue wishes to make copies of electronic recordings of any proceedings she will need to make a particularised application under Rule 132.  If Mrs Raue does so the concerns expressed by the Court in Misiuk v Superintendant of a Penal Institution HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-6625 8 October 2010 Dobson J, and the Supreme Court & Siemer v Heron [2011] NZSC 116 will naturally be taken into account in considering the applications.  In particular I note the views of the Supreme Court in the latter case at paragraph [9]:

"There are obvious resource implications if Judges direct Court Registry's to provide parties with transcripts of hearings, of appeals and interlocutory matters generally on demand by litigants.  For that reason, Judges should always satisfy themselves that there is good reason in the interests of justice for giving such directions."

History of these matters to date:

[9]   I summarise, for the assistance of any other Judicial Officer later involved in this request, my understanding of the background to the matters Ms Raue seems to be requesting information about:
`
The Alleged Offending and Court Proceedings
1 On 8 April 2009 Katherine Raue made a complaint to Carterton Police alleging that she had been burgled by Michael Murphy, a former friend.  She claimed that Mr Murphy had stolen a computer disk containing evidence relating to another claim she had made in respect of him in relation to an incident on 2 February 2009 (sic).  Constable Rhymer took a written statement from Ms Raue, which was signed by Ms Raue as being true and correct.
        2      Later that day Constable Rhymer took a statement from Aaron Brook, who said that he had seen Mr Murphy leaving Ms Raue's property,  A short time later Mr Brook retracted that statement and claimed that Ms Raue had put him up to making the false statement.

- Let's just stop right there.  There are a number of factual errors contained in this "minute" - for one thing, the 'incident' relating to the disk - the violent home invasion - occurred NOT on 2 February 2009 - it occurred on 11 February 2009.  Evidence shows that police have a habit of covering up violent crime in the Wairarapa and are protection recidivist violent offenders, and that this pattern of behaviour is politically motivated corruption, according to several top NZ lawyers.

For another thing, the charges were thrown out because it was proven that Constable Rhymer was LYING about having taken these statements from Aaron Brook - who has NEVER retracted his evidence that he and his cousin saw Michael Murphy very near to my home at the time of the burglary.  Constable Rhymer was unable to explain to the Court why she took my statement in her notebook - but the statement she ALLEGES that she took from Aaron Brooks isn't in her notebook - and wasn't produced at all until very recently - it's conspicuous by it's absence in the Disclosure, and in the Depositions evidence, etc, she recently alleges that she took this statement from Brook on some pieces of A4 paper she just happened to have on her - YEAH, RIGHT!!!

The article at this link by Judge David Harvey discusses this matter of access to Court records.

This post will be updated shortly.

Better Work Stories - Glen Taplin explains everything

The latest installment of the indisputable documented evidence of the large scale tax payer funded corruption evidence in Carterton and the wider Wairarapa.  It is in the public interest to publish this evidence and in the interests of justice:

Lo and behold - the latest orchestrated litany of lies from the corrupt Wairarapa Police!

- Sgt Taplin refers to letters from well respected lawyer Ken Daniels which are at this link,  which include the following:

From: Ken Daniels, Lawyer, Chapel St, Masterton

To: The Area Commander, New Zealand Police, P O Box 443, Masterton

26 August 2004     

Dear Sir
    Re: Katherine Raue 

    There have been numerous items of correspondence written between Kate Raue and yourself and correspondence with the Police Complaints Authority over a number of issues that she has raised in recent times.

    I must confess that I have not given what I believe was sufficient attention to some of the matters that Kate Raue had raised with me in the past mainly I suspect because the matters appeared to be far too complex and involved and I tended not to see any relevance in some of the complaints that she was making.

    On a recent visit to me however and after spending some time looking at documentary evidence that she showed me, I largely changed my view and believe that there genuinely are matters of concern that do need to be investigated.

    I have not got to the bottom of all the matters Kate Raue complains about but there is one instance that does seem to suggest that there has been fraud at the Carterton Community Centre which has diverted funds designed for one purpose deliberately to another.

    I enclose with this letter a copy of the accounts which appear to represent income and expenditure from the Carterton Community Centre for the financial year 01 April 2000 to 31 March 2001 as they related to the Community Gardens. You will notice how in the income received, there was a sum of $9,000 received from the Tindall Foundation. It is assumed that this money was received following an application for a grant from that Charitable Foundation. The monies would have been requested and received for purposes relating to the Community Gardens in Carterton. The sum of $9,000 was received in April of 2000.

    The following month in May there was a payment of $6,000.00 paid from the Community Gardens account for a personal grievance payment. The information that apparently exists although I have not personally seen it is that there were insufficient funds to pay a personal grievance from the Community Gardens and the funding that was obtained from the Tindall Foundation was immediately paid out as at least part payment on that personal grievance. The payment apparently could not be made at an earlier stage and the fundng received from Tindall Foundation was a necessary receipt to enable the payment to be made to settle the personal grievance.

    If the above set of circumstances is accurate then there is no doubt whatsoever that there was a fraudulent use of the monies received from the Tindall Foundation. There had been no budgeted allowance made for personal grievances. This can be seen from the budget column in the expenditure part of the accounts where an amount of only $220 was allowed for the twelve months involved. A payment of $6000 was needed and this was paid directly from the charitable donation.

    I believe that the affairs of the Carterton Community Centre are in disarray. There is currently an application before the High Court to have them wound up because of insufficient numbers. There are numerous other complaints as well about the way in which members of the public including members were excluded from meetings etc. This letter does not purport to address all those issues but I am deeply concerned after having seen the information supplied to me by Kate Raue that monies received for one purpose be used for an incorrect purpose.

    I have been advised that a similar improper payment may have been made in respect of the account that was run for the disadvantaged members of the community. This apparently exists under the copy of the account also enclosed which is headed up VOSP 2000 – 2001. You will see also that there is a “miscellaneous” payment of $1,000.00 made in September of 2000 following receipt of a substantial amount fromWINZ funding. It is understood that this also was a payment to an individual who claimed to have a personal grievance.

    I am not an accountant (as will be obvious) but I believe there are sufficient genuine concerns raised here to warrant some investigation. These are community funds which were largely received from charitable donations which appear to have been siphoned off improperly.
    I should add that according to Kate Raue there was possibly legal advice given to the people running the Carterton Community Centre that they should not make personal greivance payments in the way that they did. This is another matter that may need to be looked into because it would make the payments even less appropriate if they were done contrary to legal advice.

    I appreciate the fact that earlier complaints may have been thought to be ill-founded or frivolous or for whatever reason were not properly investigated but I believe that there actually does exist hard evidence to suggest that a reopening of the investigation should be made with urgency. As I have said the Community Centre and its funds are currently subject to a High Court Application.

    If it is more convenient for you to do so I would be happy to act as a go-between between yourselves and Kate Raue so that I can request further details from her.
    Are you able to assist with what I believe is now a genuine complaint?
    Yours faithfully
    Ken Daniels

And:

There are also a number of other formal complaints regarding these matters, such as the letters to the Police and IPCA from Michael Appleby.

The only response from the Police has been a contemptuous insult to the intelligence!